[Thagomizer]

Personally, I find the working distance is too great with a very long lens. It requires much more flash power and it's often hard to find an appropriate point to brace on while shooting so far from the critter. My poor man's long macro is a Tamron Adaptall 90mm (52BB) coupled with the well-regarded Adaptall 2X tele-converter, which gives a 1:1 180mm lens. I've gotten good results using this with a Raynox DCR-250 for high-magnification shots (e.g. here), but frankly it no longer sees much use. For me 90-105mm really is a nice sweetspot for in-situ nature macro of critters roughly 5 to 30mm in size.

To come back to the Laowa, they claim it's an internal focus design, but the front element recedes deeply into the lens at infinity and progressively extends as you focus closer and closer. To me this behavior is very similar to a more traditional macro design (like the D-FA 100mm WR), only with a fixed-length external barrel that goes all the way to the maximum extension of the internal barrel (rather than only extending to the infinity focus point as the external barrel on the D-FA 100mm WR does). Not sure if that description is clear...

Nevertheless, what I didn't expect is that having this fixed length external barrel is actually super useful. It makes it much easier to setup a diffusion surface since you know that the barrel will always be there and is a solid point on which to rest a diffusion surface. With the D-FA 100mm, you always have to worry about the lens extension/retraction - both in trying to avoid putting to much pressure on the internal barrel when fully extended, and at the other end not having anything there (to stop your diffusion surface from sagging into the field of view) when the lens is retracted. To me this difference is an unexpected but very welcome improvement in shooting with the Laowa versus D-FA 100mm plus Raynox DCR-250 (in the 1:1 to 2:1 macro range).

Very usefull explanation. Thanks for that. Also, stunning shots with the 52BB/TC?Raynox combo. I've yet to try stacking; your handheld field stacking approach is much more appealing to me and my own way of shooting than automated studio work with dead insects. The latter technique gives striking results, but at least for now, is not how I would choose to work. Talk to me when I'm older and no longer able to hold a camera steady enough and I might have changed my tune!

[JensE]

With the D-FA 100mm, you always have to worry about the lens extension/retraction - both in trying to avoid putting to much pressure on the internal barrel when fully extended, and at the other end not having anything there (to stop your diffusion surface from sagging into the field of view) when the lens is retracted.

Straying a little off-topic: The DFA100WR achieves this with its narrow hood, protecting the rather fragile inner tube with just a classic short recess at 1:1 remaining. It's the reason why the FC160 flash mounts to the outer barrel using a special adapter rather than the inner tube. I didn't manage to buy the FC160, but the surprisingly good Viltrox JY680, which I got for next to nothing. To mount the flash or my diffusers, I'm using a spare PH-RBC 49mm hood from the DFA50mm/2.8 macro (same bayonet, just slightly wider), to which I glued a 77->72mm ring. Using another 72-67mm, there is just the right gap to front-mount the ring flash on its 67mm adapter. Combined, it works similar to the original FC160 mount. Alternatively, I support my diffusers with it, one however just wraps around the original narrow hood, held by a rubber band.

So you can think of the DFA hood/flash adapter as 'collapsible barrel' to make transport easier, I never use the lens without - in a way similar to what I expect from the Laowa. Nothing from the German importer yet ...

[Doundounba]

So you can think of the DFA hood/flash adapter as 'collapsible barrel' to make transport easier, I never use the lens without ...

This is a good point, but remember that I'm not using the DFA by itself. 99.5% of the time, I have a Raynox DCR-250 on the end of it. With this combo, I get a macro range of 0.8:1 with the lens at infinity focus to 2:1 with the lens at MFD. I haven't actually tested this (and maybe I should), but I would expect that when shooting at the "long" end with this combo, if I also had the hood on, it would practically touch the critter and lighting would become difficult/impossible. You might argue that I could "simply" remove the Raynox for those "lower magnification" shots, but that's just a PITA, IMHO. You have to unscrew it, then find the cap for it, then put the cap on and put it in a pocket, then hope that the critter hasn't disappeared in the time it took you to do that. In practice, I mostly don't even bother trying to shoot anything that won't fit in my APS-C frame at 0.8:1. Precisely for this reason, I expect that shooting with the Laowa next summer will mean I will shoot a lot more "near-macro" shots (such as profiles of Odonata, which are useful for species identification) rather than strictly concentrating on high-magnification "portraits". Those portraits will remain my bread and butter though, but I expect I will also have to adjust my technique as the Laowa's optical strengths are very different to those of the DFA 100mm plus Raynox DCR-250 combo...

BTW, if I could have the perfect macro lens for me, I would pick a macro range of 1:3 to 3:1. I don't care about infinity focus, but bottoming out at 1:1 is a bit too tight. And at the other end, shooting above 3:1 in the field is almost mission impossible, so I don't really need the 3:1 to 5:1 range that something like the Canon MP-E offers. But since I can't get something that does 1:3 to 3:1, I'll take infinity to 2:1 (ie the Laowa).

---------- Post added 12-11-20 at 10:50 AM ----------

Very usefull explanation. Thanks for that. Also, stunning shots with the 52BB/TC?Raynox combo.

Thank you!

I've yet to try stacking; your handheld field stacking approach is much more appealing to me and my own way of shooting than automated studio work with dead insects. The latter technique gives striking results, but at least for now, is not how I would choose to work. Talk to me when I'm older and no longer able to hold a camera steady enough and I might have changed my tune!

Yes, me too I guess - time spares no one... But for me it's very much about the "hunt": about getting out there, walking, spotting critters, then managing to get them to accept the camera when they could simply fly/jump away. Corpse photography just really isn't my thing. I think the people who do that are often either techno-geeks who care a lot more about their micro-stepping motors than about the insects themselves, or science geeks that care greatly about the details of obscure anatomical features. I want to shoot critter portraits. Shots that showcase the beauty of living creatures that just happen to be too small for people to generally notice them. If I could no longer do this handheld, I think I would resort to getting up at ungodly hours and learning how to find insects that are still "sleepy" from a cold night and then carefully setting up my tripod and stacking contraption near them...

[JensE]

I have a Raynox DCR-250 on the end of it. With this combo, I get a macro range of 0.8:1 with the lens at infinity focus to 2:1 with the lens at MFD. I haven't actually tested this (and maybe I should), but I would expect that when shooting at the "long" end with this combo, if I also had the hood on, it would practically touch the critter and lighting would become difficult/impossible.

With my M250 on a step-down ring screwed to the DFA100WR, I get to almost exactly 1:1 with the lens at infinity (>35mm width on the K-1) and have 8.5cm free working distance in front of the hood. At the MFD end, it's 2:1 and 5.8cm to the Raynox, 7cm to the edge of the hood. Protection is suboptimal in this case, of course. I'd say that's workable in the 1:1 to 2:1 range, depending on how far off-axis you can tolerate your light setup to be. I wonder how you ended up with 0.8:1, though.

I shoot most of my macros at 1:1, so that I can measure and compare size, but got a taste for higher magnification in spring photographing ants. I shot most of the details in this thread at the German pentaxians forum (may be visible just for registered users) at around 3:1, almost exclusively handheld 'in the field'. Success rate drops, but it's more manageable than I thought. So in a sense I'm waiting for my Laowa with the same excitement about the seamlessly covered range as you described.

The DF50 hood btw. is about 1cm shorter and wider, so my ring flash sitting on it doesn't protrude more than 1cm over the original edge.

[Doundounba]

With my M250 on a step-down ring screwed to the DFA100WR, I get to almost exactly 1:1 with the lens at infinity (>35mm width on the K-1) and have 8.5cm free working distance in front of the hood. At the MFD end, it's 2:1 and 5.8cm to the Raynox, 7cm to the edge of the hood. Protection is suboptimal in this case, of course. I'd say that's workable in the 1:1 to 2:1 range, depending on how far off-axis you can tolerate your light setup to be. I wonder how you ended up with 0.8:1, though.

Well, it's pretty simple and I just retested it since you had me doubting...! Taking a shot of a ruler at infinity focus, I have about 30mm horizontally on my image. My APS-C sensor is 23.5mm wide, so that's roughly 0.8:1. My DCR-250 is also on a 49-43mm stepdown ring. Now you have me wondering how you bottom out at 1:1, apparently using the exact same lens combo. I just dug out my hood BTW, and eyeballing it I am surprised to agree that it might indeed be possible to get decent light even with the hood. This may warrant further testing. Thanks!

[ecostigny]

I'm sure we'd love to see the pictures that result from your experiments!

[Thagomizer]

I shoot most of my macros at 1:1, so that I can measure and compare size, but got a taste for higher magnification in spring photographing ants. I shot most of the details in this thread at the German pentaxians forum (may be visible just for registered users) at around 3:1, almost exclusively handheld 'in the field'. Success rate drops, but it's more manageable than I thought. So in a sense I'm waiting for my Laowa with the same excitement about the seamlessly covered range as you described.

Yes, unfortunately, your images are not visible. Perhaps you could post some here?

Much of my macro shooting is at greater than 1:1, so when I'm at 1:1, things seem so far away! I'm right with you with what you're saying about the success rate and the manageability, but when things work, it is very satisfying.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7888/32065210507_4d7c4ef195_b.jpg

[JensE]

Satisfying indeed, but DoF is always a tricky balance - just keep enough details to be recoverable in post processing. I collected a few high magnification macros in an album, some of them with a makeshift high-magnification setup held together by hand. Looking forward to easier work with the Laowa as I don't always have the space for bellows near my subjects.

[Thagomizer]

Satisfying indeed, but DoF is always a tricky balance - just keep enough details to be recoverable in post processing. I collected a few high magnification macros in an album, some of them with a makeshift high-magnification setup held together by hand. Looking forward to easier work with the Laowa as I don't always have the space for bellows near my subjects.

Thanks for the link. Great shots of interesting behaviour. Ants can be tricky: they move so fast. I quite like the shot with the crystal clear drop of liquid. Well done!

Having tried my share of cobbled together rigs, I can well understand your anticipation of a solution that is more convenient and robust.

[ecostigny]

Thanks for the link. Great shots of interesting behaviour. Ants can be tricky: they move so fast. I quite like the shot with the crystal clear drop of liquid. Well done!

Having tried my share of cobbled together rigs, I can well understand your anticipation of a solution that is more convenient and robust.

Getting anything that close with reasonable DoF is always challenging with moving subjects; they certainly won't hold still long enough for you to do focus stacking! Whatever streamlines the process must feel like a godsend.

[stemked]

Why is that I have the 100mm DAW f2.8 macro, 100mm A f2.8, 100mm A f4, 90mm f2.5 Tamron that I'm actually thinking about this lens?

[Thagomizer]

Why is that I have the 100mm DAW f2.8 macro, 100mm A f2.8, 100mm A f4, 90mm f2.5 Tamron that I'm actually thinking about this lens?

Well, you're not alone. I've got a SMC Macro Takumar 50/4, a SMC Macro Takumar 100/4, the Sigma EX DG 50/2.8, the Sigma EX DG 70/2.8, Tamron 52BB 90/2.5, and have a Tamron 72B 90/2.8, on the way, and I find this lens worth considering too. Whether I end up actually getting is another question, but it is certainly very attractive!

[Not a Number]

The native infinity to 2× magnification as well as auto aperture are the draw for me. If it equials or outperforms my Kiron 105mm it be more than happy.

[torge]

cool shot!

Yes, unfortunately, your images are not visible. Perhaps you could post some here?

Much of my macro shooting is at greater than 1:1, so when I'm at 1:1, things seem so far away! I'm right with you with what you're saying about the success rate and the manageability, but when things work, it is very satisfying.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7888/32065210507_4d7c4ef195_b.jpg

[Thagomizer]

cool shot!

Thank you!