[richfam]

Here's a video review of this lens (posted on 4 Dec 2019), including many sample & test images. Interesting that it has an optional mini LED ringlight that will fit on its front filter threads:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[barondla]

I also looked at the 20mm, but I opted for the Olympus Auto Macro. It's three times as expensive, but holds its value better, has better coatings, six vs. three aperture blades, can be focused wide open, then stopped down with a cable or double cable release I rigged up… lots of possibilities. It can also be used up to 16x with the dedicated bellows. If anyone's interested in seeing my rig, let me know.

I would like to see your rig. Are you talking about the Olympus OM 20mm f2 macro? If so, I have the same lens. It is a bear to shoot with and get good results.
Thanks,
barondla

[xandos]

Note that Laowa has had a lens in this niche for a couple of years now Venus Optics Laowa 25mm F2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro Lens Reviews - Venus Laowa Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Laowa and Mitakon both have a few lenses that do more than 1:1 magnification, and both have gotten good reviews, although its not clear if they are really better than connecting lenses in reverse.

However I'd say these lenses do not directly compete. The laowa is even more niche and specialistic than this one, only starting at 2:1 magnification and needing very close working distance.

I was wondering if the near-telecentric design would help for my specific applications, but thinking about it more, I think it probably doesnt. Unless I'm mistaken, in most cases people fix the magnification and focus distance, and then move the camera (or object) for focus stacking. I think in such a case you get a 'telecentric' result in any case. I'd be happy to be wrong about this though.

[torashi]

I would like to see your rig. Are you talking about the Olympus OM 20mm f2 macro? If so, I have the same lens. It is a bear to shoot with and get good results.
Thanks,
barondla

Exactly, not the earlier f/3.5 RMS mount. I uploaded a picture I took with it to the october photo contest, if you want to check it out. I'm currently trying some things out and am waiting for some parts to keep upgrading the kit.

[xandos]

I also looked at the 20mm, but I opted for the Olympus Auto Macro. It's three times as expensive, but holds its value better, has better coatings, six vs. three aperture blades, can be focused wide open, then stopped down with a cable or double cable release I rigged up… lots of possibilities. It can also be used up to 16x with the dedicated bellows. If anyone's interested in seeing my rig, let me know.

I'd also be very interested in seeing your rig. I've only managed to get up to 6.5x so far, having a setup that extends from mild magnification all the way to 16x sounds amazing!

[torashi]

I'd also be very interested in seeing your rig. I've only managed to get up to 6.5x so far, having a setup that extends from mild magnification all the way to 16x sounds amazing!

Ok. I'll gather some info and take some pics and start a new thread. I'll PM you both.

[torashi]

This review and comparison was posted almost a week ago:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[TwiddleSuite]

has anyone tried it already? intriguing..

[tryphon4]

Mitakon discovered a quality concern regarding the lens:

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION (16th Dec): We have recently found that the first shipment of our 85mm f/2.8 is not performing to our design specifications. We are now investigating the issue and its not available to order now. For all purchased customers, we have already sent out an email to the mailbox address you left in the order details. Please contact us via order@zyoptics.net if you have NOT received such email.

Fortunately, Mitakon already found the solution and built a new prototype, so they should be able to deliver the updated lens in January.
They are very responsive!

[torashi]

Mitakon discovered a quality concern regarding the lens:



Fortunately, Mitakon already found the solution and built a new prototype, so they should be able to deliver the updated lens in January.
They are very responsive!

Well, that's a relief, because at this point it's not even useable compared to the Laowa. I hope the damage hasn't been done yet. Also, their quality control is questionable if they allowed the most important batch to ship like this. I mean, it's a clear sign not even one was used on a real camera to take some test shots.

[photoptimist]

Laowa and Mitakon both have a few lenses that do more than 1:1 magnification, and both have gotten good reviews, although its not clear if they are really better than connecting lenses in reverse.

However I'd say these lenses do not directly compete. The laowa is even more niche and specialistic than this one, only starting at 2:1 magnification and needing very close working distance.

I was wondering if the near-telecentric design would help for my specific applications, but thinking about it more, I think it probably doesnt. Unless I'm mistaken, in most cases people fix the magnification and focus distance, and then move the camera (or object) for focus stacking. I think in such a case you get a 'telecentric' result in any case. I'd be happy to be wrong about this though.

A telecentric lens would help.

In a normal, non-telecentric lens, the rays of light from the subject converge to a point (called the front nodal point) that is typically fairly close to the middle-front of the lens. That means that as you change the distance to the subject to shift the plane of focus, objects at other distances change size. Things that are getting closer to the lens grow larger in the image. Similarly, foreground objects look bigger than background objects even if they are the same size -- the lens shows perspective.

With telecentric optics, the rays of light from the subject run parallel into the lens. The front nodal point is behind the lens at negative infinity. Objects don't change visual size as the stack plane moves. Background objects and foreground objects of the same size have the same size in the image, too.

[torashi]

A telecentric lens would help.



In a normal, non-telecentric lens, the rays of light from the subject converge to a point (called the front nodal point) that is typically fairly close to the middle-front of the lens. That means that as you change the distance to the subject to shift the plane of focus, objects at other distances change size. Things that are getting closer to the lens grow larger in the image. Similarly, foreground objects look bigger than background objects even if they are the same size -- the lens shows perspective.



With telecentric optics, the rays of light from the subject run parallel into the lens. The front nodal point is behind the lens at negative infinity. Objects don't change visual size as the stack plane moves. Background objects and foreground objects of the same size have the same size in the image, too.

Well, that certainly means that it's better for stacking, since objects in front or back don't change size. Makes me wonder if there's a perceivable difference between a stack on such a lens vs. a more common design.

[xandos]

A telecentric lens would help.

In a normal, non-telecentric lens, the rays of light from the subject converge to a point (called the front nodal point) that is typically fairly close to the middle-front of the lens. That means that as you change the distance to the subject to shift the plane of focus, objects at other distances change size. Things that are getting closer to the lens grow larger in the image. Similarly, foreground objects look bigger than background objects even if they are the same size -- the lens shows perspective.

With telecentric optics, the rays of light from the subject run parallel into the lens. The front nodal point is behind the lens at negative infinity. Objects don't change visual size as the stack plane moves. Background objects and foreground objects of the same size have the same size in the image, too.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, I didn't think about objects our of the focus plane, but it matters.

When I first started stacking, I somehow had not thought about the fact that the object in focus keeps the same size as you shift the camera. This makes objects looks slightly unreal. Especially in the case you shoot things with regular features on a flat plane. With a normal picture (or a stack changing the focus point) you expect to see some perspective, but with stacking shifting the camera/lens (or object) the perspective disappears, so you get some type of orthographic projection instead. Unfortunately a telecentric lens won't change that. With insects, this lack of perspective is not clear as insects are not mostly parallel straight lines.

[VILLAINofOZ]

I cant see an advantage to this lens when with my current setup (You can view my post here) I can get just over 10x magnification with a greater working distance than this new Mitakon lens at 5x.

I will have to try now changing my setup to see if putting a reversed lens in front of my front mounted lens and then my enlarger lens will give me even greater magnification.

[baro-nite]

I cant see an advantage to this lens when with my current setup (You can view my post here) I can get just over 10x magnification with a greater working distance than this new Mitakon lens at 5x.

I will have to try now changing my setup to see if putting a reversed lens in front of my front mounted lens and then my enlarger lens will give me even greater magnification.

The problem is "empty magnification", increasing the size of the image on the sensor without increasing the amount of detail. That is, blowing up a blurry image. The culprit is diffraction. I applaud your efforts, but I expect you could get similar or even better results by taking the 2x TC out of your rig, and shortening the focal length of your primary lens, to get something closer to 2x magnification, and then upsizing the results.

If the Mikaton is reasonably sharp in the f/2.8 to f/4 range, it could produce excellent results at 5x, something just about impossible to achieve by stacking ordinary lenses. (I've spent quite a lot of time experimenting with this.)