Another Macro Lens from Laowa, 100mm f/2.8 2:1 "CA Dreamer" (And 3 more...)

[Macro_Cosmos]

  Finally this is unveiled, had my mouth shut for a while.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/19/venus-otics-is-rumored-to-announce-a-new-laowa-100mm-f-2-8-21-macro-lens-for-nikon-f-mount.aspx/

"CA Dreamer" as funky the name sounds, refers to "absolute control of chromatic aberration", and since we're not __review, I don't need to go further on the different aspects of CA. The name itself actually sounds like the lens would have dreamy levels of CA... but then there's the G-master (gangsta master, basically head of thugs) and Rebel designations... so yeah. Doesn't make it on the list of "lol-inducing names".

Having used the 105mm B-Dreamer (formally STF), which I could not get it to produce CA in the real world, I'm very optimistic about this new lens as well.

However, I'm not your typical easily satisfied gen-z dumb kid, I will have to mention some of my issues with the 105 STF.
1. Dull colours. This is more of a tradeoff. CA controlling would refer to stomping out typical CA wavelengths. The end result is a fairly desaturated exposure. Sure, processing does wonders, but I cannot replicate the looks I like of certain lenses.
2. Hazey. There's lots of internal reflection issues, which causes the exposure to become hazy when shooting against light. Happened in some of my floral shots.

The upside is absolute razor sharpness and its massive focus throw. Light transmission is low, but that's the nature of "STF" lenses. This 100mm would have a massive focus throw I assume. I hope it's not as washed as the 105 STF and doesn't have the internal reflecting issues.

I'm going to ask Laowa for more specifications and update the thread.

Edit: Yeah, there's 3 more. I personally only care about Nikon gear... pun not intended.
Here we go:
10-18mm f4.5-5.6? (It could be 3.5?) Full frame sony E lens. Takes 37mm back filters, a 100mm filter system can be used. This lens is tiny. The advantage of a shallow mount like the Sony EF is the ease in designing fast/small wide angle lenses.
4mm lens, 210 degree fisheye, for MFT format.
DX Cine 25-100mm lens, with absolute control of focus breathing. Basically when focused, zooming in and out won't shift the focus. There's 2 types of breathing.

[Macro_Cosmos]

This is the looks of the 10-18mm and 100mm f/2.8 >>>APO<<< 

Could this be the ultimate Voigtlander 125mm replacement? The CV 125mm is f/2.5 which is a bit faster, but it only goes to 1:1, and at 1:1, it's effectively f/5. The 100mm would be f/5.6 at 1:1 and f/8 at 2:1.

Laowa quoted a focus throw of 120 degrees. That's way too short in my opinion, at least it's not the 60mm which is like 90 degrees, kind of abysmal.

But then this kind of begs the question. A lens at 1:1 already has an ultra thin DOF, at 2:1 it could only be thinner, so perhaps this lens would have to be stuck to a tripod. I'm also a tabletop tripod fanatic, the RRS MT-01 and Hi-hats are great tools.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Here are the specifications.

[JKoerner007]

Could this be the ultimate Voigtlander 125mm replacement? The CV 125mm is f/2.5 which is a bit faster, but it only goes to 1:1, and at 1:1, it's effectively f/5. The 100mm would be f/5.6 at 1:1 and f/8 at 2:1.

I highly doubt it.

Not only is the CV 125mm faster, but the way it renders is sublime.

Laowa quoted a focus throw of 120 degrees. That's way too short in my opinion, at least it's not the 60mm which is like 90 degrees, kind of abysmal.

You just answered your own question, again

120° of focus throw is a joke compared to the degree of precision the Voigtländer offers with 630°, which is 5.25x more precise.

It's probable the new lens will be sharp, and may have good CA control, but I highly doubt it will have the subtle rendering excellence found in "the benchmark" for field macros, but we'll have to wait with an open mind on that.

Right off the bat, we already know it's not as fast, not as precise, nor does it have the reach. It is also highly doubtful it will have the same refined feel and craftsmanship.

The 2x magnification, however, makes it more useful in contexts passed 1:1 ... as well as a good field companion for the 2.5-5x Ultra Macro zoom.

[Macro_Cosmos]

I highly doubt it.

Not only is the CV 125mm faster, but the way it renders is sublime.


You just answered your own question, again

120° of focus throw is a joke compared to the degree of precision the Voigtländer offers with 630°, which is 5.25x more precise.

It's probable the new lens will be sharp, and may have good CA control, but I highly doubt it will have the subtle rendering excellence found in "the benchmark" for field macros, but we'll have to wait with an open mind on that.

Right off the bat, we already know it's not as fast, not as precise, nor does it have the reach. It is also highly doubtful it will have the same refined feel and craftsmanship.

The 2x magnification, however, makes it more useful in contexts passed 1:1 ... as well as a good field companion for the 2.5-5x Ultra Macro zoom.

Yeah, it would be a great supplement to the 2.5-5x. Laowa said he's not sure about the focus throw, but 120 is just going to be a pain in the crotch, I hope it's at least 480. For field use, I have a nice DIY newport stage that goes onto my bh-55. If it beats the Canon mp-e at 1:1 and 2:1, there is no reason to get it anymore... unless one must have 1x to 5x in a package. The 2.5-5x is tiny, and delivers better IQ than the MP-E all the way to 5x.

Macro Cosmos (DH), on Flickr

[Akira]

Could this be the ultimate Voigtlander 125mm replacement? The CV 125mm is f/2.5 which is a bit faster, but it only goes to 1:1, and at 1:1, it's effectively f/5. The 100mm would be f/5.6 at 1:1 and f/8 at 2:1.

This is only true for the rack focus lenses.  The modern IF lenses are in general faster than the theoretical value when they are set at closer distances.  For example, AF-S Micro 60/2.8 is f4.8 and, if I remember correctly, DX AF-S 85/3.5 is roughly equally fast at 1:1.

[Roland Vink]

If the Laowa 100mm macro focused to 2:1 by extension only, it would require a massive 200mm extension, and the focus distance would be 450mm. The max aperture would be around f/11. (side note: for lenses which focus purely by extension, the minimum focus distance is at 1:1, at higher magnification the distance starts to increase again, the focus distance at 1:2 is identical to 2:1 - they are basically the same configuration with the subject and image plane reversed...)

The Laowa specifications and product picture show the close focus limit is 24.7mm at 2:1, which is roughly half the 450mm stated above, which must mean the focal length is drastically shortened at this range, probably a little over 50mm. This should also suggest the max aperture at 2:1 is much faster than f/11.

The product shot shows the lens near the 2:1 setting but I can't see any part of the barrel which has extended while focusing, it looks like the barrel has constant length at all focus distances. Another product shot shows a gap between the filter ring and retaining ring around the front elements, so the front element may extend on an inner tube while focusing, but most of the focusing would occur by reducing the focal length - a hybrid of IF and extension focusing.

The product shot also the focus throw between 1:2, 1:1 and 2:1 is less than 90°. That is extremely short for such a big focus range, it must be very difficult to focus accurately. I can only imagine the lens was designed to be set to roughly the correct magnification, with fine focusing done by a focus rail.

[JKoerner007]

Yeah, it would be a great supplement to the 2.5-5x. Laowa said he's not sure about the focus throw, but 120 is just going to be a pain in the crotch, I hope it's at least 480.

Agreed.

Trouble is, every Laowa I've heard of is miserable in the focus-throw dept. (i.e., 15mm 1:1, 60mm 1:1-2:1). It's the most major complaint I've seen; their optics are pretty good.

Focus throw is irrelevant on the 2.5-5x super-macro (because you need a rail at that kind of magnification--I know I do), but for standard macro magnifications, most people do NOT want to use a rail, they want precision manual focus.

For field use, I have a nice DIY newport stage that goes onto my bh-55.

Don't see the need for a stage at all for field use, esp. at lower magnifications. Just adjust the tripod.

If it beats the Canon mp-e at 1:1 and 2:1, there is no reason to get it anymore... unless one must have 1x to 5x in a package. The 2.5-5x is tiny, and delivers better IQ than the MP-E all the way to 5x.

Honestly, there is no reason for me to get the Laowa 100mm at all. There is nothing it can do that the CV-125 can't do (better), except go passed 1:1.

Beyond 1:1, I have plenty of super primes (and AI-S zooms) that can be reversed for lower magnifications up to 2.9. Further, I can just crop-in (up to 50%+) with a high-res camera and get great results with the CV-125, equivalent to 2:1.

Beyond 2:1, as you say, the 2.5-5x beats the Canon MPE from 2.5x to 5x ... and my D810 (soon to be D850) beats the Canon DSLR offerings as well ... so I am very excited for the 2.5x-5x Super-Macro