svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ2MicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - A Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro gets a mention [CR1]

    A Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro gets a mention [CR1]

    By Updated:166 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    Share.

    Related Posts

    166 comments

    2. Bring it on! I love macro, but especially now I have more time at home. The RF35mm macro is ok, but this would be with me all the time, especially if it also has a focus limiter so I can use it on the street from a distance too.
    5. F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?
      It's called progress. If you only need f/2.8 just buy the EF lens for way cheaper.
      Olympus did make a Zuiko 90mm f2 macro lens for the OM-system and it is fabulous for portraits as well.
      It becomes more versatile, focuses better in dim conditions, etc.
    6. I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).

      I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.
    7. F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?
      I have seen so many people use the EF 2.8L as their primary portrait lens. It's stabilized, super sharp, great focal length for portraits, and it's affordable. It's an amazing all around lens and people buy it that wouldn't otherwise spend that much on a dedicated macro lens. If Canon makes a 100mm F/2 macro that takes amazing portraits for much less than the 85mm f/1.2 and it happens to also be an amazing macro lens, its going to appeal to so many more buyers than just macro photographers.
    8. I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).

      I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.
      Makes sense, but for venomous snakes I like the bit of extra reach. However, more than 100mm is too much because the DOF becomes thinner.
      I prefer a Canon RF version of the Laowa 100mm 2:1 macro. That means with Canon weather sealing, autofocus, auto-aperture, IS, coatings and sharpness. For macro photographers having a 2x magnification is way more useful than a F2 aperture. Besides that I don’t want the extra weight that comes with F2.
      Additionally a RF 50mm/60mm macro L would be perfect for situations where more work room and DOF is needed.
    11. Enough with the IS, enough with the macro. Just announce a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2.2, and 24/2.8 that prioritize compactness over everything else, with image quality second, and then we can start carrying our R's around 24/7 in our backpacks. The jokey 35/1.8IS Macro is too big to have with you constantly. Leica's made 35/1.4's half that size.
      I have and use the Summilux 35 asph a lot.
      But its size cannot be compared to a 35 mm with AF, IS and other electronics inside (diaphragm, control ring etc...).
      Yet, I'm also hoping for compact, lightweight high quality RF lenses.
    12. F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?
      Because macro is not the sole purpose of the lens. Easy to stop down. I’d imagine there are people who’d appreciate being able to also use it for portraits. The wide aperture capability makes it more versatile.
    13. Now we just need a Helicon extension tube type attachment that does automatic focus stacking. If there are EOS R options out there let me know. This lens and the R5 will definitely expedite my move to the R system. I have been doing more macro work lately and as mentioned the EF is a great lens already. I also use it for walking around when that focal length works. It is light, snappy and very sharp. A f2 version would be welcome and would be great for portraits as well.

      Bob
    14. Finally, a lens that I would use on a daily basis but I'm sure that it'd be twice the price of the EF version. The F2 would make for a brighter viewfinder and also produce beautiful closeup and portrait images.
    17. Finally, a lens that I would use on a daily basis but I'm sure that it'd be twice the price of the EF version. The F2 would make for a brighter viewfinder and also produce beautiful closeup and portrait images.
      It's an electronic viewfinder, it won't become any brighter as long as there is enough gain on the sensor to sustain it (but it will be less noisy in dim light).
    18. And how big is the FF sensor compared to FT/mFT?
      This would mean a different behaviour in crop factor and light gathering.
      So a Zuiko 90mm f2 macro would be better to compare with a 180mm f/3.5L Macro, wouldn't it?
      It was a full-frame lens for the film cameras, maybe you could have looked it up...

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment