Thanks Robert.
Can you list the exact lenses and the aperture used in each photo? Or you will just have that and these examples on your website later?
I'm not sure if the differences in blur are from different apertures, FL, or just the way the lenses are?
Same for the difference in brightness behind the petal, for example, maybe from different FL/distance? Change in light, something moved, etc?
As far as difference in colours, I see a difference, maybe, but I'm colourblind so can't tell much
On the closeup of the petal itself (not the background behind it) the colour in all of them is essentially the same to me.
I can't enlarge the photos, so I assume the petal photo is 100% as viewed on the screen? There are differences, but at least in this example all of them look pretty good. Maybe I like some of them a little better, but doubt I could say the same looking at just one without a comparison.
The blur is different enough that I definitely prefer some over the others and luckily the Laowa is great but honestly they all look pretty good. Hard to say and more blue isn't necessarily better anyway.
Thanks again
Does anyone have the Laowa 100mm x2 macro lens?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 pm
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Does anyone have the Laowa 100mm x2 macro lens?
Thanks for the interest!
Worked on the test today for a couple of hours. I'm about 80% done now.
Lens test list:Can you list the exact lenses and the aperture used in each photo?
Schneider-APO-Digtar-120-M
Schneider-Makro-Symmar-HM-120
Schneider-Makro-Symmar-5.6-80-line-scan-lens
Qioptiq-inspec.x.L-105-line-scan-lens
Cosina-Voigtlander-APO-Lanthar-SL-125-lens
Sigma-Art-105-macro-lens
Laowa-100-2x-APO-macro-lens
Printing-NIKKOR-95mm-macro-lens
Schneider-APO-Componon-HM-4.5-90mm-line-scan-lens+PL-filter
Schneider-APO-Componon-HM-4.5-90mm-line-scan-lens
Nikon-Rayfact-GF-0.5x-line-scan-lens
E90C-105-lens
E90C-115-lens
Rodenstock-S3-110-scanner-lens
re-test tomorrow:
Gretage 120! Test images looked very sharp at 0.35x.
Scitex S3 110 in reverse
Nikkor AM-ED 120
Didn't make it into the test:
Rodenstock Scitex LFOV. Soft at 0.35x. I didn't bother to reverse it.
Fuji EFC 108mm; soft in normal and reverse, with and without diopter.
I will be sure to list the apertures used for each photo. Tested each lens wide open to f/8 in full stops. Most lenses were sharpest at f/5.6. Some f/4.
Will probably post a link and some review images here.Or you will just have that and these examples on your website later?
All of the above. I made a test in 2015 or 2016 of all the Sigma lenses, 50-70-90-105-150-180 of an orchid and it was amazing the differences in compression and the differences the angle of view made on the background keeping the orchid the same size in the frame and the f-stop consistent at f/8. I wanted to reproduce the same kind of thing with the new test.I'm not sure if the differences in blur are from different apertures, FL, or just the way the lenses are?
Main light was a flash that was bolted down, useless I bumped it, should never move.Same for the difference in brightness behind the petal, for example, maybe from different FL/distance? Change in light, something moved, etc?
Yes the differences in the BG is due to changes in FL and angle of view, oh yeah and distance, and effective aperture.
The camera and light was all bolted down but I did notice some small shifts in elements, a couple of mm maybe, I was never able to figure out what it was, maybe one or some of the flowers moved, drooped, with the temperature changing in the room? But I thought tried not to worry about it too much.
Some of the slight differences were colorspace but they should be closer now. I tried to precisely convert each file identically for the web so all the colors etc should be accurate. Some lenses are cooler (temp) than others.As far as difference in colours, I see a difference, maybe, but I'm colourblind so can't tell much
On the closeup of the petal itself (not the background behind it) the colour in all of them is essentially the same to me.
Yes, 100% view.I can't enlarge the photos, so I assume the petal photo is 100% as viewed on the screen?
These are all high-end IQ lenses, some of my favorites actually, so they should all be really good.There are differences, but at least in this example all of them look pretty good. Maybe I like some of them a little better, but doubt I could say the same looking at just one without a comparison.
Two nice surprises for me? The Makro-Symmar 180 and the Gretag 120 are fantastic.
On the flip side, the Rodenstock Scitex LFOV and the Fuji EFC 108mm were both a big waste of my time!
The Laowa is very nice all around. In this test it did give me a very pleasing blur, no doubt!The blur is different enough that I definitely prefer some over the others and luckily the Laowa is great but honestly they all look pretty good. Hard to say and more blue isn't necessarily better anyway.
Fast lenses are nice since they give you more control of DOF and the ability to shoot in lower light than a slower, lighter lens. Sometimes I prefer faster lenses but that often means putting up with a heavier lens!
Will post more in a day or two, but I might have to rest a day or two, I've been putting a lot of time in this test! I don't need to take time off to rest my body physically but more to avoid mental fatigue and burnout. I've spent about 8 hours shooting Sunday, maybe 2 hours Monday and at least 5 hrs today!
Best,
Robert
Re: Does anyone have the Laowa 100mm x2 macro lens?
Wow, what great work. I look forward to the full results.
I haver found that, for some of the other Rodenstock Scitex lenses, the correct orientation makes a huge difference. It might be premature to discard this Scitex LFOV without trying it in the opposite orientation.Rodenstock Scitex LFOV. Soft at 0.35x. I didn't bother to reverse it.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Re: Does anyone have the Laowa 100mm x2 macro lens?
Overlapping and alternating between the two rows in the montage makes it easier to tease apart some of the issues.RobertOToole wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:44 pmYes the differences in the BG is due to changes in FL and angle of view, oh yeah and distance, and effective aperture.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Does anyone have the Laowa 100mm x2 macro lens?
Hi Lou,Lou Jost wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:25 pmWow, what great work. I look forward to the full results.
I haver found that, for some of the other Rodenstock Scitex lenses, the correct orientation makes a huge difference. It might be premature to discard this Scitex LFOV without trying it in the opposite orientation.Rodenstock Scitex LFOV. Soft at 0.35x. I didn't bother to reverse it.
The reasons I gave up on the LFOV is that the tested mag. 0.35x is too far outside the range used in the Eversmart scanner, 0.65x - 1.56x, and it would have been too much of a hassle to mount in reverse, M45>M52>M72-ext-M72>M52>M45>SM2>E-mount (due to the X-large diameter barrel). With the other Scitex lenses its a single M39>SM2 adapter and done, reverse or forward mount (thanks to the small OD barrel)!
Also I only know 4 people with LFOV lenses anyway.
****Spoiler alert****
Just finished shooting a few hours ago.....the S3110 did do better reversed as expected. The Gretag 120 also did very well at 0.35x, a little better than the S3 and the Nikkor AM ED 120 crop is nicely detailed as well. The Rayfact MJ90 0.05-0.5x was a nice surprise as well at f/5.6.
Best,
Robert