I haven't checked recently but I feel like the big white superteles didn't gain much if any sharpness by stopping down.
Upvote
0
A new macro lens coming in the first half of 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
It darkens down a lot when extended to 5x, iirc it’s actually f/16 when wide open at that point. Making it f/2 would brighten that up a lot.
An EVF makes this less of an issue, my MP-E shots improved a lot after I started using live view!
Upvote
0
I own a 100mm f2.8 macro and it is my oldest (released in 2000) but also sharpest EF lens, though I also own a 70-200mm f2.8L II and a 17-55mm f2.8. I just love this macro lens. It even resolves my 32.5MP APS-C sensor.
Upvote
0
Canon should finish the F4 "trinity" with a small, compact 24-70mm F4 L with about 500gr. I know, there is the 24-105mm F4 but I really don´t like the IQ on it and I sold it. Now I´m looking for a capable mid-tele (L) zoom. I'll wait and see what the 28-70mm F2.8 has to offer.
A "crazy core" lineup would be an UWA F2 zoom and a 70-150mm F2.
Upvote
0
Exactly. It is at its sharpest around f/3.5 or f/4 and that is not good enough at 5x. Up to about 3.5x it is fine as it is ... except for CA. At 5x and especially on R7 it would need wider aperture for sharpness.
Not many camera lenses are diffraction limited fully open, but good microscope objectives should be ... and that is the territory it is approaching.
Upvote
0
I’d be happy with an L version of the 85 macro. I have the non-L version and it’s …ok… but the focus motors are kind of slow and I’d like weather sealing and one of those expensive lens hoods I’ve heard tell of.
I rented the RF-100 macro twice and the IQ difference between that and my 85 is not huge, but it’s definitely there. I keep toying with getting one. Hopefully whoever’s idea the “Adjustable Mush Control” was, was among those recently laid off.
I rented the RF-100 macro twice and the IQ difference between that and my 85 is not huge, but it’s definitely there. I keep toying with getting one. Hopefully whoever’s idea the “Adjustable Mush Control” was, was among those recently laid off.
Upvote
0
It’s clear that there isn’t one perfect lens because macro uses are diverse. I would guess that there won’t be an mp-e replacement because so much macro now involves stacking, including slow moving or paused live insects, that any new lens will have AF for in camera bracketing/stacking. Long working distance is sometimes great, but getting close allows less, so shorter, flash, which is great when using flash to freeze action or reduce motion shake, and you want a low flash power if you’re bracketing 30 shots and need fast recycling. Right now I’m using OM system for insects, though I think my absolute best quality single shots were taken with XXD cameras and mp-e. I still have my ef-s 60mm macro lens, which is great, especially with tubes. An R7 with mp-e and mt-24/26 flash is over 4 lbs. An Olympus with 60mm macro that has lower magnification but will focus bracket is 599 g, and a small godox flash is just another 200 g, so even with a diffuser is under 2 lbs. A setup with a larger flash and the 90mm macro is still lot lighter than my canon setup was. I’d want a much lighter 2x macro without focus shift when living at f13. I’m happy to stay where I am for several years, and I’m hoping there will be many choices, maybe canon, maybe licensed, by then
Upvote
0
I like my RF100 macro and definitely an improvement over my previous EF100 macro. No obvious focus breathing. Spherical aberration control is not useful from my perspective. Portrait shooters may differ but the bokeh is fine without moving the ring.
The longer working distance of the EF180mm came out in 1996 and discontinued 25 years later (2021). Small niche but dedicated users similar to the Canon macro ring light.
Doesn't the RF100 macro on a APS-C sensor provide roughly the same working distance as the 180mm macro?
A RF-S 60mm macro would be useful for smaller setups eg underwater housing.
Does Sigma/Tamron have something like this? Can't see a significantly expensive option there.
My RF100mm underwater setup is definitely not lightweight. Even need to add floats for neutral buoyancy.
The RF35mm 1:2 macro fits the environmental macro requirements. Can't see a more expensive option here.
That leaves us 2 potentially expensive options:
- MP-E65mm replacement... could it go past 5x magnification as f2.8 is rarely insufficient. Released 1999 and discontinued 23 years later. Probably more niche than the EF180mm macro group.
- TS-R for product shooting at telephoto focal lengths. I don't think that macro would be useful for wide angle TS-R lenses.
The longer working distance of the EF180mm came out in 1996 and discontinued 25 years later (2021). Small niche but dedicated users similar to the Canon macro ring light.
Doesn't the RF100 macro on a APS-C sensor provide roughly the same working distance as the 180mm macro?
A RF-S 60mm macro would be useful for smaller setups eg underwater housing.
Does Sigma/Tamron have something like this? Can't see a significantly expensive option there.
My RF100mm underwater setup is definitely not lightweight. Even need to add floats for neutral buoyancy.
The RF35mm 1:2 macro fits the environmental macro requirements. Can't see a more expensive option here.
That leaves us 2 potentially expensive options:
- MP-E65mm replacement... could it go past 5x magnification as f2.8 is rarely insufficient. Released 1999 and discontinued 23 years later. Probably more niche than the EF180mm macro group.
- TS-R for product shooting at telephoto focal lengths. I don't think that macro would be useful for wide angle TS-R lenses.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
The TS-E 135/4L was a 0.5x macro, launched in 2017 and discontinued in 2022, it’s the only TS-E with an EoL date (2027). A very short lifespan for a L lens. Not sure if that suggests it’s slated for replacement with a TS-R, or that it was so unpopular that nothing like it will ever see the light of day again.
Upvote
0
End-of-sale date or end-of-support date?
5 years vs 20+ years until discontinued for a lot of other L lenses!
The TS-E90mm was also a macro and maybe sufficient for product macro photography vs 135mm.
Canon would have thought that 135mm would have had a reasonable use case but I can't think of some besides product work.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Please let it be a 50/60mm version of the RF100L. Also with a bit more magnification than 1:1. Would be very useful for small animal (frogs, snakes, lizards) portraits with a bit more habitat in the frame or situations where more DOF is needed (100mm can be tight, even at F16).
Upvote
0
I highly appreciate your competent and profound comments at this forum. Thus, I will consider switching to the RF version …. Thanks for your helpful reply.
Upvote
0
I had good luck in the 90s with a 90mm TS, 2xTE, and a 250D or 500D closeup lens. The only reason to have your plane of focus parallel to the sensor is that it is all you've ever shot with and all you ever think of doing. I specifically got butterfly and moth wings in much better focus, small leaves that weren't parallel to film, etc. etc.
I usually use macro in the field by pre-setting the camera and lens, then moving the camera back and forth until I like the focus. The same works with tilt: just guesstimate a tilt based on your experience with the lens, and try to frame your subject. worst case scenario: re-guess and try again.
Upvote
0
I certainly hope so! Everything in engineering a lens is a tradeoff: improve vignetting, and size and price and weight probably go up. Improve distortion and astigmatism or other uncorrectable issues get worse.
I've been asking for years and never seen anyone actually produce an example where a software correction of distortion produces a worse image than a alternative lens without software correction. I'd LOVE to find out I'm wrong about this, and learn something fundamental, so I'm going to be very easy to convince on this point. But no-one has EVER given me an example image. I'm BEGGING people, PLEASE share such an image pair if you have it.
The only cases I've seen where vignetting correction causes a visible issue in the final image is in added noise in astrophography shots, where the corners are typically zone I-II-III anyway, and get a bit of noise. EVEN THEN, no-one trots out a alternative lens shooting the same scene that 1) doesn't have software correction, 2) doesn't seem to have other minuses that may be related to the lower vignetting. (E.g., I suspect that if you show me the same astro shot with a different lens and it doesn't need software correction, that other lens will either have worse aberrations, or cost/weigh far more, etc.)
Upvote
0
I too once stated I'd never ever buy such a silly macro lens with a horrid focus shift. Yet other satisfied forum members decided me to give it a try, since I was anyway not entirely satisfied with the EF L version at infinity.
The RF is one of my best ever Canon lenses, I've never noticed any focus shift. This lens is criminally sharp at every aperture and distance.
My only regret is not having bought it earlier!
Rush to your Canon dealership and buy it!
Upvote
0
I've shot a lot of hand-held macro in the field with a 90TS, TE and closeup lens 250D or 500D. No TS will "bring extra DOF," what it does is ALIGN that DOF with a non-parallel subject. And with this setup it had a huge effect. I could photograph say butterfly wings at maybe a 70 degree angle to the film plane with it. This combination of lenses weighed maybe about the same as the 180/3.5 so I wouldn't say it was too heavy, nor was it too expensive.
Upvote
0
Basically, whether the correction is minor or extreme, even the "theoretical" minus at it's worst will be about the same.
The best case is that a pixel of the corrected image more or less exactly aligns with a single pixel in the original image, in which case even in theory there is no degradation.
The worst case that a pixel of the corrected image is composed of up to four pixels in the org image. For instance say, on an R5, we have 8192 pixels in the width, of 36mm, for 227.5 pixels per mm. If we had alternating white and black lines in our image, and had them perfectly lined up with the R5 pixel grid (impossible), we could in theory have 227.5/2=114 lp/mm or so. And if our lens further had 100% contrast in the MTF chart at 114 lp/mm, we'd have actual black and white lines in the org image. And in this case, the corrected image's contrast for 114 lp/mm would fall down to 0, because the corrected pixel would be half-composed of white original pixels, and half of black. The result would be pure grey. But then again, if you shift your camera aim a half-pixel in such a scenario, you'd ALSO have pure grey even in an uncorrected image, because the pixel would be half-illuminated by a white line and half by a black line.
Do the same analysis for 2-pixel wide lines, a 57 lp/mm image, and you'll find your worst-case loss is 25%. Some corrected pixels will still be half of a white original pixel, and half of a black, in the very worst case, but that's only half the pixels. The other half will still be pure white or pure black.
But in the real world, of course, MTF charts only go up to 30. Just look at any MTF chart, try to guess where the 60 lp/mm line would be, and imagine the contrast to be a quarter worse. In practice that means contrast is going from, like 20, to 15, or something.
Can you think of an image you've ever taken, one you've even pixel-peeped for hours and are intimately familiar with, where you'd actually note that 2-pixel-wide features' contrast has gone from 20 to 15?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
