Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens for Nikon F

[Michael Erlewine]

Here are a couple of reviews of this relatively new macro lens that does 2:1 with no attachments.

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/02/review-venus-60mm-f2-8-worlds-first-21-macro-lens-infinity-focus/

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/venus-laowa-60mm-f-2-8-2-1-macro-lens-user-review-27046

B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1128063-REG/venus_optics_ven6028n_60mm_f_2_8_2x_ultra_macro.html

Since I do mostly close-up work, with some macro, I was intrigued by getting to 2:1 without all the bellows, extensions, etc., so I purchased a copy, but soon returned it.

The problem is with the focus throw, which is something like 90-degrees, so the focus barrel goes from closest (2.36”, 6 cm) to infinity in hardly a touch of the hand, way too fast to really focus. Sadly, it is a joke. The lens is sharp-ish, but not that well corrected, of course, for $370 from B&H.

Thought I would post this note so that others could be spared the experience.   

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Thanks for the heads-up, Michael.

Venus and Mars apparently still are separate worlds.

[bobfriedman]

interesting the spider in the image of the first link looks to me to be more around 5x based on my experience... or perhaps a rather large spider

for example, this one looks quite similar taken at 5x, so maybe more than 5x in that ad.



and this one at 10x.. so i would say the one in the ad is around 7.5x for that detail..

[David H. Hartman]

Does a short focus throw matter that much if one is shooting at 1:2 to 2:1 since focus is usually achieved by moving the camera rather than with the focus ring? One would set the image scale with the focus ring and focus using a macro slider or by moving the camera in hand.

Dave

[Akira]

Does a short focus throw matter that much if one is shooting at 1:2 to 2:1 since focus is usually achieved by moving the camera rather than with the focus ring? One would set the image scale with the focus ring and focus using a macro slider or by moving the camera in hand.

You've already answered your own question.

At those magnification factors, the focus ring should mostly be used to set the magnification than to focus.  The short focus throw would be less of a problem.

[richardHaw]

that is a pretty large pidipus

[John Koerner]

Does a short focus throw matter that much if one is shooting at 1:2 to 2:1 since focus is usually achieved by moving the camera rather than with the focus ring? One would set the image scale with the focus ring and focus using a macro slider or by moving the camera in hand.

Dave

You've already answered your own question.

At those magnification factors, the focus ring should mostly be used to set the magnification than to focus.  The short focus throw would be less of a problem.

Agreed, nobody "focuses" anything at 2:1 and beyond.

At that magnification, you're either using a macro rail (natural light) or you're hand-holding (with a flash), both of which involve moving the camera closer or farther. Microscopes, bellows, etc. all involve the same principle re: high magnification, namely moving the whole optic closer or farther, or the stage itself closer or farther, not "focusing" the objectives.

The Canon MP-E 65mm operates by the same principle: set the magnification, then move the camera close or far, physically, by rail or by hand.

I am sure the MP-E has been returned by many "for not focusing," but it's simply ignorance rather than some flaw or shortcoming of the lens.

Jack

[Airy]

Still, Michael does not ignore any of this. Must have been a hindrance for a good reason.