Venus Optics Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO Lens

[Michael Erlewine]

Venus Optics Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO Lens

At about $400, the Venus Optics Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO lens is 20x less expensive than the Nikon Noct 0.95 S lens. Because of that, I never thought of buying it, mostly because I did buy into some early Venus Optic lenses and they were, IMO, nothing to write home about. So, I thought here is just another cheap lens.

And there is that fact that the lens is optimized for mirrorless cameras with APS-C format, and with full-frame, you will get only the central part of the image that is usable. However, switch your Nikon Z camera to DX format and you have full-frame in that format.

Of course, after I saw a comment by B.  Rørslett of NikonGear.net that
the Laowa 65mm APO lens was remarkable, that got my attention. I had to see for myself about that. After all, I have learned more from Rørslett over the years, especially early on, than from anyone else.

Sure enough, as usual, Rørslett was spot on. The Laowa, inexpensive and all, is a very nice lens, and it goes to 2x, which no other macro lens that I own does. Well, some specialized lenses do, but not ones I am in a habit of using that often. And it is very light and small, and there is a version for the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras, which I have. For my use, it immediately becomes the travel lens I would use for all very close-up or macro nature shots. It’s not the only lens I would carry, because I need full-frame images for some of my work.

And it really is “APO,” at least that’s what I see when I use it and very sharp, with no appreciable CA, etc. How can they afford to do it? I am often asked what’s a good beginning macro lens, and now I have to say, at $400, this is a winner. I’m using it! Indeed, we are going through a lens renaissance.

Here is a photo I took today using the $400 Laowa 65mm APO and another taken with the $8K Nikon 58mm f/0.95 APO monster. Of course, the Nikon is better, but for a lot of use, the 65mm Laowa is just excellent, especially for field use. Both images are stacked, and neither cleaned up too much. I just wanted to see for myself what the two looked like side to side.

[Michael Erlewine]

Picked up a copy of the Laowa 100mm 2x APO lens, which will do FX, and it does. What do I think? I like it. However, it is larger, much heavier, and to go 2x you almost have to take off the lens hood. Way too close for living things, unless they are busy, like ants. Lighting would be hard.

The VERY short focus throw is painful to use, but I could always put it on a rail. I took the hood off for the closer photo. For the money, it is totally worth it and for many kinds of focus stacking, it works fine unless you need a longer throw to get around a curve of whatever. Will I keep it? Have not decided, but I might, only because Nikon has not delivered a killer micro lens for some time. Certainly, this lens is corrected enough for what I do and sharp! This is an incredible time for lenses.   
Did not spend time on cleaning these stacked images up.

[kers]

impressing images... i personally would like AF since you can focusstack without any hassle..
I read that flare is a problem with this lens; Coatings are not that good.
You see that often with cheap lenses... and old lenses... sometimes it makes the image better, but mostly not...

Where do you find recent posts from Bjorn Røsslet? I would like to know- i liked his wbsiite till he got that tick byte and stopped...

[Michael Erlewine]

impressing images... i personally would like AF since you can focusstack without any hassle..
I read that flare is a problem with this lens; Coatings are not that good.
You see that often with cheap lenses... and old lenses... sometimes it makes the image better, but mostly not...

Where do you find recent posts from Bjorn Røsslet? I would like to know- i liked his wbsiite till he got that tick byte and stopped...

I don't find autofocus of any use in focus stacking, unless you are making what I call a "short stack," where we pick a few parts of the image we want in focus and only shoot them. More traditional stacking is stepping through a photo at just the right interval-step to create a contiguous image.

Røsslet is still very much alive and present at NikonGear.net and posts all the time. I have learned more from him about close-up photography and macro, at least early-on, than from any other expert. 

[kers]

I don't find autofocus of any use in focus stacking, unless you are making what I call a "short stack," where we pick a few parts of the image we want in focus and only shoot them. More traditional stacking is stepping through a photo at just the right interval-step to create a contiguous image.

Røsslet is still very much alive and present at NikonGear.net and posts all the time. I have learned more from him about close-up photography and macro, at least early-on, than from any other expert.

NikonGear.net  ; i only see an empty net...