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

[[email protected]]

Two points to add:

A - Some of my favorite portraits I’ve taken were with the EF 100mm L. But I don’t find myself carrying around the lens outside of macro trips because the aperture is limiting for a prime. This would give me better justification to actually use it more. Oddly, the increased size would make me carry it more.

2 - I’ve been having a hayday with the Laowa macro lenses coming out in EF. Really innovative stuff. But the thing I always miss is Canon’s macro AF capabilities. Nothing has beaten that 100mm L. I had high hopes for the Sigma 70mm, but it’s not even close (and I consider myself a card-carrying Sigma fanboy). Macro AF is hard, and Canon really figured it out. This lens will be welcome.

-tig

PS: Bonus third point… C - The 100m L came out just prior to some of Canon’s advances in lens coatings. While it may sounds dubious, we could see some interesting image quality improvements.

 

[stevelee]

Just asking... his photo is not at f/2, but isn't a lens generally sharper as one stops down? Not always, but generally? So if his max aperture started at f/4, wouldn't the photo be less sharp? Hense, isn't it better to have f/2 as a starting point?

That's a useful rule of thumb, but it is not a law of optics. It depends upon the lens design. Tests comparing similar lenses of different speeds will often note that they behave similarly when stopped down to the same opening. I don't know, but I suspect that EF-S and M lenses would be optimized for wider openings than EF and R lenses. Crop cameras take into account diffraction when making automatic settings, or at least they should. (I'm going just by experience, not real tests.) It is quite possible than an f/4 lens would perform better at f/4.5 than an f/2 lens might. Of course a highly corrected, expensive L macro lens might perform better at f/2 than some f/4 lens might perform at any aperture.

 

[jolyonralph]

Focus control accuracy will make or kill this lens, especially with RF focus-by-wire.

When doing stacked macro shots at f/2.0 you need to guarantee that stacking by adjusting focus control will be able to adjust in accurate and small enough steps to be able to deal with the depth of field at f/2.0 (hardly any).

Of course, stackshot owners won't have to worry about this, but for everyone else it's a big deal.

 

[jolyonralph]

How does 90mm give you more room?

What I meant (but explained badly) was that for the same set-up (camera on tripod aimed at a lit background for macro photography) it allows slightly larger objects to be photographed and fit within the frame than at 100mm without needing to move the camera back.

I don't do much 'in-field' macro where having more room between you and the small thing is good. I prefer less room.

 

[SecureGSM]

Where did I say prime?
You seem horribly lost.

We discuss 100mm f2.0 lens rumour on this thread. it is a Prime lens. You are the one that lost the plot here. It is obvious that you unaware that a “fast zoom” at F2.8 is a “slow-ish” for a prime at around 100mm. Not so fast. It has nothing to do with AF speed as you thought what it was about.
Suggest you take some photography courses for starters. Keep laughing

 

[Phil]

So far every RF lens (apart from the f/1.2s) have had something extra compared to they EF counterparts. The 15-35 has a mm extra on the wide end and IS, the 24-70 has IS, the 70-200 collapses, the 35mm has 'macro' and f/1.8 instead of f/2. And finally the 100-500 gets 100mm extra on the long end. The 24-105L is the lens closest to its EF sibling.

So the straight forward update you're talking about isn't what I would expect from an RF 100mm L macro. Personally, I would have preferred 2:1 like the Laowa over f/2.0.

To be fare the RF 1.2s did have something extra Over the ef versions, they are sharp as hell at 1.2

 

[Jing G]

we need at least 2:1 magnify range, plssssss!

 

[Joel C]

If this is a 1:1 aspect I will be able to make a lot of great use out of this. I am very interested in seeing the pricing though...

 

[Architect1776]

We discuss 100mm f2.0 lens rumour on this thread. it is a Prime lens. You are the one that lost the plot here. It is obvious that you unaware that a “fast zoom” at F2.8 is a “slow-ish” for a prime at around 100mm. Not so fast. It has nothing to do with AF speed as you thought what it was about.
Suggest you take some photography courses for starters. Keep laughing

We are talking fast.
Take a class then we can discuss.

 

[SecureGSM]

We are talking fast.
Take a class then we can discuss.

What class would you suggest? Photography or bullshit mastery workshop?
I admit you are pretty good at the latter.

 

[SecureGSM]

We are talking fast.
Take a class then we can discuss.

fast in photography means not what you think it means:

A lens with a larger maximum aperture (that is, a smaller minimum f-number) is called a "fast lens" because it can achieve the same exposure with a faster shutter speed. ... Lenses may also be referred to as being "faster" or "slower" than one another; so an f/3.5 lens can be described as faster than an f/5.6.

hence my statement : F2.0 is not so fast a lens.

 

[Valdormar_Hauslendale]

SecureGSM , You sound like a troll.

The more I read, the more I would agree to that. This forum is full of them!

 

[SecureGSM]

The more I read, the more I would agree to that. This forum is full of them!

I beg your pardon. We do not call people names or encourage such a behaviour around here. Please take your time understanding what the disagreement was about.

 

[Dalantech]

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.

A 90mm lens would actually give you slightly less working distance, and both focal lengths are not optimal no matter what light source you use (unless you're shooting in a studio).

 

[Dalantech]

...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.

Depth is a function of magnification and Fstop only -the focal length of a macro lens does not change the depth of field in any significant way.

I do agree that a lens that can reach 2x natively is better than one that has a maximum aperture of F2. The Fstop makes me think that this specific rumor is just that -a rumor. Someone's wishful thinking who already owns the EF version.

Better still would be an MP-E 65mm RF mount lens...

 

[Dalantech]

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.

You just listed all the reasons why I think macro lenses in the 100mm range are useless -cause no one really uses them to shoot at 1x or higher mag...

 

[Dalantech]

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...

Honestly diffraction isn't much of an issue until you get above 4x mag. Way too many people putting way too much emphases on absolute image sharpness, and most of them lose more detail to poor light quality than I do to diffraction.

Single frame, F11 @ over 3x, uncropped.

 

[Dalantech]

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.

The 90mm lens will also lose focal length at minimum focus...

 

[jolyonralph]

A 90mm lens would actually give you slightly less working distance, and both focal lengths are not optimal no matter what light source you use (unless you're shooting in a studio).

Replied to this previously, and yes, for studio work giving more room around the item at 90mm than 100mm

 

[jolyonralph]

You just listed all the reasons why I think macro lenses in the 100mm range are useless -cause no one really uses them to shoot at 1x or higher mag...

I do, frequently.

If they were useless they wouldn't sell so many.