Laowa to Announce AF 180mm F4.5 Macro 1.5X for EF and RF

[P-visie]

I don't think that's how the listed magnification works I read it as "At MFD, you are now at 1.4:1, not 1:1", like the RF100L. Not that there's a 1.4x extender builtin.

Yes, the rumor is that the Laowa 180mm has a “14.8cm minimum working distance”. I guess that means distance from the front of the lens to the subject. The MFD of the EF 180mm is 48 cm, for 1:1 reproduction ratio.

 

[SteB1]

I thought the announcement was supposed to be today, Monday 15 September. But so far and it's nearly 10:30pm BST in the UK, and so far I can see no announcement.

 

[Jethro]

It's up now on the Australian website:

Laowa 180mm f/4.5 1.5X Ultra Macro APO

1.5X Ultra Macro Magnification Compact & Lightweight Design APO Design Outstanding Sharpness Durable, Well-built Lens Housing Autofocus Function (Sony E, Nikon Z, Canon EF)

laowa.com.au

AUD939 (plus $20 delivery to me, and including 10% GST). Pretty good price.

 

[SteB1]

It's up now on the Australian website:

Laowa 180mm f/4.5 1.5X Ultra Macro APO

1.5X Ultra Macro Magnification Compact & Lightweight Design APO Design Outstanding Sharpness Durable, Well-built Lens Housing Autofocus Function (Sony E, Nikon Z, Canon EF)

laowa.com.au

AUD939 (plus $20 delivery to me, and including 10% GST). Pretty good price.

Thank you. I found the page, on the Australian website, but when I tried to access the Laowa website, from the UK, at the top of the page it has 180mm f4.5 1.5x Ultra Macro APO, but when you click on the link, you get a 404 message, page not found error.

 

[SteB1]

I saw a Dustin Abbot review of this lens on YouTube, which suddenly disappeared and said private. I guess he posted the review too early. Generally, the review was positive, showing the AF working, it was on Sony E mount. To engage AF you just twist the focus past infinity. It isn't the fastest AF, but kept up with him walking towards the camera. It as stated only works from 1.5m, not in the macro region. IQ seemed good, but he said it wasn't quite as bitingly sharp as the Laowa 90mm f2.8, but this was on a 61mp body. It was actually when I went to check back on the IQ bit, that the video change to private. I'm sure he said the weight was 520g. I'm very interested. I got a Sigma 180mm f3.5 this year in almost mint condition. For a long time the Sigma 150mm f2.8 (the old non-OS version) was my long macro lens, with the 1.4x converter - think I've had it 17 years or more. The EF version of this will suit me as I've still got a Canon 5Ds, although I have mainly switched over to RF.

As I said, I had seen the Dustin Abbot test of this lens, in a video on YouTube, that was subsequently made private. Presumably, he had posted it too early. I correctly posted that this lens actually weighs over 500g, and not the 400g, the references in this post, and linked to claim. The information on the Laowa Australian website here, says the weight is 502g (I get a 404, page missing error, when accessing the Laowa website from the UK). I suspect the difference is that the 502g weight is for the Canon EF version, whereas the version Dustin Abbot was testing was in Sony E mount, so it has the built-in adaptor, for mirrorless mounts i.e. the mirrorless mount versions will weigh more than the Canon EF version, which doesn't have the built-in extension for mirrorless mounts, and which must weigh more.

Just as a quick note here, because I don't post much on these forums, or the internet generally, that I am a long time expert on macro photography. I actually invented the type of macro flash diffusion, which is now used all around the world now, the curved, end of lens "concave diffuser" (I also invented the name, concave diffuser, and cup diffuser, which proves all the subsequent designs were derived from mine. If you don't believe me, Google SteB1 or SteB concave diffuser. Although some of the macro experts of the time who referenced me, just called me Stephen, my actual name. All the well known commercial brands of diffuser, are based on my original principles. I gave the idea to a well known Malaysian macro photographer, who credits me, and Malaysian macro photographers started copying the method and building their own designs. Brendan of Cygnustech, admits he got the idea from diffusers he saw being used in Malaysia. It make sound obvious now, but until I put a curved diffuser on the end of the lens, no one had ever done that before. I invented it in 2009 (that was the first time I told anyone about it, I actually developed it in 2008. I have been doing macro photography, since the early 1980s. I'm not so active now, hence people not recognising who I am.

 

[mimbu]

Finally! An oem prepared to release in EF to get auto focus!!
Wish sigma would do the same even if some (eg UWA) were only manual focus.

Imagine the 3rd party options if all sigma’s newer lenses were in EF - it would remove all the arguments about range and lower cost of lenses. Waiting for canon to bless RF autofocus is an impediment to sigma sales

Users on other mounts shouldn't be punished with adapted lenses because Canon can't do the consumer friendly thing of allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

Besides, it's Canon. If a lot of new lenses start to be released onto EF with the intention of being adapted onto RF, they will just start blocking the lenses via firmware updates.

Canon seems to have designed RF in such a way that it cannot be legally reverse engineered, and is refusing to grant mount licenses for FF glass. Very limited options for APS-C. If a vibrant selection of 3rd party glass is important to you then RF is unfortunately not the right mount to be using.

 

[P-visie]

Dustin Abbott’s review is now available: https://dustinabbott.net/2025/09/laowa-af-180mm-f4-5-1-5x-ultra-macro-apo-review/

AF is from 1.5 meters to infinity, MFD = 30 cm for 1.5* magnification.

From the review:

Strengths:

• Versatile focus mechanism allowing both autofocus and manual for precision work.
• Apochromatic design ensures high-quality images with minimal distortions and aberrations.
• Longer focal length provides a greater working distance, ideal for certain subjects.
• Reasonably priced under $500, offering solid value for quality optics.

Weaknesses:

• Autofocus isn’t as fast or reliable, especially in macro range.
• Sharpness at macro distances could be improved compared to competitors.
• Lack of lens stabilization may be challenging for handheld macro photography.
• Flare resistance is not great, potentially affecting image quality in strong light situations.

 

[David - Sydney]

Users on other mounts shouldn't be punished with adapted lenses because Canon can't do the consumer friendly thing of allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.
Besides, it's Canon. If a lot of new lenses start to be released onto EF with the intention of being adapted onto RF, they will just start blocking the lenses via firmware updates.

Canon can't block a EF lens mount either using EF protocols or manual. The whole point was to allow transition to RF at the pace of the user. One of the reasons that I stayed with Canon as I had a good collection of L lenses and still adapt some 1st and 3rd party lenses.
Niche lenses that Canon haven't provided could have been done via current 3rd party options under EF protocols but they mostly haven't.

Canon seems to have designed RF in such a way that it cannot be legally reverse engineered, and is refusing to grant mount licenses for FF glass. Very limited options for APS-C. If a vibrant selection of 3rd party glass is important to you then RF is unfortunately not the right mount to be using.

Canon haven't been able to block 3rd party lenses with physical RF mount and manual focus. The Laowa is a good example of it.
It is quite likely that Canon would have incorporated encryption into the protocol to make reverse engineering almost impossible especially as OIS and IBIS can't be independently turned off.

Sigma/Tamron are playing the long game and will incorporate RF autofocus when Canon allows them. What is unusual is that Canon haven't nominated FF niches where they are not interested in developing new lenses and allow the 3rd parties to compete there.

I am okay with my RF lenses. My only missing one would be a RF14/1.8 if it is reasonably priced eg like the Sony one. Not sure that I would replace my EF8-15/4 if a replacement one came out.

 

[mimbu]

Canon can't block a EF lens mount either using EF protocols or manual. The whole point was to allow transition to RF at the pace of the user. One of the reasons that I stayed with Canon as I had a good collection of L lenses and still adapt some 1st and 3rd party lenses.
Niche lenses that Canon haven't provided could have been done via current 3rd party options under EF protocols but they mostly haven't.

Canon can block any lens they wish via a firmware update, either by targeting the lens itself or by making subtle changes to break compatibility without impacting EF glass. Canon was notorious for this back in the day, and it's actually what lead Sigma to bring out the "USB dock" for their EF lenses. Prior to that the only option was sending a 3rd party EF lens in for a chip swap by the manufacturer. It was a giant PITA.

Canon haven't been able to block 3rd party lenses with physical RF mount and manual focus. The Laowa is a good example of it.

Canon seems fine with entirely manual lenses on RF. It's not like most RF users are interested in such glass, I doubt Canon cares.

It is quite likely that Canon would have incorporated encryption into the protocol to make reverse engineering almost impossible especially as OIS and IBIS can't be independently turned off.

Canon is unlikely to be using particularly advanced encryption (performance & battery considerations) but it doesn't matter. Many countries (the US for example) have laws against decrypting things without permission. They could be using the easiest cypher possible and it would still be illegal to break it without permission.

Sigma/Tamron are playing the long game and will incorporate RF autofocus when Canon allows them. What is unusual is that Canon haven't nominated FF niches where they are not interested in developing new lenses and allow the 3rd parties to compete there.

Likely because there are currently no 3rd party FF lenses that Canon doesn't see as competition to a current or future RF lens. Canon is not willing to share the pie at all. They're treating their camera customers the same way they treat their inkjet printer customers when it comes to ink.

I am okay with my RF lenses. My only missing one would be a RF14/1.8 if it is reasonably priced eg like the Sony one. Not sure that I would replace my EF8-15/4 if a replacement one came out.

And now there's a Viltrox AF 14/4 out for $200. It punches way above it's weight. A 14/1.8GM it is not, but it's still an incredible option that many people will buy as a reasonably priced way to get an AF ultra-wide. It's available on E. Z is coming soon. L is coming soon. RF is never coming.

Such a tightly locked down system is anti-consumer.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon can block any lens they wish via a firmware update, either by targeting the lens itself or by making subtle changes to break compatibility without impacting EF glass. Canon was notorious for this back in the day, and it's actually what lead Sigma to bring out the "USB dock" for their EF lenses. Prior to that the only option was sending a 3rd party EF lens in for a chip swap by the manufacturer. It was a giant PITA.

Canon can't block a lens without aperture control ie a fully manual lens. They can't determine what lens it is. To the extent that having no lens at all when I played with refractography.
I don't need AF so the USB dock is a moot point for me.

Canon seems fine with entirely manual lenses on RF. It's not like most RF users are interested in such glass, I doubt Canon cares.

Canon did have a cease/desist at one point but have been ignored by the Chinese manufacturers since then.

Likely because there are currently no 3rd party FF lenses that Canon doesn't see as competition to a current or future RF lens. Canon is not willing to share the pie at all. They're treating their camera customers the same way they treat their inkjet printer customers when it comes to ink.

Canon has shared the "pie" for APS-C. Their reasons for not doing so for FF is not clear for me.
OEMs make money from ink with reduced initial capital cost. Users will buy based on their needs and ability to use 3rd party ink if they prefer.

And now there's a Viltrox AF 14/4 out for $200. It punches way above it's weight. A 14/1.8GM it is not, but it's still an incredible option that many people will buy as a reasonably priced way to get an AF ultra-wide. It's available on E. Z is coming soon. L is coming soon. RF is never coming.

I have the 8-15/4 and it has a unique ability for full fisheye circle @8mm or rectilinear fisheye @15mm. It is worth it for this but the longer exposures are a separate issue. I wouldn't use a f4 for astro in any other context. The samyang is great value and ability but still limited to f2.8

Such a tightly locked down system is anti-consumer.

Talk to Apple or any other walled ecosystem. It isn't necessarily anti-consumer but controls the end product quality at a cost. Users get to make a decision at a system level only or have multiple ecosystems if it is worth it to them.
We conveniently forget that Sony had to open their mount to enable body sales at the beginning. Metabones etc enabled Canon users to migrate. Sony has not made a decision to be "pro-consumer". L mount is the only open mount and those players knew that it was the best way to get new lenses at a reasonable cost.
The question is whether the profits are worth the potential lost sales. Only Canon will know the answer.

 

[P-visie]

Talk to Apple or any other walled ecosystem. It isn't necessarily anti-consumer but controls the end product quality at a cost. Users get to make a decision at a system level only or have multiple ecosystems if it is worth it to them.
We conveniently forget that Sony had to open their mount to enable body sales at the beginning. Metabones etc enabled Canon users to migrate. Sony has not made a decision to be "pro-consumer". L mount is the only open mount and those players knew that it was the best way to get new lenses at a reasonable cost.
The question is whether the profits are worth the potential lost sales. Only Canon will know the answer.

There is a post on Fstoppers: “The Genius of Canon's RF Mount Lens Lockdown”. From the conclusion: “In hindsight, it may have been the construction of a remarkably profitable fortress. With minimal competition for their high-margin premium glass and a comprehensive stable of budget lenses that preempted third-party alternatives, Canon transformed a widely reviled approach into one of the most successful plays of the mirrorless era. The company didn't just survive the transition from DSLR to mirrorless; they maintained strong profitability while commanding premium pricing across their lens lineup.”

Companies do what they think is best from them. That’s why Sony has licences for the E-mount and Canon and Nikon have restrictions on the Z and RF mounts.

See: https://fstoppers.com/business/genius-canons-rf-mount-lens-lockdown-711104

 

[mimbu]

Canon can't block a lens without aperture control ie a fully manual lens. They can't determine what lens it is. To the extent that having no lens at all when I played with refractography.
I don't need AF so the USB dock is a moot point for me.

I never said any different. Canon doesn't care about MF as it is a tiny, tiny slice of the market. Not even Canon is quite that greedy.

Canon did have a cease/desist at one point but have been ignored by the Chinese manufacturers since then.

Canon sent cease & desist orders to both Viltrox and Samyang. None of the 3rd party makers have been willing to make AF RF glass since then. Only Sigma and Tamron with very limited RF-S selections under license.

Canon has shared the "pie" for APS-C. Their reasons for not doing so for FF is not clear for me.

Greed. Canon has always hated 3rd party glass, they were notorious for new film cameras breaking 3rd party compatibility in the film era, and for new firmwares (and new models) doing the same in the DSLR era.

OEMs make money from ink with reduced initial capital cost. Users will buy based on their needs and ability to use 3rd party ink if they prefer.

Canon added chips to ink cartridges to enable authentication and block 3rd party ink. They aren't quite as evil about it as HP but they are plenty bad.

I have the 8-15/4 and it has a unique ability for full fisheye circle @8mm or rectilinear fisheye @15mm. It is worth it for this but the longer exposures are a separate issue. I wouldn't use a f4 for astro in any other context. The samyang is great value and ability but still limited to f2.8

If you were on E mount you could still use the EF 8-15/4 for it's unique abilities, but also lenses like the 14/1.8GM, Sigma 14/1.4 DG ART, or Sigma 15/1.4 DG ART Fisheye. Those two Sigma lenses will never be available on RF and are great astro glass. The new Sigma 135/1.4 and 200/2 as well. I suspect (but have nothing to back it up) that after releasing a 135/1.4 that Sigma will come up with a 105/1.2 which will be incredible for astro, too. None of it on RF, of course. At what point do you have to conclude that the limitations of a closed system are too great?

Talk to Apple or any other walled ecosystem. It isn't necessarily anti-consumer but controls the end product quality at a cost. Users get to make a decision at a system level only or have multiple ecosystems if it is worth it to them.

Canon isn't the only company that creates walled ecosystems, they are just by FAR the worst about it in the photography world.

We conveniently forget that Sony had to open their mount to enable body sales at the beginning. Metabones etc enabled Canon users to migrate. Sony has not made a decision to be "pro-consumer".

Sony had their own motivations but that doesn't change that it was a very consumer friendly decision. Being consumer friendly is what allowed the mount to thrive and why it is such a strong ecosystem today.

L mount is the only open mount and those players knew that it was the best way to get new lenses at a reasonable cost.

From a lens perspective, L mount is very similar to E mount. The main difference with L mount is that it's also possible to make cameras for the system while with E mount the license is only for lenses. The problem with L mount is that there is no strong camera maker on there. Panasonic has improved a lot but their AF is still around 2018 levels (A7iii) in Sony terms.

The question is whether the profits are worth the potential lost sales. Only Canon will know the answer.

Canon feels they can coast on their brand recognition and force people to buy their products. Over time that will be a failing strategy.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon sent cease & desist orders to both Viltrox and Samyang. None of the 3rd party makers have been willing to make AF RF glass since then. Only Sigma and Tamron with very limited RF-S selections under license.

As far as I know, Samyang, Viltrox and Yongnuo have FF (and RF-S) autofocus lenses for RF. I am not saying that they are good vs Sigma et al but they are happy to provide an option.

Greed. Canon has always hated 3rd party glass, they were notorious for new film cameras breaking 3rd party compatibility in the film era, and for new firmwares (and new models) doing the same in the DSLR era.... Canon feels they can coast on their brand recognition and force people to buy their products. Over time that will be a failing strategy.

What you call "greed" is companies taking their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders. They don't have to be altruistic as much as you and I would like them to be.

Canon added chips to ink cartridges to enable authentication and block 3rd party ink. They aren't quite as evil about it as HP but they are plenty bad.

Which is why I have Brother printers

If you were on E mount you could still use the EF 8-15/4 for it's unique abilities, but also lenses like the 14/1.8GM, Sigma 14/1.4 DG ART, or Sigma 15/1.4 DG ART Fisheye. Those two Sigma lenses will never be available on RF and are great astro glass. The new Sigma 135/1.4 and 200/2 as well. I suspect (but have nothing to back it up) that after releasing a 135/1.4 that Sigma will come up with a 105/1.2 which will be incredible for astro, too. None of it on RF, of course. At what point do you have to conclude that the limitations of a closed system are too great?

I have one limitation at this time which is a fast/uwa prime. This could also be a TS-E 14mm if I get an inheritance.
I did some astro last night for the full moon and used my 14/2.8 and 8-15/4.
Could they be better with a different lens... probably.
Are they sufficient for now = yes.
I expect the astrhori 6/2.8 this week for another fun option.
If I was truly serious then I would get a second astro modded A7Siii with the lenses you mention and probably a Benro Polaris... but I'm not

My signature shows the wide genres I can cover with the lenses I have. Astro is just one of them I enjoy. My setup for underwater is RF14-35/4 and RF100/2.8
The R5 was amazing when released and there are still only a couple of features that I wish it had.
My choice was to switch to Sony or migrate to RF. The latter was a simple financial choice given the number of EF L glass I had. No regrets.

Canon isn't the only company that creates walled ecosystems, they are just by FAR the worst about it in the photography world.

It hasn't done them any harm based on their market share and continuing profitability. People have been forecasting their demise for decades without it happening and despite riding the decimation of the low end from phones and a fundamental transition to mirrorless and a new mount.

Sony had their own motivations but that doesn't change that it was a very consumer friendly decision. Being consumer friendly is what allowed the mount to thrive and why it is such a strong ecosystem today.

We won't ever know if Sony's camera/lenses are profitable or not. They can leverage their sensor tech internally which is a massive advantage. Sony corporate could sell them off if they fit their corporate direction. Canon doesn't have that option. Nikon was lucky to avoid their own demise and yet are a distant 3rd now despite their good tech/lenses.

From a lens perspective, L mount is very similar to E mount. The main difference with L mount is that it's also possible to make cameras for the system while with E mount the license is only for lenses. The problem with L mount is that there is no strong camera maker on there. Panasonic has improved a lot but their AF is still around 2018 levels (A7iii) in Sony terms.

Seriously, it isn't just that there isn't a "strong" camera maker there... there just aren't many long term profitable ones besides tiny niches. Market consolidation will need to happen unless they can be efficient to survive somehow or be able to command pricing like Leica/Hasselblad.

 

[scyrene]

Canon feels they can coast on their brand recognition and force people to buy their products

Do you really think they are just coasting?

Over time that will be a failing strategy.

If it's starts to fail, they can change it. Or are they just d**med?

 

[SteB1]

I've got the Laowa 180mm f4.5 Dreamer now, in Canon EF, although it is mainly for use on RF (although I do still have some DSLRs). It all seems solidly built, and preliminary tests show the IQ to be good. However, I haven't had time to properly test it, as the weather has been pretty lousy. I tried a Raynox DCR-150 on it, as that used to work well on focal lengths of this length. It is +4.8 diopters. It gives a working distance of around 20cm at infinity, and maybe 10cm or just under at closest focusing distance. A frame width of about 45mm on FF at infinity, and approx 16mm at closest focus. On APS-C just over 30mm at infinity, and around 8.5mm at closest focus. All very approximate and not carefully measured. The reason I wanted to test this, is it could made a good all round macro, including flash and a diffuser, instead of a 100mm to 65mm macro. It's actually lighter than both the Laowa 100mm macro, and Canon 100mm lenses. In other words, you could use one lens for everything, instead of carrying more than 1 macro lens.

It's a pity the AF only goes down to 1.5m, but it's better than nothing, and not too bad at all.

However, I'm puzzled about what's happened to the 200mm f2 Dreamer. Reports a few weeks back said it would be officially released on the 1st October, but nothing so far, and it's all gone quiet.

 

[Jethro]

I've got the Laowa 180mm f4.5 Dreamer now, in Canon EF, although it is mainly for use on RF (although I do still have some DSLRs). It all seems solidly built, and preliminary tests show the IQ to be good. However, I haven't had time to properly test it, as the weather has been pretty lousy. I tried a Raynox DCR-150 on it, as that used to work well on focal lengths of this length. It is +4.8 diopters. It gives a working distance of around 20cm at infinity, and maybe 10cm or just under at closest focusing distance. A frame width of about 45mm on FF at infinity, and approx 16mm at closest focus. On APS-C just over 30mm at infinity, and around 8.5mm at closest focus. All very approximate and not carefully measured. The reason I wanted to test this, is it could made a good all round macro, including flash and a diffuser, instead of a 100mm to 65mm macro. It's actually lighter than both the Laowa 100mm macro, and Canon 100mm lenses. In other words, you could use one lens for everything, instead of carrying more than 1 macro lens.

It's a pity the AF only goes down to 1.5m, but it's better than nothing, and not too bad at all.

However, I'm puzzled about what's happened to the 200mm f2 Dreamer. Reports a few weeks back said it would be officially released on the 1st October, but nothing so far, and it's all gone quiet.

Thanks for that - please let us know your thoughts when you get a chance to test it properly!

 

[mb66energy]

I received the Laowa 180 Macro AF as EF version two weeks ago. Some first impressions here:

Why EF version?
→ AF (now for closeup/macro too, see below)
→ compatible to M50, makes a tiny tele setup (280eq 4.5 macro 1.5:1 !!!)
→ Allows filters in adapter
→ Owning mostly EF lenses

AF now with firmware 1.0.4 can be done at all distances with some restrictions:
→ There is an update from Laowa which I transferred to the lens via USB (creates a flash drive, put the .bin firmware into that drive, WAIT TILL remount, ready!)
→ This update ALLOWS AF FOR THE WHOLE RANGE _but_ with one restriction: This is activated by a long press on the lens button (3sec +) and can be deactivated. You have to set the focus to a reasonable value, then the AF can manage SOME RANGE. Maybe you have to refocus manually after changing the distance to the object at a larger scale.
Focus helpers work, the viewfinder shows if the setting is changed. Servo is supported too: Great to see that because now slight movements by me/the subject (flower in wind) can be corrected by AF!
→ AUTO STACKING works, but I have never used it before and I think you have to manage the manual prefocus, stacking interval and number of photos carefully within the limit of the AF range.

Size, weight etc:
→ The EF version is ~110 mm long (not 89mm as stated in "the internet")
→ It is thin, short, feels solid/heavy but mounted on the camera not looking at it the thing is leightweight!
→ Hood is there, can be focused with hood in retro position (if you need fast access): Great.
→ focusing is smooth, somewhere in between FD and good EF/RF lenses but free of play and direct
(There are some hints that the lens can do AF with a lens group for oo → 1.5m and limited ranges in macro AF mode, so manual is done mechanically the old way and AF is the icing on the cake).
→ Markings for distance are contrasty but small, marking for alignment with camera and hood are ... RF standard: poorly visible under slightly dimmer conditions.
→ Activating AF by turning the lens to infinity + 5mm or pressing the button for 3 seconds (close range AF) is different but the different overall feel of the lens helps to connect it to this special tool.

Optics (last but not least):
→ Overall image quality looks pretty good after first steps to get some experience with the lens. It is sharp, contrasty but doesn't produce clinical sharpness - it just renders textures so you can feel them by looking at the image. (RP, 28MP, FF & R50 V, 24MP, APS-C equiv to ~60 MP on FF)
→ Bokeh is good at infinity to close ranges. Near 1:1 it looks a little bit more shaped for highlights but it is no problem.
→ There seems to be a slight portion of lateral chromatic aberrations but longitudinal aberrations seem very well corrected.
→ Sharpness at close focus/macro is really great and natural. The good LOCA correction shows metallic (Fe, Al - Au is too expensive ...) surfaces under white light as black and white - no color rims or so.
→ All lens aberrations are corrected well in the lens - so no reliance on correction firmware/code for cameras/software

A good technical test of this lens is available at OpticalLimits:
https://opticallimits.com/nikon/nikon-z/laowa-af-180mm-f-4-5-apo-ultra-macro/

 

[MSH411]

Test shot with the R5 - Laowa 180mm f18 @ 1/200 ISO 200
Hand Held - Manual focus