Click said:

Great shots! I especially like the first one. Well done, Sir!

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

EOS 4 Life said:

I see it as between the RF 85 f/1.2 and RF 135 f/1.8.
Although it would really just be part of a set of f/1.4 VCM lenses.
There is no 135 f/1.4 VCM.

Click to expand...

I guess 85 1.2 v 85 1.4 being the reference will depend on price, if this 100 1.4 will indeed be announced. With the 135 there's only one so what else I can compare it to?
In any case I do not care much about classifications in this case. My point was that for me, functionally, I do not see the appeal of such lens given the already existing ones

Great shots, danfaz.

Great shots! I especially like the first one. Well done, Sir!

EOS 4 Life said:

It could just be the weight of the lens.
That is not at all a factor in the CIPA test.
Robots do not get tired.

Click to expand...

Lol, seriously? The weight of the 28-70/2 accounts for @riker’s experience that the combo with the R5II appeared to have no stabilization? You’ve gone out to left field on this one.

EOS 4 Life said:

My point is just that the results will be different.
They will also differ between people.
That is why they use robots to get a consistent number.

Click to expand...

So you assume that while the IBIS can compensate for more movement at certain focal lengths durring testing, the opposite is true when the lens is handheld in real world scenarios?

blackcoffee17 said:

A long macro is much better for moving subjects like insects and animals.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, busy week.

When I first started macro I thought the same. The more I learnt the more I realised that getting close is not about big lenses, but more about knowing your subject. I only shoot live subjects, in situ and almost always handheld. With time and effort it is much easier to work with subjects when they are working with you than to chase them around with a longer lens. Butterflies, dragons, bees, wasps, ants etc all have situation where they can be approached and will be still or as good as. The only exceptions are insects in flight when a longer lens can help. Even there options can be available with some. Dangerous subjects are a bit different, I would certainly not be shooting a rattlesnake with a 60mm macro.

My only experience with 100mm is a 105mm Takumar... which = no experience with 100 mm. However, I think I prefer 105mm over 85mm for portraits.

As much as I think I'd like the whole series of VCM primes, I'll try to assemble a zoom trio instead. RF 10-20, 28-70, and non-existent 70-135.

While that may all just be a dream, the 28-70 is for sure.

Ph0t0 said:

And people get less tired when using OIS instead IBIS?
Or does OIS just work better when you are tired than IBIS?

Click to expand...

My point is just that the results will be different.
They will also differ between people.
That is why they use robots to get a consistent number.

David - Sydney said:

What would be the use cases for 100/1.4 @f1.4 vs say a f2.8 like the current RF100 macro?

For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?

Click to expand...

Lowlight, astro, indoor sports, and blurring out backgrounds.
Sigma has had a 100 f/1.4 for a long time, and recently introduced a 135 f/1.4.

P-visie said:

A RF 200mm f4 macro lens would be great for my "needs". Support for the EF 180mm macro ends in 2027 so if Canon releases this lens somewhere between now and 12 months ....

Click to expand...

P-visie said:

A RF 200mm f4 macro lens would be great for my "needs". Support for the EF 180mm macro ends in 2027 so if Canon releases this lens somewhere between now and 12 months .....

Click to expand...

I still use my FD 200m f4 macto, close up macto are very hard as is and AF may not be practically helpful. On the other hand, I use my EF 100-400 as "macro" for the 400mm in 1m is very close to 1:1 (sort of macro) and although the AF is struggling at times, the results are pretty good.

I remember that in a distant past (my youth!), Zeiss sold to Rollei and some others so-called Loupe lenses for high-magnification macros. What have they become?

jim said:

I use the MP-E 65 and the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 macro on an R7 for moth photography. Both have their advantages/disadvantages but I'm tired of swapping lenses (often in the dark) and the absurd working distances.

Click to expand...

It doesn't help with the working distance, but I found the MP-E more practical with full frame. Then the 1:1 covers much larger selection of moths and the 5:1 doesn't go too deeply into diffraction territory (pixel size). As for the 35 ... get the 60! At least my 35 wasn't really good near 1:1.

I'd likely prefer something like 1:2 ... 3:1 on full frame. That would cover pretty much everything I shoot in macro. Then for those that want even smaller critters, another 2:1 ... 6:1.

Canon Rumors said:

I'll say from the top that this information comes from an anonymous source, but I'm told that a new macro lens longer than 100mm is planned. The source claims that it would would have multiple magnification ratios. Canon has made macro lenses that are longer than 100mm. The last one being the EF 180mm f/3.5L […]

See full article.

Click to expand...

sanj said:

I would love to see great hand held macro insect shots. Anyone here done that? Thx EDIT: Alive, active insects...

Click to expand...

I’m a macro photographer and something that can autofocus at 5x mag would be VERY desirable to me! Focus bracketing slime molds for example. At the moment I use a 100mm macro, with a set of ext tubes and a Raynox to get enough magnification for slimes.

@ISv I trained this one to pose for me


A surly looking sub-adult Bald Eagle

Today I captured a rather sinister looking sub-adult Bald Eagle and an adult Bald Eagle. They were only two trees away from each other.

danfaz said:

Annoying when they do stuff like that!
Still a nice photo!

Click to expand...

Thanks!
"Annoying when they do stuff like that!" - they are not trained models and exactly that is doing the game even more interesting!

ISv said:

Today when I was totally disappointed this male Northern Cardinal landed in front of me! I wish it didn't land on that yellow chain (plastic?) but it landed there...View attachment 228291

Click to expand...

Annoying when they do stuff like that!
Still a nice photo!

What would be the use cases for 100/1.4 @f1.4 vs say a f2.8 like the current RF100 macro?

For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?

sanj said:

IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod.

Click to expand...

IYHO that may be correct as some think that their use case is the only "serious" use case for a lens/genre.
since we are sharing shots of handheld macro... some cropping but pretty small critters
Nailing the focus at f2.8 of the blue dragon was tough!

Nice photos. Thanks for sharing. Makes me reconsider my statement.

Today when I was totally disappointed this male Northern Cardinal landed in front of me! I wish it didn't land on that yellow chain (plastic?) but it landed there...

sqrt(85 * 135) = 107

So a 105 is close.

But you can't argue with 24, 50, 100 either !

danfaz said:

Hi guys, a few portraits (and one tiny BIF) from the last weekend.
We have a Cedar Waxwing, Say's Phoebe, Bewick's Wren and a Red-winged Blackbird.

View attachment 228252View attachment 228253View attachment 228254View attachment 228255

Click to expand...

My favorite is the Bewick's Wren! All the branches are screaming "the Spring is here!!!". The Red-winged Blackbird is screaming the same by itself but still has no support from the background (not big deal: the bird knows better!).