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

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,188
948
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.
Aren't you assuming that the 90mm won't have the same amount of focus breathing? (And yes, as a user of the 100 mm non-L I agree, it's an annoying amount of focus breathing.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
5,045
3,104
Irving, Texas
A lot more derisable for portraits as a second use, at least, IMO :) I never feel specially atracted by macro lenses, but if it is an f2, it changes a lot.
I'm the same way. The reason I would consider it would be for portraits because of f/2. The fact that it is also macro (if it does 1:1) just gives more bang for the buck. f/4 macro would be an instant no from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fran Decatta

scottburgess

Canonical Canon
Jun 20, 2013
222
16
F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?
I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.

With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]

KABL8170.jpg


The main difficulty with such a lens design is weight. Most people who don't do macro seriously won't lift weights, something I generally recommend to folks who want to use a 180mm+ macro lenses as holding one steadily enough on a pro body in awkward cantilevered body positions for ten hours straight is close to impossible without the proper power ratios. My guess is that the redesigned big whites might have led to designs with elements pushed rearward on the lens to improve handheld shooting. If so, this lens will not be much harder to hold and position despite the added weight and it is a design I would be interested in if I were moving to the R series cameras, which I don't currently plan on. If I used it more, perhaps I would consider that but the 180mm L Macro is my most-used lens these days by an order of magnitude.

I suspect Canon has held off on development of a few "goodies" of interest to advanced amateurs in order to dangle carrots to migrate them to the new base, and the percentage sold to advanced amateurs is the majority of sales of macro lenses. Hence why Canon thinks of macro lenses as amateur lenses: it's not that pros don't buy them, it's that since pros aren't the primary market they can't do "sky's the limit" designs because the costs would exceed most buyers' means. If you've wondered why the 100mm f/2.8 L is not all much better than the 100mm f/2.8 USM, well, there ya go. So don't expect this lens to be massively sharper, or have over-the-top bokeh, or be too much more expensive, it likely isn't in the cards. I would guess ~$1400 upon release, similar to a 180mm Macro, and for largely the same reasons (size and number of glass elements)--the 100mm f/2.8 L started around $800 before coming down a bit over time, while the previous two versions were $400-500 to start, ignoring inflation calculations.

In any case, I am all for value-added lens designs like this. It's why I am sticking with Canon. They may not always make the very best of X, where X is a particular desirable, but they're a smartly-run company that produces high value, well-integrated products and plans strategically to stay in the photography business for the long haul. That's worth considering in a post-COVID world where travel and tourism drop and the camera business is likely to take another big hit.
 

Bonich

I'm New Here
Apr 29, 2019
22
20
Makes sense, but for venomous snakes I like the bit of extra reach. 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.
Sorry, DOF in Macro is not influenced by focal length at all! DOF is only defined by aperture and magnification.
 

mbike999

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2018
15
32
Bay Area
WOW Thanks Canon for the chance to sell my perfectly good 100 Macro L that I paid 900 for and works with an adapter just to replace it with a ~$2,000. 100 Macro 2.0. NOT IN MY LIFETIME
I appreciate that Canon is trying to differentiate themselves from pumping out the same cookie cutter, bread and butter lenses that everyone else is introducing.

That's the great thing about the R system in general - it works great with EF glass without any perceivable drawbacks. A 100 F/2 is a lust worthy lens that appeals to a broader user base. It will be expensive, but it would be awesome for those who can it afford it (if it comes to fruition).For those who can't, just buy the old 2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
247
164
This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L plus 2:1 magnification, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.
 

Canfan

EOS M50
Jul 17, 2019
32
26
I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.

With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]

View attachment 190680

The main difficulty with such a lens design is weight. Most people who don't do macro seriously won't lift weights, something I generally recommend to folks who want to use a 180mm+ macro lenses as holding one steadily enough on a pro body in awkward cantilevered body positions for ten hours straight is close to impossible without the proper power ratios. My guess is that the redesigned big whites might have led to designs with elements pushed rearward on the lens to improve handheld shooting. If so, this lens will not be much harder to hold and position despite the added weight and it is a design I would be interested in if I were moving to the R series cameras, which I don't currently plan on. If I used it more, perhaps I would consider that but the 180mm L Macro is my most-used lens these days by an order of magnitude.

I suspect Canon has held off on development of a few "goodies" of interest to advanced amateurs in order to dangle carrots to migrate them to the new base, and the percentage sold to advanced amateurs is the majority of sales of macro lenses. Hence why Canon thinks of macro lenses as amateur lenses: it's not that pros don't buy them, it's that since pros aren't the primary market they can't do "sky's the limit" designs because the costs would exceed most buyers' means. If you've wondered why the 100mm f/2.8 L is not all much better than the 100mm f/2.8 USM, well, there ya go. So don't expect this lens to be massively sharper, or have over-the-top bokeh, or be too much more expensive, it likely isn't in the cards. I would guess ~$1400 upon release, similar to a 180mm Macro, and for largely the same reasons (size and number of glass elements)--the 100mm f/2.8 L started around $800 before coming down a bit over time, while the previous two versions were $400-500 to start, ignoring inflation calculations.

In any case, I am all for value-added lens designs like this. It's why I am sticking with Canon. They may not always make the very best of X, where X is a particular desirable, but they're a smartly-run company that produces high value, well-integrated products and plans strategically to stay in the photography business for the long haul. That's worth considering in a post-COVID world where travel and tourism drop and the camera business is likely to take another big hit.


Agreed!
RF mount means that this lens could possibly be shorter as well. I really think this will sell very well.
 

Bonich

I'm New Here
Apr 29, 2019
22
20
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 EF 100 Macro IS version has f=77mm @1:1, the EF 180 Macro has f=119mm @ 1:1.
I am sure you do not want a "true macro" extending 100mm and loosing two stops aperture.
The relevant features are sharpness and smooth rendering, big aperture, lens collar !!!, (sometimes) fast AF, (sometimes) IS, possibly some sealing
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
545
361
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.
This would be particularly good for those who take portraits of nose hair.
 

mbike999

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2018
15
32
Bay Area
This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L plus 2:1 magnification, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.
I don't think this release means they won't also release other cheaper macro lenses.

I like to do handheld focus bracketing, and F/2 would allow me to halve the shutter speed without bumping ISO, which means a cleaner image with less motion blur. It will also make for a more interesting lens for all of those other times that I'm not shooting strict 1:1 macros. I say bring it on...
 

Bonich

I'm New Here
Apr 29, 2019
22
20
This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L plus 2:1 magnification, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.
Agreed!
RF mount means that this lens could possibly be shorter as well. I really think this will sell very well.
I do not expect a 100 Macro to be shorter on an R mount at all.
My experience with macro is to use as often as any possible some kind of support to boost technical quality and composition. The very most important feature is a lens collar to get maximum variety in landscape and portrait orientation even very low over ground (body touching the ground/ water)!
Many great shots are taken wide open, so I would appreciate 2.0 (for this I love the EF 100 IS more than the EF180).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Architect1776

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
118
Williamsport, PA
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.
How does a shorter lens give more room to work with?
 

ronaldzimmerman.nl

I'm New Here
May 25, 2020
9
5
www.ronaldzimmerman.nl
[="Architect1776, post: 834701, member: 379741"]
How does a shorter lens give more room to work with?
[/QUOTE]
I think he means wider field of view at the same distance. Very useful if you prefer “macro shots with context”.

I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.

With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]

View attachment 190680

The main difficulty with such a lens design is weight. Most people who don't do macro seriously won't lift weights, something I generally recommend to folks who want to use a 180mm+ macro lenses as holding one steadily enough on a pro body in awkward cantilevered body positions for ten hours straight is close to impossible without the proper power ratios. My guess is that the redesigned big whites might have led to designs with elements pushed rearward on the lens to improve handheld shooting. If so, this lens will not be much harder to hold and position despite the added weight and it is a design I would be interested in if I were moving to the R series cameras, which I don't currently plan on. If I used it more, perhaps I would consider that but the 180mm L Macro is my most-used lens these days by an order of magnitude.

I suspect Canon has held off on development of a few "goodies" of interest to advanced amateurs in order to dangle carrots to migrate them to the new base, and the percentage sold to advanced amateurs is the majority of sales of macro lenses. Hence why Canon thinks of macro lenses as amateur lenses: it's not that pros don't buy them, it's that since pros aren't the primary market they can't do "sky's the limit" designs because the costs would exceed most buyers' means. If you've wondered why the 100mm f/2.8 L is not all much better than the 100mm f/2.8 USM, well, there ya go. So don't expect this lens to be massively sharper, or have over-the-top bokeh, or be too much more expensive, it likely isn't in the cards. I would guess ~$1400 upon release, similar to a 180mm Macro, and for largely the same reasons (size and number of glass elements)--the 100mm f/2.8 L started around $800 before coming down a bit over time, while the previous two versions were $400-500 to start, ignoring inflation calculations.

In any case, I am all for value-added lens designs like this. It's why I am sticking with Canon. They may not always make the very best of X, where X is a particular desirable, but they're a smartly-run company that produces high value, well-integrated products and plans strategically to stay in the photography business for the long haul. That's worth considering in a post-COVID world where travel and tourism drop and the camera business is likely to take another big hit.
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.

From a financial perspective I get why Canon would go for a more versatile option and please a bigger audience. However, as a macro photographer I don’t want trade offs for macro. There are enough options for portrait photography.
F2.8 is more than enough. A F2.8 lens optimised for F8-F16 is more useful.
I prefer a RF 100mm F2.8 Macro IS USM Macro L. If Canon wants to offer something better than the EF version I want them to add 2:1, the balance more towards the rear element, less weight and sharpest between F8 and F16. A tripod collar is nice, but the third party one for the EF version is good enough.
 

AdmiralFwiffo

Terrible photographer
Feb 17, 2020
39
52
I prefer a RF 100mm F2.8 Macro IS USM Macro L. If Canon wants to offer something better than the EF version I want them to add 2:1, the balance more towards the rear element, less weight and sharpest between F8 and F16. A tripod collar is nice, but the third party one for the EF version is good enough.
If you're going to 2:1, you can't get additional sharpness between F8 and F16, as you are diffraction-limited. Even at 0.5x magnification, diffraction is going to start becoming an issue (depending on sensor).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonich and Joules