2x Macro at Half the Price: Fstoppers Reviews Laowa’s 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens

2x Macro at Half the Price: Fstoppers Reviews Laowa’s 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens

If you’re looking to get into macro photography, the first party lens options can seem too expensive for a lens with a more niche use, particularly on the latest Z and R mounts. Laowa, however, has a very promising 100mm lens that even exceeds those other 100mm options in one notable way. hould it be the lens you choose when shooting up close?

The Lens

I’ve always enjoyed reviewing Laowa’s lenses, as they certainly offer something unique compared to many other third party lens makers, who seem to just imitate the typical lenses that are already on the market. If you’ve not heard of Laowa before, you might still have seen one of their more unique lenses, the wild looking 24mm f/14 probe lens. While some of their other lenses are a bit tamer, it still seems that their philosophy is to create optics that are unique to the market, or at least bring a unique feature set to a traditional focal length.

In the case of the 100mm f/2.8, this lens is more towards the “unique feature set” end of the spectrum. All the major brands offer a 100mm macro lens, with both Canon and Nikon having DSLR mount and mirrorless versions of the lens, and Sony offering an A mount and E Mount version. What sets Laowa’s version apart is the ability to go to 2:1. Translated from macro terms, this means that something can be represented on the sensor twice the size it is in real life. As a result, you can get incredibly close to your subject, and represent it with a ton of detail — no cropping required.

Additionally, this lens is designated as apochromatic. An apochromatic lens is designed to converge the different wavelengths of light (read: different colors) onto the same point. That should translate to reduced color fringing and visual artifacts, which can be particularly helpful when shooting focus stacks, high contrast subjects, or when reproducing art and text.

The body of the lens is metal, and it’s quite long. The version I tested was set up for the Z mount. There aren’t significant differences beyond the mounts between the different versions, although one Canon model does come with the ability to pass aperture information to the camera. The lens is roughly in line with the size and weight of other 100mm macro lenses, although mirrorless-native versions may have a slight edge when compared to adapted EF or F mount lenses. The construction and engraving are of good quality, and the focus ring is quite generous, a big plus for a manual focus and macro-oriented lens.

The Performance

In use, the Laowa 100mm is competitive with other 100mm macro lenses. At 1:1, I found that it matched the performance of my F mount 105mm macro, and was somewhat behind the Z mount 105mm. Of course, neither of those can do 2:1, so if you need that degree of magnification, this lens would have superior performance over cropping an alternate lens or using a diopter filter.

Sharpness is very good, with performance being consistent across the range of focus distances. At very close distances, camera shake, focus accuracy, and occluding the light on the subject are all going to be more of a limiting factor than the actual sharpness of the lens itself.

Vignetting isn’t a major problem. It can be slightly more prominent at very close distances and very wide apertures. Even still, it can be corrected quite easily, although you’ll have to do this manually, as the lens doesn’t pass aperture or focus distance information to the camera.

Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled, as the APO designation would indicate. Even at f/2.8 (marked) and at 1:1, there’s basically no chromatic artifacting, even at 45 megapixels. That’s really nice to see, as I find CA to be particularly problematic with many macro subjects. Whether you’re shooting product photos on a seamless backdrop, or just have to accurately reproduce colors and edges, this feature is very nice to see, especially at the price point.

Manual focus is easy, thanks to the large ring. The rate of change in focus distance may be the only issue. For some applications, like studio work, a greater degree of precision may be preferred, while field use may require a quicker shift between focus distances. In combination with focus peaking, I didn’t have an issue finding focus, although I did end up with a few more missed shots compared to the Z 105mm.

For focus stacking, a common macro practice, this lens is a good option. Between being apochromatic and exhibiting little focus breathing, it’s quite easy to stack the resulting images. One downside is the lack of autofocus, as I’ve really grown to enjoy the automated focus stacking available with AF lenses on the Z bodies. Still, focus stacking performance overall is quite good, and is almost a necessity at 2:1, as the depth of field is incredibly slim, even stopped down.


The Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X macro lens is a very interesting value proposition. Compared to the 1st party macro options, it offers dedicated macro photographers a lot of performance at a good value. If you’re looking to shoot true macro, or go beyond 1:1, this lens is a great option. For those a little less dedicated to macro, one of the 1st party lenses might be a better option, even at the higher price. Without autofocus, this lens is less able to serve dual purposes as a portrait lens or short tele, and the slower speed of operation with manual aperture and focus control is more of a problem.

On the image quality front, the lens performs very well, especially for the price point. At 45mp, it held up well, with little chromatic aberration — the APO designation isn’t just pure marketing. Nailing focus will be a bigger factor in image quality than the actual sharpness of the lens, as at near macro distances, depth of field can be very unforgiving. There was some vignetting at f/2.8, but it corrects easily and is drastically reduced when stopping down. If I hadn't already picked up the Z 105mm, I'd strongly consider this lens. If you don't already have a macro lens, I'd recommend this lens over a 50 or 60mm macro option. The performance, capabilities, and skill ceiling is just much better, making this a lens you won't outgrow nearly as fast when learning macro photography.

What I Liked

  • Strong price to performance ratio
  • 2:1 macro ability is unique
  • Good quality construction

What Could be Improved

  • Autofocus would make this lens more versatile
  • Focus throw speed may be too fast or too slow for some applications
Alex Coleman's picture

Alex Coleman is a travel and landscape photographer. He teaches workshops in the American Southwest, with an emphasis on blending the artistic and technical sides of photography.

Log in or register to post comments

I much prefer manual focusing for macro applications, I am glad they didn't include autofocus which would have driven the cost up.

I recently bought my first macro lens, the Sigma 105mm in a Canon EF mount. The lens is a high quality piece of gear, but I am a bit disappointed in only having the ability to go 1:1 magnification.

Every time that I use it at minimum focus distance, I want to go even closer, but can't. I've added my extension tube and put my 1.4 teleconvertor on it, but still can't fill the frame the way I'd like with small details.

I think that this "bargain" lens may have been a better choice for me, due to its ability to magnify at a 2:1 ratio. That would come much closer to producing the kinds of images that I intended to take when I first got into this macro stuff.

2:1 is definitely nice. Just FYI, if you’re shooting Canon, the Canon MPE 65mm and Laowa 25mm will both offer greater than 2:1 magnification, and might be a nice addition to your kit.

Thank you for that very interesting and useful information! I am especially interested in wide angle macro, so the 25 mm lens that does even greater than 2:1 magnification would be great for some of the images I want to make of tiny little amphibians such as the Spadefoot Toads and various salamanders.

Happy to help! Along the same lines of wide macro, Venus also makes a 15mm 1:1 macro, which I found to be a very interesting look.

Tom, use your 800mm to do "macro." I do it with my 600mm. It's a bit harder to hit the correct focus point on tiny critters, but you can capture some unique images when you nail it. I use this setup for lizards and spiders up in trees.

Unfortunately, with a minimum focus distance of 20 feet, my 800mm lens is completely and utterly incapable of doing anything even close to macro. Long focal lengths are NOT the answer to filling the frame with small objects, as I have learned after years of experience, they just aren't capable of this type of work because their long MFDs keep them from ever getting anywhere close to 1:1. And yes, of course, macro work is all about the magnification ratio.

That sucks. My min focus is 8 ft. That gives me 1:1 or better. There is some focus breathing in close. The biggest problem with using it as a "macro" is all the stuff that gets between the subject and the lens. It's nothing like shoving the lens right on top of the subject. However, it's better than being bit or stung.

600mm at 8 feet doesn't come anywhere close to 1:1. I'd say that's more like 1:3 or 1:4. Not even in the same stratosphere as a true macro lens. Again, focal length really has nothing to do with it.

I used to shoot my 400mm f2.8 with the 2x converter on it for a focal length of 800mm, at MFD of 10 feet. Although it could produce some nice "close up" photos, it wasn't capable of anything near actual macro work.

You really need to stop thinking that long supertelephotos are some kind of answer to macro, because they are not, and they don't even come close to what an actual macro lens can do. A 65mm macro lens will blow a 600mm or 800mm away when it comes to actual close up ability.

I might be thinking of having my 2x converter attached. I just know that the spiders fill up my viewfinder. Also, trust me. When taking pictures of spiders that can eat small birds and have necrotizing venom for human flesh, you'll think your zoom is the answer. But, I've never done a side by side comparison with my zoom and my macro. If I remember, I'll try it this weekend... but not with spiders.

Cobras are another animal where I recommend a zoom over a macro.

I prefer to use an actual macro lens and get real close, even with dangerous/deadly critters ... such as this Sidewinder Rattlesnake. Just 2 inches from his head with my 105mm macro lens!

The 800mm with the 2x on it just doesn't give comparable results. That's right - 1600mm focal length with an extension tube still won't get you anywhere near as close up a shot as an actual 100mm marco lens.

I've used this lens for only a couple of weeks and I'm very satisfied with it's performance and especially it's sharpness and image quality.

We bought this lens as an addition to EF100L. After a few months, it became our prime macro lens. I'd say the issue of autofocus is not that relevant, since usually, you work on manual while macro shooting. The 2:1 - possible but for limited applications - you have to get really close to the subject. The Laowa does much, much better than the Canon, as far as chromatic aberration is concerned. There's almost zero. It is also pretty sharp. Highly recommended, although I would not start with it as the first macro lens.

Chinese though. Supporting a Chinese company is supporting the Chinese government and their atrocities. Also their intellectual property theft is a problem. Is Venus/Laowa part of that?

yes it is. We support them on treacherous purpose. Swear you have no Chinese items in your possession.

I avoid it when possible. Your flippancy is ignoring a vicious human rights record.