Review: Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

[reef58]

Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.

f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.

RF mount has very little going for it that didn’t exist in the same or better form in EF.

Let’s hope they get some better engineers on staff in the future.

I am going to disagree strongly. Their new lenses are amazing. Everyone always clamors for innovation but it seems what they really want is another 24-70 or 70-200. Give someone a pint sized 800mm lens nope. I think they are producing some very nice glass. Have you tested the 50 and 85 1.2? They are crazy sharp.

 

[reef58]

Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.

Are you saying "The Digital Picture" is not a reliable source? Maybe I am misunderstanding but they are basically the goto for Canon lens reviews.

 

[Del Paso]

Not a

I would not remove it too hastily.

Focus shift is fixed like any other adjustment in computer controlled devices. A map is made of the pattern of focus shift and the compensation is mapped to the AF motors.

EF lenses had AFMA which were user adjustments but the principle is the same. See where the error is and create an offset to the calculated value.

Many of the operations of electronic devices have such adjustments to accommodate the real world mechanics to the absolutism of math.

Not at all convinced. Focus shift, as LSXPhotog already wrote, is NOT acceptable for a macro lens.
What if the lens is used in manual focus mode? No firmware, in my opinion, could help since AF motors are switched of. I'm certain I'm not the only one using manual mode most of the time for macros...
And using depth of field button, provided existing (none on EOS R and RP), isn't very practical. What I'm hoping for is Canon mechanically-optically correcting this phenomenon!

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.

f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.

RF mount has very little going for it that didn’t exist in the same or better form in EF.

Let’s hope they get some better engineers on staff in the future.

It's funny you mention the F7.1 zooms but omit the F2 zoom. The F11 primes are actually something new, never been an 800mm focal length so affordable. It's not that they going to replace the 600mm F4 lens. It's just an extra option.

In the EF mount they had plenty of lenses with issues. The 50mm 1.4 was notorious for broken USM motors, the 50mm 1.2 had focusing issues.
The 70-300 DO had horrible image quality for the price.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Not a

Not at all convinced. Focus shift, as LSXPhotog already wrote, is NOT acceptable for a macro lens.
What if the lens is used in manual focus mode? No firmware, in my opinion, could help since AF motors are switched of. I'm certain I'm not the only one using manual mode most of the time for macros...
And using depth of field button, provided existing (none on EOS R and RP), isn't very practical. What I'm hoping for is Canon mechanically-optically correcting this phenomenon!

For RF lenses the focus motor does all the focusing, even in manual mode.

 

[YuengLinger]

I wonder how easy it is to knock the SA Control ring just slightly out of neutral. Or if during shipping it can be bounced around and "0" is no longer the actual neutral position. Focus shifting, after so many years of Canon macros not having the issue, is startling.

 

[Frodo]

Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.

Bryan is one of the most systematic reviewers out there, taking way more time and effort than working professionals could invest. "Operator error"? Highly unlikely. "Bad copy"? Maybe, but he did check a second example that also exhibited this problem.

 

[Joules]

Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.

f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.

RF mount has very little going for it that didn’t exist in the same or better form in EF.

Let’s hope they get some better engineers on staff in the future.

I guess you don't know that engineering is not at all about achieving top performance. It is about meeting requirements effectively and efficiently. All the things you list as negatives are just engineering measures to meet the demands of the respective market segments. If you aren't part of the market segments seeking for affordable or compact lenses, that's fine. No need to dismiss them just because of it.

As has been pointed out Canon has already designs that absolutely are improvements on their EF counter parts. If you can call the RF 28-70mm 2.0 or the 1.2 primes poorly engineered, I doubt it is worth discussing with you further.

 

[jdavidse]

So? Is it normal to ship out a lens with a firmware that lacks these corrections?

Have you met Canon?

 

[fish_shooter]

The focus shift issue could be addressed by focusing stopped down to working aperture or a fixed aperture (ala Nikon's f/5.6) when smaller apertures are set. What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.

 

[privatebydesign]

What does "systematic" mean in your book?

I read this review and it seems mostly boilerplate filler. Is telling us what the magnification would be if Canon did offer an small-sensor RF camera something so important it must be mentioned before the spherical aberration control?

The magnification would be the same and the fov would be less if it were on an imaginary crop RF camera.

 

[Ian K]

It can only be disappointing if one only accepts one source of information. There are other reviews of the same product. Nothing about focus shift. The person may have received a bad copy. Most often "focus shift issues" are merely operator error.

Bryan's reviews are usually spot on. I would trust what he says. As far as dismissing it as a "bad copy" he goes on to say:

Did I get a bad copy of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens? My guess was no, and the issue has been confirmed in a second lens. Test results have been forwarded to the Canon lens team in Japan.

So it's not a single copy issue. It could be a limited batch problem, or something more general.

I've no affiliation with Bryan, outside of occasionally reading his reviews and finding them helpful. He's always seemed balanced in his reviews and quite methodical. You only have to look at his pictures to know he has good technique. He also buys his kit and doesn't rely on loan or gifted equipment from manufacturers. He's certainly capable of praising canon kit when it is merited. He even says of this lens (in that very review):

Dealing with abnormalities significantly extends the time required to complete a lens review. This one, upon discovery of the focus shift issue, took a long detour. While that issue is significant, the other optical properties of this lens are, overall, remarkable. The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens is capable of producing jaw-dropping imagery.

 

[Ian K]

POTENTIAL SOLUTION?

So this guy's reported the focus shift in two lenses... yet sounds puzzled that in photos of a berry he wasn't having problems with it... while other reviewers don't mention it.

Right now my best guess is that maybe the focus shift issue is present when the Spherical Aberration Control isn't zeroed. It'd probably be an easy control to overlook, especially as his explanation shows he doesn't understand it. It'd be sometimes set this way, sometimes that, and he never mentions what it is for any given shot (which he absolutely should have--for EVERY SINGLE SHOT here, just as you'd mention focal length were it a zoom).

It seems unlikely, given that he says that the control can not only be zeroed but it can also be locked at zero.

 

[David - Sydney]

The focus shift issue could be addressed by focusing stopped down to working aperture or a fixed aperture (ala Nikon's f/5.6) when smaller apertures are set. What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.

Can you elaborate on the relationship between the flat port and the front element? I believe (mistakenly??) that the flat port is not a lens but a neutral piece of glass similar to a UV filter fixed on the lens.

If you are using a wet lens for macro then there could be issues but hard to imagine that the wet lens is mechanically both fixed and perfectly axially aligned so that focus shifting when changing aperture would be noticeable.

 

[dominic_siu]

I haven’t do some decent macro 1.4x shots with tripod yet on this lens, I found it is super difficult to shooting at 1.4x magnification with hand held

 

[neuroanatomist]

I found it is super difficult to shooting at 1.4x magnification with hand held

I routinely shoot handheld at 3-5x magnification. Focus coarsely, then move the camera back and forth to put the focal plane where you want and shoot. At mag that high, you need a strobe – I use the MT-24 EX, a hotshoe flash on a macro bracket would work, too (I use that to light the background).

 

[roby17269]

I wonder how easy it is to knock the SA Control ring just slightly out of neutral. Or if during shipping it can be bounced around and "0" is no longer the actual neutral position. Focus shifting, after so many years of Canon macros not having the issue, is startling.

There is a switch that locks the SA ring. If it is engaged the ring doesn't move at all

 

[fish_shooter]

Can you elaborate on the relationship between the flat port and the front element? I believe (mistakenly??) that the flat port is not a lens but a neutral piece of glass similar to a UV filter fixed on the lens.

If you are using a wet lens for macro then there could be issues but hard to imagine that the wet lens is mechanically both fixed and perfectly axially aligned so that focus shifting when changing aperture would be noticeable.

Front element - The glass part of a lens closest to the front of the camera lens. Also called the first lens element

Flat port - The piece of glass between the camera lens and water that is planar, .i.e., flat. The other major port type is the dome port that must be used for wide angle lenses but can also be used with longer focal lengths.

To make an underwater housing useful there has to be a port in place otherwise you will have a housing full of water ;-<<. One generally has the front element as close to the port as possible with flat ports. I have used lenses with fairly big spaces behind the port needed to accommodate lens extension during focusing (e.g. compact macro 50 lens) without major issue. There are wet lens accessories that one can place on the water side of the port that need to have the lens close to the glass, see: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav
There is a lens guide for Canon (and another for Nikon) lenses to see which wet lenses work with which Canon lanes.
At this time I have not read any report on using this new Canon lens with any wet lens but I am sure they are coming...

 

[usern4cr]

I had this lens on pre-order for quite a while, since it was the only true macro and L version lens so far. I didn't really want a 100mm macro lens, and would have strongly preferred a 180mm macro lens for a longer distance to the subject (which I assume they'll come out with eventually).

After this review, there seem to be these issues:
* I was excited that the SA ring might allow for better background bokeh. But now I see that any change away from center blurs the subject focus so much as to be (to me) unusable. It doesn't matter how good the background blur gets if you have to blur out your subject focus to get it.
* The focus distance shifts when you change aperture. Really? It's hard to imagine why this would happen. Since I'd probably use AF most of the time, this might not be an issue to me. But if on a tripod with manual focus I'd be upset with this issue.
* The field of view changes (somewhat) with changing focus. This happens on a lot of lenses so I'm used to it. I could see it affecting focus stacking. But I probably wouldn't do focus stacking unless they change their user interface to a better version where the focus distance when you pressed the shutter is the *center* of the stack (and not the front of the stack). That would allow animal eye AF to work and get extra shots before & after what is the true subject focus.
* I still prefer a longer focal length for a macro lens. That's just my preference.
For the last reason (mostly), and the worthless (to me) SA ring, I have now cancelled my pre-order of this lens and will wait for a longer true RF L macro (180mm or longer) to be introduced. But for those of you that like the 100mm macro range and can deal with the focus stacking issues, I'm glad they made this lens for you (truly). The more lenses available the better!

 

[David - Sydney]

Front element - The glass part of a lens closest to the front of the camera lens. Also called the first lens element

Flat port - The piece of glass between the camera lens and water that is planar, .i.e., flat. The other major port type is the dome port that must be used for wide angle lenses but can also be used with longer focal lengths.

To make an underwater housing useful there has to be a port in place otherwise you will have a housing full of water ;-<<. One generally has the front element as close to the port as possible with flat ports. I have used lenses with fairly big spaces behind the port needed to accommodate lens extension during focusing (e.g. compact macro 50 lens) without major issue. There are wet lens accessories that one can place on the water side of the port that need to have the lens close to the glass, see: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav
There is a lens guide for Canon (and another for Nikon) lenses to see which wet lenses work with which Canon lanes.
At this time I have not read any report on using this new Canon lens with any wet lens but I am sure they are coming...

I have a 8" dome from my 16-35mm and 8-15mm and macro flat port for my 100mm macro. I am trying to understand your previous comment

"What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system. "

Why is it advantageous to have a fixed relationship between front element and lens port? The flat port won't become part of the optical system unless it is a lens or when a wet lens is added in front on the flat port.