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...
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.
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).
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 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.
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).
I do, frequently.
If they were useless they wouldn't sell so many.
I would like to have 200mm for a macro lens, working distance is very important when shooting butterflies and insects outdoor, something like Nikon 200mm F4 macro
If this CR1 rumour ends up being true, one has to applaud Canon for their innovation. A Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS USM would fill a huge range of purposes for certain photographers (myself included). As several posters have already pointed out, it could make a great portrait lens.
I owned the Canon EF 100mm USM (non L / non-IS) for some years … I was particularly glad with the macro images I got from this lens. However sometime after its release, I upgraded to the newer Canon EF 100mm macro. The main reasons were:
- Improved AF – for non macro work in particular (the non L AF is often not accurate at longer working distances, so it made it much less useful as a portrait / candid event lens)
- IS helps for certain handheld photos (at around 2:1 in particular.. the closer one gets to 1:1 – the more stability of subject and absolutely no camera movement is important)
For my macro lenses (100L, MP-E65) there would need to be a big improvement for me to replace them with RF variants.
When you say "macro AF capabilities" are you actually shooting at 1x or higher mag, or are you just shooting closeups? At minimum focus I wouldn't trust the camera to place the area of acceptable focus where it needs to be.2 - ...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.
Nope. Macro is defined as projecting a 1:1 scale (life size) image of the subject onto the image plane (sensor or film). At a macro lense's minimum focusing distance (1x mag) an object that is 22mm square will cover an area 22mm square on the sensor no matter what macro lens you use...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.
When you say "macro AF capabilities" are you actually shooting at 1x or higher mag, or are you just shooting closeups? At minimum focus I wouldn't trust the camera to place the area of acceptable focus where it needs to be.
Actually both. I use the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS for both close-up photography (which is really where the 90mm would work better than 100mm) and for true stacked macro photography, using a Stackshot Pro. I also use the MPE-65 and various other combinations of lenses and adapted microscope objectives.
Looks like they put all their eggs in the RF 85mm f2 macro lens that is coming out on Halloween. I did pre order one. I currently use a 100mm ef on the EOS R and it does work fine for portraits, products and things not moving a lot.Long time lurker, posting here for the first time because I was wondering if there have been any updates about this lens.
I have been deciding about whether or not to get the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens or after reading this, it is worth waiting (and likely paying a lot more) for a true RF macro lens.
If anyone has used their EF 100mm lens on an EOS R or an R5 and still has a lot of good things to say about it, then perhaps I will look into it.
Thanks!
The Laowa f/2.8 100mm 2x is an option in native RF mount. I've had mine for only a few weeks, and the lack of electronic coupling is still vexing (although the focus guide on my EOS R is actually pretty good), but image quality is absolutely stellar. It's also quite a bit cheaper than Canon lenses - recommended!Long time lurker, posting here for the first time because I was wondering if there have been any updates about this lens.
I have been deciding about whether or not to get the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens or after reading this, it is worth waiting (and likely paying a lot more) for a true RF macro lens.
If anyone has used their EF 100mm lens on an EOS R or an R5 and still has a lot of good things to say about it, then perhaps I will look into it.
Thanks!
From previous discussions on other threads, the consensus from those who already have the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM (or the non-L non-IS version) is that it works seamlessly on the EOS R and RP with the adaptor. The view also seems to be that it works so well that Canon may not prioritise an RF version any time soon. Given the new IBIS on the R5, even allowing for the limited advantage of IS on a macro lens, the EF lenses are likely to be fabulous additions to the R5. I like the 2x aspect of the Laowa, but query how 'up close' you actually want to get.Thanks for the suggestion! I will look into that one too.