A Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro gets a mention [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Replied to this previously, and yes, for studio work giving more room around the item at 90mm than 100mm
That's where you lost me, cause no one is gonna shoot at F2 with that lens unless they focus stack, and even then they're gonna have their rig on a tripod so shutter speeds aren't going to be an issue. The only benefit going from F2.8 to F2 is a brighter view finder, something that's almost a non-issue for a camera that has an EVF. Either this rumor is someone's wishful thinking, or Canon is trying to appeal to the large number of people who buy the 100mm L macro lens cause they can use it for portraits. Most people who shoot with a 100mm lens don't use it at minimum focus anyway, since it's a poor focal length for any light source. Not really enough working distance for natural light, and actually too much working distance when using a flash.
That's incorrect. I shoot single frame macro at F11 all the way to 5x and there is a noticeable difference in fine details between F8 and F16. It's not enough to force me to focus stack though. This is roughly 2.5x @ F11 uncrpped, single frame:
Last edited:
They sell because everyone who shoots closeups with them will recommend a 100mm macro lens when someone is seeking advice on what macro lens to buy. I even owned the USM version, and I have a 180mm L that collects dust in my closet. 99.9% of the time the MP-E 65mm is on my camera. Just received my second copy of that lens cause my 13 year old one broke again for a third time (the cable between the electrical contracts and the aperture assembly eventually wears out). Now I gotta send my old one to Canon service for repair.
This is a live, semi-active butterfly shot above 3x with an MP-E 65mm macro lens. 1 frame, hand held, and un-cropped in post:
Know your subject and you don't have to keep your distance...
I think you meant 1:2 (1/2 life size) and not 2:1 (2x). I agree that IS doesn't help much, if any, at 1x. Certainly doesn't help if a flash is the primary light source.
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.
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...
P.S. Even when not shooting at 1x there is very little difference in the field of view between a 90mm and a 100mm lens. So little that I doubt you'd ever find yourself shooting with a 100mm lens and wishing it was only 90mm
Last edited:
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.
I bought the EF 100 f2.8 L macro on launch, my biggest disappointment with it is the fact that it is no faster than my 70-200 f2.8 zoom.
I use it as a general purpose lens in a two lens kit (the 35 f2 IS is the other) and I’d have been much happier with it if it had been an f2 because while I do a little casual macro shooting with it I primarily use it for portraits and product images. And whilst I have zero interest in moving to RF it would have more interest as an f2 than an f2.8.
I use it as a general purpose lens in a two lens kit (the 35 f2 IS is the other) and I’d have been much happier with it if it had been an f2 because while I do a little casual macro shooting with it I primarily use it for portraits and product images. And whilst I have zero interest in moving to RF it would have more interest as an f2 than an f2.8.
For closeups I carry a 100 to 400 F4 - F5.6 L. I really don't view macro lenses as a viable option for natural light closeup work until the focal length hits 150mm or greater. No idea why you'd consider a 90mm macro lens better for closeup photography over a 100mm lens -the working distances will almost be the same.
The MP-E 65mm and a microscope objective are both manual focusing options. So when are you actually using AF at 1x and higher mag?
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!
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!
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.
I do plan to get that RF 85mm f2 macro. It looks like a great lens, and is far more affordable than the RF 85mm f1.2 (and I already have the RF 50mm f1.2).
I wanted a good macro lens for my R and R5 (whenever I finally get my preorder). I like the RF 35mm, but, it only magnifies so close. The EF 100mm has so many good reviews, I was curious about how it performs on the R (or R5). Especially if the wait for a similar RF lens might be a long time.
I wanted a good macro lens for my R and R5 (whenever I finally get my preorder). I like the RF 35mm, but, it only magnifies so close. The EF 100mm has so many good reviews, I was curious about how it performs on the R (or R5). Especially if the wait for a similar RF lens might be a long time.
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!
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.
