Magnification is not a good metric to use.
The web site claims 800 nm resolution, which is reasonable.
But magnified 2,000 times, that 800 nm is 1.6 millimeters, which is a little large for a pixel.
To calculate the numerical aperture of the lens, we take 1.22 times the wavelength of the light we are using (we'll use 500 nm for green) and divide by the resolution.
We get 0.7625.
A decent 40x objective lens has a numerical aperture of about 0.65, and a nice 60x objective has a numerical aperture of 0.85, so this lens lies somewhere in-between, so it is a pretty nice lens.
I am assuming that the folding microscope does not have a substage condenser, which would double the resolution, so the lens would only need to be half as good. A compound microscope with a cheap 20x objective (0.40 numerical aperture) and a matching substage condenser would have slightly better resolution (
762.5 nm). That microscope would generally use a 10x eyepiece, giving a magnification of 200x. Printed on paper, that would be 166 pixels per inch, which is still quite a bit of "empty magnification".