First RF lens to grab my attention. I use the EF 100mm macro via an adapter, but would likely buy this lens for the R5.
Upvote
0
A Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro gets a mention [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Why lug two lenses around (100 macro and 100 f/2) if one lens can work in both categories?
I like the 100mm focal length (close shots of nature, landscape) and I like at least 1:2 close up capabilities.
I am waiting for such a lens for a very long time and IS will help a lot e.g. for my RP and surely in conjunction with IBIS.
Upvote
0
Was my first guess too in the moment I read the headline - hopefully they put some
of these dollars into keeping it at reasonable size and weight.
High probability that I will pay 2k and have the allround lens for my shooting needs
(landscape, townscapes, close-up of nature and things, low light settings).
IS + IBIS + f/2 + great high ISO quality + DPAF = "a pure dream"
Off topic: the last two or three days I used the EOS RP and the non-IS USM macro
and I was blown away how good AF acquisition is. Now I can make the photos
I ever wanted, e.g. crop plants waving in the wind - servo AF helps a lot in these
situations.
Upvote
0
This is a super smart move on Canon's part. Would love to have this lens to carry around on my next trip. It's also a great wedding photography lens as it can do portraits and detail shots with equal aplomb. Looking forward to this one for sure!
Upvote
0
If you shoot Canon. It sure looks to me like Canon is smartly providing the same lenses as everyone else, but at 1/2 to 1 stop faster. Once all the RF lenses come out that is going to be hard to compete with. A lot of pros will want that extra speed and/or shallow DOF.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This will be a wonderful lens for portrait use, as well as high magnification work. However, the "RF 35mm f1.8 IS macro" has only 1:2 maximum magnification 
and is thus not a true macro lens. Therefore it is very possible that the 100mm version also has a 1:2 maximum magnification.
But whether it turns out to be 1:2 or 1:1 it will still be a wonderful lens to own for portrait and high magnification use. 
So thank you Canon for coming out with such wonderful lenses! Now just get your R5 and R6 into all our hands, please!
and is thus not a true macro lens. Therefore it is very possible that the 100mm version also has a 1:2 maximum magnification. But whether it turns out to be 1:2 or 1:1 it will still be a wonderful lens to own for portrait and high magnification use. So thank you Canon for coming out with such wonderful lenses! Now just get your R5 and R6 into all our hands, please!
Upvote
0
Yeah its really a smart move to position themselves against the competition and gives R shooters a range of options EF shooters never had, from f2 zoom perspective.
Would be nice if eventually f2.8 moved down market and became the new f4 in terms of budget L zooms but thats *very* wishful thinking
Upvote
0
Or 7.1 becomes the new 5.6.
Depends on which end of the market, I suppose.
More seriously I'm happy to see this come to the RF, but of course it will be too much for some people (as in, "Wow!!! but I can't afford that!"), luckily both the 2.8L and the 2.8 no-L will work fine on an RF body with extension-tube style adapter. (But now cue the kvetching from people who won't use an adapter.)
Upvote
0
f/2 on a macro lens is also useful for avoiding diffraction blurring at extreme magnifications when using focus stacking. Although you really need to get to 3-4x before that would be an issue at f/2.8, at which point a 1:1 macro lens is already probably not your best choice...
But yeah, my 100mm macro is my portrait lens on the odd occasion that I need one. I got some pretty nice result's at my buddy's wedding (not the primary photographer). I've also heard them recommend specifically for portraits of babies, and babies are pretty ugly, so the shallow depth of field must be great to pretty them up.
But yeah, my 100mm macro is my portrait lens on the odd occasion that I need one. I got some pretty nice result's at my buddy's wedding (not the primary photographer). I've also heard them recommend specifically for portraits of babies, and babies are pretty ugly, so the shallow depth of field must be great to pretty them up.
Upvote
0
I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.
Upvote
0
