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

sanj

EOS 5D SR
Jan 22, 2012
3,512
317
Canon makes both an RF 28-70mm f/2L and an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. I wouldn't rule out Canon doing something similar here. As I noted in another thread, taking a lens like the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro and porting it to RF (add 24mm to the barrel, upgrade mount electronics, and voila) would be easy & profitable.
It will certainly be released
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,495
148
66
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.
I dont have focus breathing with my EF100mm 2.8L IS USM? I did with the non-L version. The EF100 f2.8L IS USM is actually a very underrated lens that others have said is a good portrait lens (not as good as the EF85 f1.4L IS USM) as well as a reasonable macro lens.
I am surprised this is taking priority over f4L versions of the holy trinity not everyone has a mega bank balance or need 2.8 (Landscape).
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,023
931
This is absolutely great.
A macro f2 100mm lens.
Precision in focus and allowing for a fast 100mm prime at the same time.
Brilliant, Canon is showing what can be done with the RF mount.
Again smoking the Sony system as so lacking in innovation and so 20th century.
Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4
not sure this is RF mount specific. I guess, no one bothered with 100/2.0 macro on Sony mount Before.
 

PiezoSwitch

I'm New Here
Aug 22, 2019
21
19
Enough with the IS, enough with the macro. Just announce a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2.2, and 24/2.8 that prioritize compactness over everything else, with image quality second, and then we can start carrying our R's around 24/7 in our backpacks. The jokey 35/1.8IS Macro is too big to have with you constantly. Leica's made 35/1.4's half that size.
I would definitely like to see that. Although the mirrorless bodies have shrunk relative to the full featured DSLRs, the larger diameter of the RF mount has increased the girth of the lenses which while beneficial for the high spec lenses has sort of upset the balance of things somewhat. Although this may seem like a minor complaint one thing it has done is upset the utility of my existing camera bags and the mix of lenses I can reasonably put in one. At present I'm happy to throw in a few of my existing EF glass like the 28/2.8 IS or 100/2 which take up relatively little space but would like some RS primes as well.
 

AdmiralFwiffo

Terrible photographer
Feb 17, 2020
36
52
This is taken surprisingly seriously for a CR1. Although predicting a RF 100mm macro is hardly going out on a limb...
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
637
256
Perfect! When looking for a 100mm lens from Canon many years ago I agonized between the 100mm 2.8 macro or the charming 100mm f2.0.
This is cake!
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,560
482
Davidson, NC
Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4
not sure this is RF mount specific. I guess, no one bothered with 100/2.0 macro on Sony mount Before.
Unless you are trying to blur out a background or the like, f/2 is fast, especially in this age of IS and low noise at higher ISO. I don't think even that extra stop is worth the size, weight, and cost on 100mm lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antono Refa

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,023
931
Unless you are trying to blur out a background or the like, f/2 is fast, especially in this age of IS and low noise at higher ISO. I don't think even that extra stop is worth the size, weight, and cost on 100mm lens.
You think it incorrect. Quality of the “blur out background” as you put it is a complex issue. Multiple factors are at play here.
Extra stop can go a long way in portraiture.
Look at what RF 85/1.2 is able to deliver. Not even full stop vs F1.4. Anyway... this is more of a “look” issue rather than Extra stop weight and cost.
I totally understand that portraiture is likely not your thing. But man...that RF 85/1.2 look is marvellous.
I hope you can appreciate
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,560
482
Davidson, NC
You think it incorrect. Quality of the “blur out background” as you put it is a complex issue. Multiple factors are at play here.
Extra stop can go a long way in portraiture.
Look at what RF 85/1.2 is able to deliver. Not even full stop vs F1.4. Anyway... this is more of a “look” issue rather than Extra stop weight and cost.
I totally understand that portraiture is likely not your thing. But man...that RF 85/1.2 look is marvellous.
I hope you can appreciate
I realize it is a matter of taste. I don't like background blur that looks unnatural and/or calls attention to itself. For me, the point should be to emphasize the subject. Selective focus can do that to a point. We likely disagree as to where that point is.

I've obviously never used or even seen the f/2 100mm macro and don't know how it will be priced. I don't even own a camera it will fit on. I'm just extrapolating a bit from my experience with my f/2.8 macro lens to what I think are reasonable conclusions. I would expect f/2 to be rather useless for macro shooting, so it must be intended for portrait and short telephoto usage. It is possible that the lens is being designed to act differently outside the macro range from the EF versions. If not, I don't think faster, heavier, or more expensive would ameliorate what I don't like about the EF for portraits.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
988
202
Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4
I'm not that familiar with other manufacturers' lines of lenses, does any of them make both an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 and a 105mm f/1.4?

In digital era, one could shoot with a fast 85mm lens, and crop a little to get the equivalent of 100mm or 105mm.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,023
931
I'm not that familiar with other manufacturers' lines of lenses, does any of them make both an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 and a 105mm f/1.4?

In digital era, one could shoot with a fast 85mm lens, and crop a little to get the equivalent of 100mm or 105mm.
Yeah... my point though is that 100/2 is not that fast for a prime. And macro lenses are generally not so great for portraiture due to being over corrected and produce somewhat clinical look. Even stopped down. All subjective.
 

scottburgess

Canonical Canon
Jun 20, 2013
222
16
The only advantage of F2 for serious macro photographers is focus stacking at extreme magnifications.
In all other scenarios you don’t need F2. Especially not to maintain good shutterspeeds for handheld shooting. For macro photography F2 gives paperthin DOF. Unless out of focus blur is your subject it is not useful.
Flash and/or tripod against motion blur will give you much better results. For most macro photography situations you want ISO 100 and F8 to F16 to achieve the best results.
Serious photographers know how to write f/2.

You obviously don't shoot live butterflies in the field, or anything else that moves significantly. Tripods are impossible for rapidly moving subjects like these, and to blur the background shallower DOF is often required. Flash often scares the subject off when one is a few inches away, so this is unacceptable for capturing complex behavior. What is required is some skill and experience: f/2 is quite manageable if one places the subject in the plane of focus, and if one knows the behavior of the subject this is straightforward. I manage this quite fine with the shallower DOF that comes from higher magnification, so f/2 at 1x seems generous to me. Maybe you should gain some experience in this area. When you get to the point you can shoot hundreds of different live Lepidoptera razor sharp from eye to wing tip with scales visible in an afternoon, you'll learn that what works for big, still things doesn't for small, fast-moving, skittish things.

Attached is an image captured today as this female is laying an egg on Eriogonum, f/4.5 handheld, natural light, 1x magnification. Subject is less than an inch tall. This skittish species has excellent vision and can easily see an approaching person from 20 feet away. Show us you can do likewise.
SAB_058180.jpg
 

ronaldzimmerman.nl

I'm New Here
May 25, 2020
9
5
www.ronaldzimmerman.nl
Serious photographers know how to write f/2.

You obviously don't shoot live butterflies in the field, or anything else that moves significantly. Tripods are impossible for rapidly moving subjects like these, and to blur the background shallower DOF is often required. Flash often scares the subject off when one is a few inches away, so this is unacceptable for capturing complex behavior. What is required is some skill and experience: f/2 is quite manageable if one places the subject in the plane of focus, and if one knows the behavior of the subject this is straightforward. I manage this quite fine with the shallower DOF that comes from higher magnification, so f/2 at 1x seems generous to me. Maybe you should gain some experience in this area. When you get to the point you can shoot hundreds of different live Lepidoptera razor sharp from eye to wing tip with scales visible in an afternoon, you'll learn that what works for big, still things doesn't for small, fast-moving, skittish things.

Attached is an image captured today as this female is laying an egg on Eriogonum, f/4.5 handheld, natural light, 1x magnification. Subject is less than an inch tall. This skittish species has excellent vision and can easily see an approaching person from 20 feet away. Show us you can do likewise.
View attachment 190708
That is probably because Canon cameras do not show the /, and that’s where I look more often than on forums. It is always great to see someone who thinks he is extremely skilled. Good for you!
You seem to be the expert and I am only someone who observes butterflies while photographing different subjects. What you do is only a small niche in macro photography.
The example photo is not at F2, so how does it support your claim? I understand that you photograph them in the afternoon for behaviour. That makes sense. For portraits it is the worst time. In the afternoon you don’t need the bigger opening because there is enough available light. And butterflies are indeed “flatter” than most other subjects and having the eye and part of the wing in focus is possible with a shallower DOF. However, the “essence” of the example photo is out of focus (also at F4.5). Stopping down slightly would have been better.
butterflies are indeed small and fast in flight. Why do you need the very fast shutterspeeds when they are stationary? And why do you need F2 in flight? And approaching skittish species is a different skill than needing F2.
The only scenario where I can imagine F2 would be nice is when you are further away from the subject and want a blurred background. But still, F2.8 is more than enough, but I prefer photos with more context.

About tripods, yes for macro they are only useful for stationary subjects. Flash can be for both. Most species don’t get scared by flashes. It’s usually the movement or shadow (sometimes created by flashes) that scares them.
Flash looks better in almost every situation and beyond 1:1 there is no other option. Almost every pro macro photographer uses a tripod/flash/both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,941
2,935
Irving, Texas
I keep reading that f/2 isn't fast. On a 35mm lens? Probably not fast. On a 100mm lens? Fast. That's just my opinion. It seems to me that a longer focal length is more forgiving, bokeh wise, than a shorter focal length. Canon's 135mm f/2L is a great example. f/2, at that focal length, is wonderful. While I would not myself select a Macro lens for portraits, a lot of people are very happy with such a selection. I prefer a little pincushion for portraits. Will canon produce an RF 100mm or 105mm non-macro? Who knows. If so, I would absolutely be a buyer of such a slow f/2 leans. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,941
2,935
Irving, Texas
That is probably because Canon cameras do not show the /, and that’s where I look more often than on forums. It is always great to see someone who thinks he is extremely skilled. Good for you!
You seem to be the expert and I am only someone who observes butterflies while photographing different subjects. What you do is only a small niche in macro photography.
The example photo is not at F2, so how does it support your claim? I understand that you photograph them in the afternoon for behaviour. That makes sense. For portraits it is the worst time. In the afternoon you don’t need the bigger opening because there is enough available light. And butterflies are indeed “flatter” than most other subjects and having the eye and part of the wing in focus is possible with a shallower DOF. However, the “essence” of the example photo is out of focus (also at F4.5). Stopping down slightly would have been better.
butterflies are indeed small and fast in flight. Why do you need the very fast shutterspeeds when they are stationary? And why do you need F2 in flight? And approaching skittish species is a different skill than needing F2.
The only scenario where I can imagine F2 would be nice is when you are further away from the subject and want a blurred background. But still, F2.8 is more than enough, but I prefer photos with more context.

About tripods, yes for macro they are only useful for stationary subjects. Flash can be for both. Most species don’t get scared by flashes. It’s usually the movement or shadow (sometimes created by flashes) that scares them.
Flash looks better in almost every situation and beyond 1:1 there is no other option. Almost every pro macro photographer uses a tripod/flash/both.
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?
 

ronaldzimmerman.nl

I'm New Here
May 25, 2020
9
5
www.ronaldzimmerman.nl
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?
I don’t think it will make a lot of difference stopping down a F2.8 or F2 lens to F4.5. F4 as maximum opening is something different indeed.
The size and weight of a lens is something that matters to me. I don’t want anything that’s bigger and heavier than the EF version. Especially if you have carry it for many hours in a backpack. Besides that, sometimes you have to manoeuvre to the subject in weird poses or hold the camera single handed. So practical usability is also something to consider in the field. Lab-tests are something different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,941
2,935
Irving, Texas
I don’t think it will make a lot of difference stopping down a F2.8 or F2 lens to F4.5. F4 as maximum opening is something different indeed.
The size and weight of a lens is something that matters to me. I don’t want anything that’s bigger and heavier than the EF version. Especially if you have carry it for many hours in a backpack. Besides that, sometimes you have to manoeuvre to the subject in weird poses or hold the camera single handed. So practical usability is also something to consider in the field. Lab-tests are something different.
Well, the EF 135mm f/2L is not a big heavy lens. I doubt a RF 100mm f/2L will be either.