Up next in 10
Laowa 180mm F4.5 1.5x Ultra Macro APO Review | More Working Distance
0 views
Aug 25, 2025
Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a deep dive review of the unique Laowa 180mm F4.5 1.5x Ultra Macro APO - a true hybrid Manual Focus | Autofocus design with 1.5x magnification. | Read the Text Review: | Purchase the Laowa AF 180mm F4.5 Macro @ B&H Photo | Adorama | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany Check out the DA Merch here: https://bit.ly/TWIMerch | Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/dustinabbott | On the Web: http://dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: http://bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: http://bit.ly/DLAinsta | Facebook: http://on.fb.me/1nuUUeH | Flickr: http://bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: http://bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu Follow Craig @ https://www.instagram.com/craigstoffersen/ Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at: B&H Photo: http://bhpho.to/1TA0Xge Adorama: https://howl.link/nt4zdz1goa7ql Camera Canada: http://bit.ly/DLACameraCan Sony Canada: https://www.thesonyshop.ca/?ref=abbott Amazon: https://amzn.to/3HrY64d Amazon Canada: https://amzn.to/3qG1p18 Ebay: http://bit.ly/DustineBay Into the AM Clothing: https://bit.ly/intotheAMda and use code DUSTIN10 for 10% off Fioboc Clothing: https://tinyurl.com/FiobocDA20 and us code DUSTIN20 for 20% off Make a donation via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/dustinTWI ============================= Table of Contents: ============================= 0:00 - Intro and Concept
View Video Transcript
0:00
[Music]
0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to review the newest lens from LAA which
0:15
is the 180 mm f4.5
0:19
1.5 times ultra macro apo lens. Now,
0:23
that is a mouthful of designations, but
0:26
what we have here is a lens that I think
0:28
is going to be unique and definitely
0:30
have a position in the market. I've seen
0:32
a lot of macro lenses in the 90 to 105
0:36
mm range here on mirrorless platforms
0:39
and even some from the 50 to 65 mm wider
0:43
focal length range. But what I have seen
0:45
very few of is actually long focal
0:48
lengths. I kind of go all the way back
0:50
to early days in Canon with the 180mm
0:53
f3.5 L uh macro lens. So, this is a
0:59
different kind of perspective. It gives
1:00
you a longer working distance. It's
1:02
going to give you a different level of
1:03
compression on your shots. I think it's
1:05
going to work for different kinds of
1:07
macro work. Maybe less well for product
1:10
photography, but better if you're
1:11
wanting to capture insects or things
1:13
where having that additional working
1:15
distance is going to be very useful. On
1:18
top of that, this lens has a higher than
1:21
than average macro uh magnification 1.5
1:25
to one rather than one one or so or 1.5
1:29
times magnification level. It also has
1:33
an apricatic design which as you know
1:36
means it's going to have very low
1:37
aberration. It's going to have great
1:39
color saturation and pop like that. And
1:41
it's also a really interesting lens. uh
1:43
something really that I've never seen
1:45
before. And considering I've reviewed
1:47
hundreds and hundreds of lenses, that's
1:48
interesting. And that is that this is a
1:50
lens that for the macro range has a true
1:53
manual focus ring and is a manual focus
1:55
only uh lens. And so you have hard
1:58
stops, mechanical stops on either end.
2:00
You have constant distance markings. You
2:03
have a smooth moving uh manual focus
2:05
ring that will allow you to get that
2:07
precision you want for macro work.
2:08
However, you have the option that if you
2:10
flip the ring all the way over to the
2:12
right, uh, you can past infinity, you
2:15
can actually go into autofocus mode and
2:17
from 1.5 m out, you have an autofocus
2:20
lens. And so, as you can see here, I'm
2:22
filming on the lens right now, as I will
2:24
for these outdoor segments. And you can
2:26
see that as I move along, autofocus is
2:28
able to track me. And you have a typical
2:31
autofocus lens. All of this for under
2:35
$500. and I think you have a lens that
2:37
is going to appeal to a lot of people.
2:39
So, today in today's review, we're going
2:41
to dive in and explore whether or not
2:43
this is a lens that you should consider.
2:45
Let's take a look. So, in disclosure,
2:48
this lens was loan to me by LAA. It will
2:51
be going back to them at the end of this
2:53
review. They have had no input in this
2:55
re review and they will not see it
2:56
before you. Now, I'm doing this review
2:59
on Sony's E-mount, full-frame E-mount,
3:02
but there are also autofocus versions
3:03
coming for Nikon Z. And interestingly,
3:06
for Canon EF, not RF, but EF seemed like
3:10
LA's workaround for uh Canon not opening
3:13
up their RF protocols to full-frame
3:15
lenses to release an EF mount, which can
3:19
then be adapted onto RF mount. Now,
3:21
there are manual focus versions that
3:23
will be available for Canon RF, then
3:25
also for Lmount. uh for those uh
3:28
platforms, they will have a native
3:30
glass, but it just won't be autofocus.
3:32
So, interestingly, as I've pointed out,
3:34
we have a 280 roughly 280 degree true
3:39
mechanical manual focus ring. And so,
3:41
this is a rare treat on mirrorless in
3:42
that it's really, really gorgeous. It's
3:45
got hard stops on either end. It's got
3:48
distance markings along the way. It's
3:51
got, you know, hyperfocus marking
3:53
markings. It looks like a traditional
3:55
manual focus lens in that regard.
3:56
However, which by the way took me a
3:58
little bit to figure out because it's
3:59
not particularly obvious, if you rotate
4:02
all the way to the left here, you will
4:05
find that past infinity, there is a
4:08
little um yellow uh imprinted AF part.
4:12
And if you go to all the way to AF mode,
4:14
anything past 1.5 meters and beyond, you
4:17
can have autofocus. And so, uh very
4:19
interesting there. I do think the manual
4:21
focus ring is fantastic. And obviously
4:23
that's going to be an advantage over a
4:25
lot of competing um other macro lenses
4:28
that are autofocus lenses because they
4:30
won't have as good of an actual manual
4:33
focus ring. There still are situations
4:35
when close focusing uh that I actually
4:38
still like having autofocus,
4:40
particularly if I'm doing handheld work.
4:42
Sometimes trying to nail manual focus
4:43
and then keep it there long enough to
4:46
actually click the shutter can be a
4:48
little bit of a a fine art. And so I do
4:51
like having autofocus for those type of
4:53
situations. However, if I'm working off
4:55
of a tripod, manual focus all day, every
4:57
day. It is definitely the way to go. And
4:59
frankly, for serious macro work, you're
5:01
going to want to use a tripod. Uh
5:03
anyway, there are nine aperture blades
5:06
here. And the aperture iris is
5:07
electromagnetic. There is no aperture
5:09
ring. And I'm not sure about the manual
5:11
focus versions of the lens if they will
5:14
uh have an a manual aperture ring or if
5:16
they will have electronics and have
5:18
electromagnetic aperture diaphragm. I
5:21
haven't seen those other versions and so
5:23
that is still a mystery to me at this
5:24
point. This one, however, you're going
5:26
to be controlling aperture from within
5:27
the camera. What you do have, however,
5:30
is a custom or function button on the
5:32
side and that is going to perform
5:34
whatever duty you have assigned to that
5:35
in your camera body. If it's anything
5:38
attached to autofocus, it's only going
5:39
to work during that autofocus. If it's
5:41
some other function, you can use it even
5:43
when you are in the manual focus mode,
5:46
so long as it's something that impacts
5:48
something outside of autofocus. There is
5:51
a USBC, weather sealed USBC port that is
5:55
near but not on the actual lens mount.
5:58
There is a weather sealing gasket here
6:00
at the lens mount. I'm not sure about
6:02
internal seals. The previous lenses that
6:04
I've tested from LAA that did have a
6:06
weather sealing gasket at the lens
6:08
mount, they did not have internal seals.
6:10
Obviously, the USBC port has to be
6:12
weather sealed as well, but that may be
6:15
the only actual seal points on the lens,
6:17
but something is better than nothing.
6:19
Now, you may have noticed that this is a
6:21
rather unique lens profile, very slim,
6:24
very long. It is only 67.6 millimeters
6:28
in diameter or 2.66 inches. That
6:31
contrasts to an length of 136 mm or 5.35
6:37
in. And so it is essentially nearly
6:40
twice as long as what it is in diameter.
6:44
So a long, slender, unique um kind of
6:47
lens profile. And of course, if you put
6:48
the lens hood on, because the lens hood
6:50
is also slim, it just makes the lens
6:53
longer and slimmer looking. Still up
6:55
front, we do have a 62 mm front filter
6:58
thread. It seems like a lot of the
6:59
lenses that I reviewed in 2025 have had
7:03
62 millimeter front filter threads for
7:05
one reason or another. Now, because this
7:07
is all metal and glass, very high grade
7:10
of construction, which is kind of in
7:11
LA's hallmark from their very first
7:13
lens, it is heavier. It's 523 g or 18.44
7:17
oz. That's not, you know, uniquely or
7:20
particularly heavy, but obviously
7:22
relative for it being such a slim lens,
7:24
it's a little bit heavier than what you
7:25
might expect. However, I will point out
7:27
that this is about half the weight of
7:30
the older Canon 180mm f3.5 L series
7:33
lens. And so, a radical downsizing. And
7:36
so, again, for being 180 millimeter
7:39
lens, not too bad when it comes to the
7:41
weight. This does have LA's new design
7:44
language, which is kind of a, you know,
7:46
gunmetal/cobalt
7:47
blue look. A unique finish with, you
7:50
know, unique look to the manual focus
7:52
ring and the badging. I like it. I like
7:55
the fact that it is uniquely LAA and
7:57
that they aren't, you know, trying to
7:58
copy someone else or produce a lens that
8:01
looks just like something that we've
8:02
seen before. And so I appreciate their
8:04
new design language. I like the metal
8:06
lens hood, which feels very high-grade.
8:09
Everything about the lens feels more
8:11
premium than the price suggest. Now, one
8:14
thing you will miss in a lens like this
8:15
is lensbased stabilization. So yes, most
8:18
of our camera bodies these days do have
8:21
inbody image stabilization. However, on
8:24
Sony, where I'm testing, I find that
8:26
Sony stabilization is better. Let's say
8:29
under 135 millimeters at telephoto
8:32
lengths, it just doesn't seem as
8:33
effective to me. I suspect you'll get a
8:35
little bit better performance uh on
8:37
Nikon Zmount, as I have found uh Zmount
8:40
cameras that have uh stabilization, VR
8:42
built into them tend to be a little bit
8:44
better with telephoto focal length than
8:46
what Sony stabilization is. If you're on
8:48
Canon EF, of course, none of those
8:50
bodies have stabilization, though, if
8:52
you're adapting to RF, uh, many of them
8:54
do. And so, just be aware you're not
8:56
getting any lens based stabilization.
8:58
And that does make handheld macro work
9:01
certainly more challenging. And so,
9:03
something to be aware of there. Minimum
9:05
focus distance here is 30 cm and or one
9:09
foot. That is to get all the way to the
9:11
1.5 to one uh level of magnification.
9:15
Now, if you're working at 1:1 level, you
9:17
get about six or seven more centimeters
9:19
to work with there. And so, really not a
9:21
bad working distance at all. Here's what
9:23
that maximum magnification of 1.5 looks
9:26
like. And just for interest sake, most
9:28
macro lenses are one one. Here's what
9:31
one looks of this this shot compared to
9:34
shooting the same um subject at 1.5
9:37
time. And you can see it definitely is a
9:39
significant difference. And so that is
9:41
an advantage that you have here relative
9:43
to some of the competing lenses. All
9:46
told, this is a unique and interesting
9:48
package and certainly for a price of
9:51
under $500, it feels like a lot of lens
9:54
and a good value for money. So let's
9:56
talk autofocus. LAA isn't specific as to
10:00
what type of focus motor they're using
10:02
in their newer autofocus lenses. I
10:04
suspect it is some type of STM focus
10:07
motor or stepping motor just from the
10:09
overall performance of the lens and the
10:11
way that it feels. In this case, the
10:13
pros include the fact that the autofocus
10:15
motor is smooth. It feels refined. It's
10:17
very quiet in operation. I was able to
10:20
focus with precision even on fine or
10:23
narrow subjects and it had no problem
10:26
locking on with accuracy in that. As you
10:28
can see here, autofocus speed is average
10:32
at best. This is a long focal length and
10:35
it feels like there could be a little
10:38
bit more thrust in the focus motor, but
10:40
you're able to get back and forth at
10:43
moderate speeds. However, if you're
10:44
making smaller, more typical focus type
10:47
adjustments, it's fine. Uh, I found, for
10:49
example, when Nala was rolling around, I
10:52
was able to shoot and capture her with
10:54
precision as she moved around. No
10:56
problem with that. However, if you're
10:59
tracking something that's moving more
11:01
quickly, more persistently, I suspect
11:04
that there are better options for that.
11:06
However, I think the most useful thing
11:08
here is that this is a lens that
11:10
actually has really beautiful rendering
11:11
and it's a nice long focal length. It
11:13
could be very useful also as a portrait
11:16
type lens. And having autofocus for that
11:19
makes a world of difference. I actually
11:21
really like the optics of the IRX 150mm
11:24
f/2.8. It's a lens that came out now
11:26
probably seven or so years ago, but
11:30
unfortunately it was limited by the fact
11:31
that it was only manual focus. And so
11:34
when even though it had beautiful
11:35
optics, when you tried to use it for
11:37
portrait work, it was a bit
11:38
disappointing there because it was hard
11:40
to nail focus and shoot with precision.
11:43
In this case, having autofocus makes a
11:45
huge difference. And so I think again,
11:46
if you're realistic about the kind of
11:48
subjects you're trying to track, not
11:50
sports, not something moving quickly, I
11:52
think you're going to do just fine. and
11:54
having autofocus outside of the macro
11:56
range very very useful. And of course
11:58
within the macrotype range in most cases
12:01
having manual focus is preferable
12:03
anyway. So in some ways we've got the
12:05
best of both worlds here. So how about
12:08
video AF? Now obviously again you're not
12:11
going to have any kind of autofocus in
12:13
the macro range and so any kind of work
12:16
you do for video in the macro range
12:18
you're going to be manually focusing.
12:19
However, for other kinds of situations,
12:21
you will have the ability to use
12:22
autofocus. As you can see here, focus
12:25
pools, they are uh they're nicely damped
12:29
overall. You can see, however, some
12:31
visible steps there as it moves towards
12:34
refining focus. So, I definitely have
12:36
seen better applications. Again, this is
12:39
a long focal length and so that means
12:41
that there are some extra demands on the
12:43
autofocus system and I'm not sure that
12:45
it's able to fully maximize when it
12:47
comes to that. At the same time, I also
12:49
found that for such a long focal length,
12:51
focus breathing is pretty well
12:53
controlled. And so that does add some
12:55
value to the lens that if you are
12:57
affecting focus pools, you're not going
12:58
to get that kind of dramatic movement
13:00
back and forth. And I felt overall that
13:02
my hand test it went reasonably well
13:05
moving from my hand to my eye and back
13:07
and forth. This isn't the most reactive
13:09
focus motor here. And so if you're uh
13:11
trying to, you know, do quick uh
13:14
movements in and out, it's not
13:15
necessarily going to react super well to
13:17
that. But if you're looking for
13:19
stability, and as you've been able to
13:20
see in these outdoor shots, it has no
13:22
problem in not only uh focusing
13:25
accurately on myself as the subject
13:27
here, but also you can see from the
13:29
overall rendering that this is a lens
13:31
that is able to produce some unique and
13:34
beautiful looking video shots. And so
13:36
again, as I said in the earlier
13:39
autofocus section, I think this is all
13:41
about managing your expectations. And if
13:43
you have realistic expectations, you're
13:45
probably going to be happy with the
13:46
outcome. So, let's talk optical
13:48
performance. Macro lenses tend to need
13:50
to be extremely sharp because when
13:52
you're shooting those very fine details
13:55
in macro work, it really comes down to
13:57
being able to resolve those fine
13:59
details. This is a lens design of 12
14:02
elements in nine groups. Two of those
14:04
are extra low dispersion elements. One
14:06
of those is an ultra high refractive
14:08
index element. The MTF shows a very
14:12
consistent, you know, fairly flat
14:14
sharpness profile across the frame.
14:16
Though, as you get closer towards the
14:18
edge, there's more of an aigmatism as
14:20
you see the sagul and meridian lines
14:22
kind of diverge from each other there
14:24
towards the end. So, you're going to get
14:25
better contrast in the center of the
14:27
frame and less a stigmatism and a little
14:29
bit more out towards the edge of the
14:30
frame. It one of the things that really
14:33
stood out to me when I was shooting at
14:34
minimum focus distance is that it does
14:36
have a very flat plane of focus. So,
14:38
that's really excellent in that uh
14:40
particularly if you're wanting to do
14:41
something like reproduction of pages or
14:44
other two-dimensional objects, uh it's
14:46
going to be very useful for that. So,
14:48
that's great. Uh it has basically no
14:51
distortion, no measurable distortion
14:52
that I could find at all. And vignette
14:54
is actually for being such a slim lens,
14:57
vignette is actually well controlled,
14:59
just a plus 44 to correct for it. expect
15:02
that to be higher on Nikon Zmount and I
15:05
think probably having a maximum aperture
15:06
of just f4.5
15:08
is going to help with that. There is an
15:12
overall look to apochromatic designs and
15:15
this is an APO or apochromatic design.
15:18
What I find is that I feel like apo
15:20
lenses tend to produce images that just
15:22
need less processing. There's there's a
15:24
nice looking pop to them right out of
15:26
camera. color saturation and kind of
15:28
color rendering is unique for APO lenses
15:30
and I appreciate that. You'll also see
15:32
it when you are testing for longitudinal
15:35
style chromatic aberrations. They're
15:37
just not there. And that's really great
15:38
for macro work. Means you're going to
15:40
eliminate a lot of the fringing on shiny
15:42
uh edges and things like that. There is
15:46
some lateral chromatic aberration and I
15:48
noticed that mostly on my test chart. I
15:50
didn't notice so much in the real world
15:52
and so probably not too much of a real
15:55
problem, but there is a bit of that
15:56
lateral style fringing there. It could
15:58
be a factor in some specific
16:00
applications. What I found when I begin
16:03
to test for contrast and resolution, and
16:05
this is on a 61 megapixel Sony A7R Mark
16:08
5, crops that I'll show you will be at
16:10
200% level of magnification. What I
16:13
found is that above all is consistency.
16:16
the center, mid-frame, and corners are
16:19
all fairly consistent with each other. A
16:21
little bit less contrast as you get out
16:23
towards the edge of the frame. And of
16:25
course, you get towards the edge of the
16:26
frame, there is a little bit more of
16:27
that lateral style chromatic aberration
16:29
that shows up, at least on my test
16:31
chart. It is not radically sharp at any
16:34
point. However, uh there is a little bit
16:36
more contrast as you stop down to f5.6
16:39
and a hair more at f8, though you'd be
16:41
hardressed to see the difference between
16:43
f5.6 and f8. I wasn't surprised to find
16:47
that when I went back and compared to my
16:49
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which has
16:52
become kind of my daily driver for macro
16:54
work, uh the Tamron is definitely the
16:56
sharper and higher contrast of the two
16:58
lenses. Though 90 millimeters is
17:00
literally half of 180 millimeters. So I
17:03
don't know that the two focal lengths
17:04
are really comparable. defraction is
17:07
going to show up around f11 and become
17:11
very pronounced by f-22 which is the
17:14
minimum aperture. I would say that my
17:16
assessment when shooting macro uh and
17:19
that was you know using all of careful
17:20
techniques is that I didn't find that I
17:23
was blown away by the level of
17:24
sharpness. I would call it good but not
17:26
great. I certainly have seen sharper
17:28
macro lenses and sharper macro lenses
17:31
from LA including my most recent one
17:33
that I owned of theirs was the 90mm f2.8
17:35
8 two times macro which manual focus
17:38
only so that had some limiting
17:40
principles to it. However, it was an
17:42
extremely sharp high contrast lens. This
17:45
is a little bit less so I would say and
17:47
it could be just the nature of that
17:48
focal length as well. What I did find
17:51
exceptionally good was the bokeh
17:53
quality. Something about this longer
17:55
focal length and the amount of
17:56
compression you have on shots allowed
17:58
for I think images just to have a really
18:01
nice look and rendering to them. And I
18:03
also noticed that the foreground bokeh
18:05
was really nice. It's nice and softly
18:07
defocused and it's really a good lens
18:10
for doing layering type shots where you
18:11
have a foreground uh defocused area,
18:14
background defocused area, and then a
18:15
sharp plane of focus uh in between those
18:17
two. All of that looked really really
18:19
good. I also found that colors looked
18:22
really really rich. Um like I said, APO
18:25
images are special and I I considered a
18:27
lot of images on a global level to look
18:29
really special from this lens.
18:32
I was less impressed when it came to
18:33
flare resistance. Not only is there a
18:35
bit of veiling or loss of contrast at at
18:38
wide apertures and a little bit of
18:40
ghosting there, but and then there's a
18:43
little bit more ghosting, better
18:44
contrast, but more ghosting when you're
18:46
stopped down. But what I really notice
18:48
is that if the bright light source is
18:49
right out of the frame, you've got very
18:51
pronounced flaring and flashing that is
18:54
taking place as you can see as I pan
18:56
back and forth. And so just this is not
18:58
a lens that you want to point at the
19:00
sun. Fortunately, 180 millimeters,
19:02
that's a longer focal length. You're
19:03
probably going to be able to avoid that.
19:04
And for this shot, for example, where I
19:06
had a less bright light at the end of
19:09
the Bible with the ring in it. Kind of a
19:10
classic shot there. Uh that it was fine.
19:14
There was no um no issues with flaring
19:16
for that. But certainly with something
19:17
brighter like sun or spotlights, stay
19:20
away from that. Overall, I would say
19:22
that the optical performance is is has a
19:25
lot of real strength. It's just not
19:26
quite as sharp as what I expected. So my
19:29
conclusion is that this is an
19:31
interesting lens and I think it's going
19:32
to have a market for those that have
19:34
been waiting for a longer focal length
19:37
and also to have that versatility that
19:40
this lens does offer between the higher
19:42
level of magnification and also having
19:44
autofocus for the situations where
19:47
autofocus might be more useful. I will
19:50
say on the negative side that I
19:52
certainly have seen sharper macro lenses
19:55
and sharper macro lenses even from LAA
19:57
themselves. And so if you're looking for
20:00
absolute performance, this isn't their
20:02
highest performing lens. And that may
20:04
have something to do with that focal
20:06
length in general, maybe a little bit
20:07
harder to engineer with the same kind of
20:10
sharpness that we've come to expect from
20:12
lenses like their 65, their 90, or their
20:16
100 millimeter macro lenses. At the same
20:19
time, however, this lens is sharp enough
20:21
for most people in most situations. And
20:24
so, I think that it is going to be
20:26
adequate for that performance. And at
20:29
the price point of being right under
20:30
$500, it certainly as far as
20:33
autofocusing macro lenses, this
20:35
definitely becomes a really, really
20:36
strong value proposition. Now, of
20:39
course, not everyone needs 180 mm as a
20:42
focal length. And so there are going to
20:43
be some who are going to be excluded
20:45
simply by the length of that particular
20:48
focal length. But if you are one of
20:49
those that has been waiting for
20:51
something longer to give you more
20:52
working distance for insect work or
20:54
things like that, this might be the lens
20:56
that you have been waiting for. Now, if
20:59
you want more information, you can
21:01
either take a look at my full text
21:03
review that is linked on the newly
21:06
updated and revised dustinbott.net. Take
21:08
a look at the link in the description
21:09
down below for that. There's some buying
21:11
links there as well. Or if you want a
21:13
deeper look at the optical performance,
21:15
stay tuned with me right now and we're
21:17
going to jump into that together. Okay,
21:19
starting off here, just took another
21:20
quick look at this is one one level of
21:23
magnification and this is 1.5 to one.
21:26
Just shows you you have some definite
21:27
and significant advantages in your level
21:30
of magnification when you're shooting at
21:33
1.5 times versus the one times
21:36
magnification. Now we can see here that
21:39
distortion is if there's any kind of pin
21:42
cushion distortion there it is so mild
21:44
that it's not even worth correcting.
21:46
Likewise vignette is well controlled as
21:48
well. That did require some correcting
21:50
but I was able to correct it in the plus
21:53
40 range. So no big deal there at all.
21:56
Many situations you could probably leave
21:58
that uncorrected. Now apochromatic
22:00
lenses tend to be really really
22:01
fantastic in the way that they control
22:03
color fringing. It's just the way that
22:05
all the colors are focused. You can see
22:07
here that it's basically flawless.
22:09
Nothing before or after the plane of
22:11
focused. Everything is just inky black.
22:13
So that means that even here in this SLR
22:16
that I use that while there's lots of
22:19
potential for fringing here in these
22:22
areas, you can see that there is very
22:24
very little fringing to show up there.
22:27
Nice and clean. And you know in the
22:30
plane of focus there, nice sharpness and
22:32
contrast as well. Now, while we're here,
22:34
let's take a quick look at the bokeh
22:35
geometry of specular highlights. So,
22:37
here at f4.5 than at 5.6. So, very
22:40
quickly, you're going to see the
22:41
nonagonal shape of the blades. And
22:44
that's a little bit more pronounced here
22:46
at f8. I wouldn't say that aperture iris
22:48
is perfectly symmetrical there. And so,
22:52
if you're looking for like really round
22:54
specular highlights all across the
22:56
frame, this probably isn't your lens.
22:58
And while I saw no longitudinal style
23:01
chromatic aberration, I do see some
23:03
lateral style chromatic aberration. And
23:05
you can see it particularly in this zone
23:07
here where there's some of that false
23:08
color on either side of the black and
23:10
white transitions. Now, as we look at
23:13
resolution and contrast, this is on a
23:15
Sony A7R Mark I. So 61 megapixels. This
23:19
is 200% magnification. So in the center
23:21
of the frame, uh, you know, detail and
23:23
contrast look good, but not
23:25
exceptionally good. It's there's just
23:28
not a complete precision to all of the
23:30
textures here in the mid-frame. The same
23:33
is true. Like it looks good, but it's
23:35
almost as if there's a little bit of
23:37
motion there. But I used a 5-second
23:39
delay. I was very careful. I actually
23:40
ran the test multiple times to make sure
23:42
that that was not the case. It's just
23:44
that the the optics aren't quite maybe
23:46
as crisp as what I would like. The
23:49
corner looks good. This is probably what
23:51
looks best to me relative to what most
23:53
lenses do. Uh it's it's good but it's
23:56
not exceptionally good. Uh centering
23:58
seems to be quite good here. So I'm
24:00
getting you know even performance all
24:02
across the frame but unfortunately you
24:04
can see some of that lateral style
24:05
chromatic aberration here near the
24:07
edges. So what I felt like was is that
24:10
at macro distances like here the image
24:13
globally looks good and so but at a
24:16
pixel level one one to one here you can
24:18
see that it's not flawless. There's a
24:20
little bit of fringing there, but mostly
24:22
the contrast and the detail, they just
24:24
don't really pop in the way that I would
24:27
necessarily like and certainly that I've
24:29
seen in other macro lenses. Here at a
24:32
medium distance, again, globally, it
24:34
looks great. As I punch in there, it it
24:37
looks good. Um, but it's not what I
24:40
would call exceptional either. This is
24:42
probably my favorite in that I feel like
24:45
the detail and contrast look good at
24:48
this distance. Um, and you know, very
24:50
good overall. So, I mean, this image I
24:52
think is where the maybe it looks the
24:55
best to me. Now, if we stop down to
24:57
f5.6,
24:59
which is the, you know, kind of like
25:00
full stop marker, you can see that
25:02
contrast has definitely improved here in
25:05
the mid-frame. Detail is still not
25:07
fabulous, but contrast looks better.
25:10
Likewise, here in the mid-frame, it's
25:11
looking good there. If we go up into the
25:13
corner, we can see that the corners are
25:15
looking better. However, as you stop
25:17
down, unfortunately, that lateral style
25:20
chromatic aberration becomes a little
25:22
bit more pronounced. So, testing at f5.6
25:25
allows me to put out the comparison of
25:27
the Tamron lens. And you can see here in
25:30
the middle of the frame that the Tamron
25:31
is definitely producing more detail.
25:33
You've got that more starting because
25:35
the contrast and the detail is more
25:37
significant. You look at the uh text
25:39
here, it's just clearer and more
25:42
precise. Obviously, I've changed up the
25:44
chart a bit since then. So, we'll
25:46
compare down here in the corners. You
25:48
can see in the corners again, it's
25:50
looking just a little bit stronger for
25:52
the Tamron. In this zone, it looks
25:54
really, really significantly better for
25:56
the Tamron. You can see all of the
25:57
little ink dots there. And with a lot of
26:00
precision, which you can't to the same
26:02
degree on the LA lens. Likewise, here in
26:06
this zone here, you can just see
26:08
everything looks just a little bit more,
26:10
you know, just crisp and precise there.
26:12
And so definitely everywhere where we
26:14
have the, you know, the same chart to
26:16
compare, it definitely looks better on
26:18
the Tamron, particularly in this
26:20
mid-frame or mid-range zone here. If I
26:23
stop on down to f8, we can see comparing
26:26
f5.6 and f8 in the middle, they are very
26:29
close to identical. Uh, here in the mid
26:32
zone, I would say very, very slightly
26:34
better contrast for f8. And if we look
26:38
off into the corners, we can maybe see
26:40
just a little bit extra there. Though,
26:42
as before, we get definitely can see
26:44
unfortunately some of that lateral
26:46
lateral style chromatic aberration that
26:49
is just a little bit even more
26:50
pronounced here at f8. Now, at f11,
26:53
you'll start to see a little bit of
26:54
softening due to defraction. But by
26:56
f-22, it's pretty surprising actually
26:58
how much defraction has softened the
27:00
image. You're probably going to want to
27:02
avoid that. Now, here at minimum focus
27:05
distance, I love the fact that the plan
27:07
of focus is nice and flat. So, that's
27:09
really great. Looking again here at a
27:12
pixel level, you know, it's it's again,
27:14
it's as we've seen, it's good, but it's
27:16
not exceptionally good. And so, you
27:18
know, just the amount of detail that's
27:19
there, you're not really seeing kind of
27:21
the weave of the fabric in the same way.
27:24
And so, anyway, um, you know, again,
27:26
good, not great. Likewise here, this
27:28
looks good to me. Good detail, good
27:30
contrast there. the background of course
27:32
you can really really compress. So the
27:34
bokeh quality at close focus distance is
27:37
going to be fantastic because you have
27:39
such a long focal length but it's this
27:41
shot I think that's one of my favorites.
27:43
I feel like just the overall rendering
27:46
looks really nice. I like the longer
27:48
focal length for this kind of shot. And
27:50
while again the detail isn't like
27:52
blowing my mind, it looks good. Just the
27:55
whole image to me is very very pleasing.
27:57
Likewise here, this is a handheld macro
28:00
and um at f8, you know, at its best, you
28:02
can see the fine details that are there.
28:05
And so I appreciate all of that.
28:06
Certainly a usable image. Likewise, in
28:09
this shot, if we go into the focus area,
28:11
which is on the diamonds here, you know,
28:14
again, good, but not like exceptionally
28:17
good in terms of just rendering the fine
28:19
details, but the image at large, I
28:21
think, looks really nice. Finally, as
28:24
we've already noted, flare resistance is
28:26
not a strength for this lens. So, with a
28:28
static image here, you can see a little
28:30
bit of veiling and ghosting stopping
28:32
down that that ghosting pattern becomes
28:35
more pronounced, even though the
28:37
contrast is improved. But, it's these
28:39
big flashes like this that are really
28:41
the greatest weakness there. And so, I
28:44
certainly would avoid pointing this
28:45
towards bright light sources. So, as
28:47
always, thanks for sticking around to
28:49
the very end. And I hope that that deep
28:50
dive into the optics has helped you to
28:52
decide whether or not this is the lens
28:54
for you. As always, thanks for watching.
28:56
Have a great day and let the light in.
28:59
[Music]