{"id":32786,"date":"2022-08-21T07:06:21","date_gmt":"2022-08-21T06:06:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=32786"},"modified":"2024-04-21T11:17:41","modified_gmt":"2024-04-21T10:17:41","slug":"laowa-ffii-90mm-f2-8-ca-dreamer-macro-2x-getting-close","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/laowa-ffii-90mm-f2-8-ca-dreamer-macro-2x-getting-close\/","title":{"rendered":"Laowa FFii 90mm F2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2x: getting close!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

A couple of years ago, with samples taken on the last major overseas trip I took before Covid closed the world for quite a while, I reviewed the Laowa 100mm macro. I concluded it was good and sharp, a little challenged for flare at longer distances, but absolutely superb in the macro range. Eventually – in fact very recently, a couple of years after that review – I purchased my own copy. I was doing a lot of macro and at actual macro distances that lens is in most ways better than all the pricier lenses I’ve tried (though perhaps not as an all purpose short tele with macro).<\/p>\n

Of course, inevitably, after I paid my money, Laowa announced a new lens – \u00a0a 90mm, built specifically for mirrorless, and a lot more compact, with otherwise similar specs.<\/p>\n

Did I blow it? Should I get rid of my recently acquired 100 and get the new 90? Read on and see.<\/p>\n

Samples<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n

Specifications<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Diameter<\/td>\nmax 74 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Length<\/td>\n120 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter Thread<\/td>\n67 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight<\/td>\n619 g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Minimum Focusing Distance<\/td>\n0.2m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum Magnification<\/p>\n

Working Distance at Max Mag<\/p>\n

Working Distance at 1:1<\/td>\n

2:1<\/p>\n

70 mm<\/p>\n

120mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Number of aperture blades<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elements\/ Groups<\/td>\n13\/10, 3ED<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

If you are interested in purchasing it, buying it from one of these affiliate links makes a small contribution to defraying the cost of this blog. You can get it at:<\/p>\n

B&H Photo\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Features, Build Quality and Handling<\/h4>\n

The build quality is really nice.Markings are engraved and filled, it’s tightly constructed from metal and has what seems like a durable and attractive finish. It’s hard to imagine better in a metal helicoid finish.<\/p>\n

The lens does not change in length as you focus from 2x life-size \u00a0to infinity. But like the 100 before it it’s not really an internal focus lens: the trick is that there is an outer barrel, and as you focus closer, the lens extends inside that outer barrel. At closest focus the front element gets very close to the end of that barrel. The 100mm lens came with a fitted 67mm filter. I noticed one reviewer did a test to see if that filter was optically necessary, concluded it wasn’t, and removed it. That was a big mistake: there is grease lining the inner barrel, and dust getting in would be not good at all. Perhaps because of that Laowa have fitted the new lens with an immovable front glass. I can see why, but the bad thing about that is that it can’t be replaced easily. The nice thing about the old design was that, provided you kept the filter in place, you in effect had a cheaply replaceable front element!<\/p>\n

That grease lining is one of the suspects I have for the relatively poor flare performance at longer distances: as the lens focusses further away, the true front element receded, exposing more of the grease lined barrel. The same is true with the new lens, so we sill see in the vignetting section whether the same problem exists.<\/p>\n

The focus ring is nicely damped. and is perhaps a touch stiffer than ideal. The focus throw is a bit longer than the 100mm which is very welcome; about 140 degrees between 1:1 and infinity, which makes focus at longer distances much easier.<\/p>\n

The Sony version, reviewed here, has no electronic contacts so there is no EXIF, and stabilisation will be 3 axis. All versions have a 13 blade aperture ring which keeps bokeh balls nice and round.<\/p>\n

Infinity Resolution<\/h4>\n

Here’s the usual infinity resolution image. As usual in my recent reviews, I have taken to moving the camera so as to get the same subject in each location, to make comparison easier. I focussed when the subject was central, and did not change focus for midfield (intersection of rule of thirds lines) and extreme corner, so the effects of field curvature are not hidden.<\/p>\n

Centre and mid frame are both basically as good as I can distinguish from open. The extreme corner is very good wide open (better than the 100) and it gets a little better as you stop down. when it crisps up nicely. And the very slight softness in the extreme corner is not visible even a little bit away for the corner. This is amazing for a lens which can do twice life size macro; it’s about as good over most of the frame as some of the very best short tele lenses that can’t do macro..<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Comparatively my review copy of the Laowa 90 is better than my review copy of the 100 was at all apertures and locations in the frame. The Voigtlaender 110 is still a touch better in the extreme corner for the first couple of apertures, but only really visibly so at 100%. At every other location\/aperture pair at infinity the Laowa is as good as, \u00a0or better than, any lens I’ve tested.<\/p>\n

Portrait Distance Resolution<\/h4>\n

One of the primary uses of a general short tele lens is for portraiture. Many buyers of this lens may want it, therefore, to double as a portrait lens. What matters here is not so much even resolution across the frame, but that the eye of your subject, at whatever place you put it in the frame, is sharp when you focus on it. In past reviews I have used a live subject and focused on their eye, but this both requires a cooperative friend, and is subject to possible movement.<\/p>\n

Instead I have focused on bank notes, which we also often use for MOD (minimum object distance) tests.<\/p>\n

I focused at 2.5 metres, which is a nice half-body to head-and shoulders distance for portraiture. I focussed first in the centre, and then at the rule-of-thirds intersection. Any further into the corners in an unlikely location for an eye in a portrait.<\/p>\n

For reference, the two eyes of the Ben Franklin in this image together are about as wide as a regular human eye<\/strong>. This is at 1:1 pixel dimensions<\/p>\n

First, wide open at f2.8. Left is centre, right rule of thirds intersection.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Second stopped down to f4.0: again left is centre, right is rule of thirds intersection.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

This is stunning performance. Pretty much as good as it gets. Bearing in mind that a real human eye occupies the same size as both eyes and the area between them in the banknote, at portrait distance this shows that it matters very little\u00a0 much where you place your eye or what aperture you use. It’s maybe<\/em> just discernibly less sharp at the rule of thirds intersection, but if it is, not in a way that is visible except at 1:1 peeping. This is another respect in which the new lens is an improvement over the 100 which was good, but not as good, at these distances.<\/p>\n

Macro Distance Performance<\/h4>\n

This is the eye of Ben Franklin on a US $100 note (or “bill” as the Americans call them) at life size, focus on the\u00a0centre middle a corner.<\/p>\n

It’s very difficult to find any difference between them, wide open at f2.8 at life size.<\/p>\n

As you stop down, it gets less good. The lens appears to be diffraction limited wide open at life-size and below, which is impressive.<\/p>\n

2x appears on balance to be exactly as good. But the limiting factor in these images is the ability to keep the camera parallel to the bank note, and the flatness of the bank note, even using mirror alignment! More specialised testing equipment would be needed to make fine-grained distinctions, but those distinctions would be likely invisible in \u00a0practice. Even at life size and wide open, small differences are as likely to be limitations of the testing procedure, as real differences in the lens. There was some mild FC, but since for real macro purposes (no-one uses macro lenses to copy documents any more!) performance on what if focussed on is what matters, the image was refocussed at each position.<\/p>\n