R5 + Laowa 60mm macro

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...

Some examples I just posted here:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/butterflies-moths-and-assorted-insects.31073/post-1041670

R5 + RF 100L macro

Hand held shots with R5 + RF 100 macro

sanj said:

Why would anyone want a 'light' macro lens? IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod. And I have found that a longer macro lens works better for me as it gives me space to place strobes and other lights without getting cramped.

Click to expand...

Scientific macro, maybe.
But many outstanding "serious" macro shots were made handheld.

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...

Are these 'great'? I don't know, but I'm happy with them. They were all handheld. The first two are the same mantis that was hanging out in my back yard for several hours.

"Mantis Prey"

EOS 1D X, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/11, ISO 6400

"Mantis" – The 'black' background on this is because of the effective aperture of f/56 that eliminates the contribution from ambient light, so only the subject lit by the twin flash is visible. I have a rig* where I put a regular flash (600EX) on a bracket with an extension to light the background, but in this case the background was somewhat distant and not very interesting so I let it go black.

EOS 1D X, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ ~3x, 1/250 s, f/14, ISO 400, MT-24EX

"Little Hopper" – this little guy was <1 cm long

EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 3.5x, 1/60 s, f/14, ISO 400, MT-24EX

*Here's that rig:

sanj said:

Why would anyone want a 'light' macro lens? IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod. And I have found that a longer macro lens works better for me as it gives me space to place strobes and other lights without getting cramped.

Click to expand...

So? You think the lens will just levitate towards the tripod? It still needs to be carried in bags, airplanes and carried on the field hunting for subjects. It matters if the lens is 1kg or just 500g. For example I would happily take a F5.6 200mm macro.

SirIssacNewton said:

Wax wing looks amazing, wish we had them in North Carolina! Last one is spectacular! Well done

Click to expand...

We do have them in North Carolina. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Cedar_Waxwing/maps-range

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

eero said:

My guess is that in two years, no one - especially the consumers - will spot the difference between a real photo and AI, if the latter is intentionally made to look real.

Click to expand...

It pains me to see it but a lot of people indeed don't realize already they're looking at product pictures made with AI even though some are still very visibly AI.
Here some small fast food chains make their menu with AI images of what their meals are supposed to look like and new customers are often disappointed with the quick reality check.
It will probably soon look even better but I hope countermeasures will emerge not so much to protect the camera business than for the mass engineered propaganda that is already starting to unfold

sanj said:

Why would anyone want a 'light' macro lens? IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod.

Click to expand...

So no ‘serious macro photography’ involves moving insects, or specimens in the field left in situ? Well, you are welcome to YHO. I disagree with it.

scyrene said:

Do consider the RF 100-400 too - it has good magnification (though not true macro) especially at the long end of the range. Butterflies are generally too big for 1:1 anyway.

Click to expand...

I do/ did. I used to own the RF 100-400mm and I actually shot some butterflies with it in 2024. I gave the lens to my father-in-law because he wanted a tele-option for his R7 and I already own the 70-200mm and 100-500mm lenses. If I get a great offer, I'll someday get it again. I can burrow it anytime I want, I might just do that next week. Thx for the reminder

sanj said:

Why would anyone want a 'light' macro lens? IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod. [...]

Click to expand...

I rarely use a tripod, even for focus stacks. I think >99% of my macro work is without a tripod, but apparently that means it is unserious.

A long macro, with decent AF would be very welcome! I enjoy using the EF180L, but the AF on that is glacial, making it harder to get the shots I want. I'd even take a 300mm lens with 0.5x magnification for butterflies and reptiles. But a 200-ish 2x magnification with AF and IS is the dream

Why would anyone want a 'light' macro lens? IMHO, all serious macro photography happens on a tripod. And I have found that a longer macro lens works better for me as it gives me space to place strobes and other lights without getting cramped.

Aldherrian said:

Products marketed with AI photos will quickly be labelled as cheap the same way a lot of ads are dismissed for their AI use.

Click to expand...

My guess is that in two years, no one - especially the consumers - will spot the difference between a real photo and AI, if the latter is intentionally made to look real.

Exploreshootshare said:

I am not a macro guy, but every spring I really enjoy shooting butterflies, bees, bumblebees on flowers and other crawling insects. My 85mm F2 with its "macro-capabilities" just doesn't cut it, so next week I´m renting the RF 100mm macro. I imagine it'll be too short, but I can't really rent the EF 180mm macro. Therefore, I´d love to see Canon release a long macro, I´d surely rent it next spring. And maybe, just maybe, I'll get so fired up I end up buying a true macro lens.

Click to expand...

Do consider the RF 100-400 too - it has good magnification (though not true macro) especially at the long end of the range. Butterflies are generally too big for 1:1 anyway.

GMCPhotographics said:

Use case scenario is always king. No two photographers share the same need or photographic burden. As a wedding photographer, I always preferred a 16mm / 35mm / 85mm. But that was just what I liked, others differ. One of my 2nd photographers like the 24mm / 50mm / 100mm option. The biggest issue was the troublesome EF 50mm f1.2 L....but in the new RF world....that's a forgotten headache. Canon finally made a world class 50mm f1.2 and then added the amazing 50mm f1.4 VCM to the options list. Then the rather unusual RF 45mm f1.2. We are truely spoilt for choice these days. In the world of zooms, there's lots of ways to split your three lens choices. 10-20mm, 24-105mm, 100-500mm. Or keep it all f2.8 with a 15-35mm, 24-105mm and 100-300mm. All superlative options.

Click to expand...

That world of a large multitude of choices produces a lot of head aches in my brain, but in the end: Yes, there is a full scale of tools offered to us - and it is us to choose from.

There is a strong indication that Canon will introduce one in the next 12 months ...
because I bought the LAOWA 180 / 4.5 macro with 1.5x magnification (== EF version ==). Two weeks after waiting for some 1.4 50mm RF and buying the EF version the introduced the RF 1.2 45 ;-)

This applies to the EF version with AF (the RF version has NONE):
While not sporting image stabilization and full range AF it is a great lens because IBIS on R7, R6ii work well and the current update adds at least AF below 1.5m to the closest focus distance with one caveat: You have to turn the focus ring to a roughly usable focus distance - the rest is done by that lens with AF and it works reliable in my experience.

Maybe Canon sees some potential now by trying to find out the sales of the LAOWA ...? At least the introduction of the LAOWA held me back to buy the EF brick type counterpart and it is a real joy to use a 600g lens as TELE + Macro with the RF 24-105 4.0 as a light, versatile combo in a small backpack!

I am not a macro guy, but every spring I really enjoy shooting butterflies, bees, bumblebees on flowers and other crawling insects. My 85mm F2 with its "macro-capabilities" just doesn't cut it, so next week I´m renting the RF 100mm macro. I imagine it'll be too short, but I can't really rent the EF 180mm macro. Therefore, I´d love to see Canon release a long macro, I´d surely rent it next spring. And maybe, just maybe, I'll get so fired up I end up buying a true macro lens.

blackcoffee17 said:

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

Click to expand...

Especially butterflies, you need longer focal length macro lenses to shoot them

David - Sydney said:

How would a variable magnification work? Wouldn't the max magnification be at the minimum focal distance like the RF100.
I am not sure how the MP-E lens achieved the variable magnification.

Click to expand...

variable magnification seemed to be like focus extending the front of the lens forward. at normal distances, this doesn't change much, but at macro distance, you most likely would want to move the entire camera in a way that I felt was counter intuitive. If a new autofocus design can prevent that need to move the camera, I think most mp-e users will feel impressed and be happy to buy it.

dolina said:

Sigma has one!

Click to expand...

It's a beauty. I rented it first and then had to have one. Using it on a Sony body but just about everything else I own is Canon. For the price that Canon would charge for a 135mm 1.4 you could definitely buy the Sigma lens AND a Sony body (like an a7IV) or L mount body like a Lumix. I'm even considering selling my EF 200mm 2.0 (if anyone is interested) and getting Sigma's. They are making great glass now and I don't have to buy more R3's, just repurposing my Sony's that I used to use for architectural work. It's great to have a body permanently mounted on each lens instead of having to swap lenses around. Faster work flow and no chance of dust getting on my sensors. ... That's how I justify it anyway. : )

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...

JonS said:

....it would get my money too....

Click to expand...

One more here! I'm a fan of the 180mm macro. I have had the focusing system repaired by canon a couple of years back. It would be great to have a new version of the 180mm macro released before the support runs out.

jim said:

And don't even think about adding an SA control!

Click to expand...

Has anyone actually used the SA control? Mine has been locked at 0 since I got it.
Is it just for bokeh shape control?

There is only one example of bokeh underwater when a buddy puts metal foil behind the subject with strobes / back lighting. Focus at f2.8 underwater is really hard to nail.
I did a studio portrait shoot yesterday and no bokeh so would SAC be only used for outdoor portraits?

Does a patent exist? It would hit one of the smaller niche areas missing from the EF range. TS-E would be the last one I think plus the mythical 35/1.2, mid priced teles and 200-400/1.4x replacement.

How would a variable magnification work? Wouldn't the max magnification be at the minimum focal distance like the RF100.
I am not sure how the MP-E lens achieved the variable magnification.