Another Mention of a New Macro Lens in 2014 [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15733"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15733">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve been told again that Canon will unveil a zoom macro lens in the 200mm range some time in 2014. The lens is currently in prototype form. It’s apparently a constant aperture zoom macro, though we can’t confirm that it is a 1:1 macro lens. Although, it was mentioned that lens would be 2:1, and could be “locked out” to 1:1 at the long end.</p>
<p>We weren’t told how fast the lens would be, but I’d expect f/3.5 or f/4 and it would also have the latest and greatest IS.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Macro *zoom* sounds a bit surprising, but a 180mm macro replacement sounds plausible.

It's almost 20 years old, and the Sigma 180mm macro is almost a stop faster + has IS, though it's IQ isn't as good as the Canon's.

My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4

 

[NancyP]

The target audience of serious macro shooters, particularly insect photographers, likely cares less about zoom than about getting 1:1 magnification at a fixed 180, 200mm, or even longer. Good IS would have to be a must, because the existing 180mm f/3.5L without IS is a fine lens already.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4

Nikon has a zoom macro I think...

Too big a zoom range might sacrifice one of quality, price or weight.

 

[Loswr]

Nikon has a zoom macro I think...

The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a zoom macro…well, sort of…

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4

Nikon has a zoom macro I think...

Too big a zoom range might sacrifice one of quality, price or weight.

A 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6, which has been discontinued, and takes the "world's first" bragging rights from Canon.

I don't think Canon can release such a zoom lens w/o IS, which would make profit issues worse, as Canon has two new stabilized 70-200mm lenses (f/4 from 2006, f/2.8 from 2010) which magnify ~1:5 w/o extension tubes to compete with it.

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Ah, something like this, only with less range ;D

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review

 

[Loswr]

Ah, something like this, only with less range ;D

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review

Maybe... But Canon would use a floating focusing group for much better IQ at macro distances, add Hybrid IS, and charge a helluva lot more for the lens.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I would love a 200mm F5.6 Macro Hybrid Image Stabilizer, costing $ 700. After all, in macro using F11 or more closed most of the time. : Dreaming does not cost anything. :-*

 

[mackguyver]

I LOVE my 180mm macro - sharp and by far the best color of any lens I own, but I would love to see a f/2.8 version (for better viewfinder manual focus and extender AF [maybe I'm dreaming on that one]). I'd also like it with more aperture blades (bokeh gets a bit geometric when stopped down). Lighter weight would be nice, too, but not critical. IS would be at the bottom of my list primarily because the only time I use my 180mm handheld is to chase little critters and I'm usually shooting f/11 at 1/1000s of better to stop the subject motion, and 98% of my macro shooting takes place on a tripod.

 

[photonius]

a say, 135 (150) - 200mm (or 180mm) macro with 1:1 at 200mm and IS does not sound implausible. zooming out while keeping the same distance would allow for easier framing, would allow better flexibility getting the shot.

 

[danski0224]

120mm TS-E macro ;D

 

[dadgummit]

120mm TS-E macro ;D

That would be a very cool lens that I could not afford. It would probably cost $2500-3000.

 

[dadgummit]

a say, 135 (150) - 200mm (or 180mm) macro with 1:1 at 200mm and IS does not sound implausible. zooming out while keeping the same distance would allow for easier framing, would allow better flexibility getting the shot.

I don't see a 150-200 range to be enough to make it worthwile to bother with the complication of a zoom lens over a prime.

I was thinking a 100-200mm f3.5L IS USM with inner zooming (does not extend) that costs about $1500 street and 1800-2000 MSRP at launch. 1:2 at 100 zooming to 1:1 at 200. I do like the idea of no focus breathing (hope I am using the term correctly)

Personally I would prefer a 50-150 f2.8 IS USM this would be a much more useful range for all of my Macro purposes.

 

[Loswr]

120mm TS-E macro ;D

That would be a very cool lens that I could not afford. It would probably cost $2500-3000.

It would be expensive and it would sound like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.

 

[Sabaki]

Has to be pretty special in order for me to sell my EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS for it

 

[Rudeofus]

I do like the idea of no focus breathing (hope I am using the term correctly)

There are two ways to focus a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Move it away from the film/sensor plane
[*]Make its focal length shorter
[/list]

All internally focusing lenses do this by shortening their focal length. If you go all the way to 1:1 macro, your focal length would be cut in half. This means your beautiful 200mm macro lens with internal focusing would turn into an 100mm macro lens at 1:1 magnification. Pretty pointless, isn't it?

 

[danski0224]

It would be expensive and it would sound like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.

Killjoy :'(

 

[Rudeofus]

120mm TS-E macro ;D

That would be a very cool lens that I could not afford. It would probably cost $2500-3000.

It would be expensive and it would sound like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.

First: Mamiya makes an excellent 140mm macro that covers the image area of a 6x7cm system. Using its rather simple optical formula for making a 140mm T&S lens for 35mm cameras should be quite doable.

Second: as you approach higher magnifications, the image circle of a lens automatically becomes larger. And it's the higher magnifications where I really miss T&S ...

The reason why I don't think that Canon would make a T&S macro is because it is unwieldy for portrait and for hand held shooting and would therefore attract only a tiny niche market.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

First: Mamiya makes an excellent 140mm macro that covers the image area of a 6x7cm system. Using its rather simple optical formula for making a 140mm T&S lens for 35mm cameras should be quite doable.

Wouldn't that formula be protected by a patent? It would eat out of the profits, if Mamiya agrees to license it at all.

The reason why I don't think that Canon would make a T&S macro is because it is unwieldy for portrait and for hand held shooting and would therefore attract only a tiny niche market.

I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.