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

[StevenA]

I will buy an RF 100mm f2 L macro lens in a heartbeat.

 

[SwissFrank]

With the flagship RF camera now at 45 megapixels, I don't think you're going to see many new RF lenses that have a lot of compromise on image quality. What would be the point of making a lens that doesn't have the resolving capability to perform well on the flagship camera?

Like I said--compactness. The answer to your question is in the post you're responding to.

I always had the flagship EOS 1N, 1V, 1Ds 1DsMkII, MkIII... lots of lenses couldn't resolve at their pixel counts or even film resolution--the 1.4, 1.0, and 1.2 sure couldn't--but I was happy to use them anyways.

 

[pj1974]

What camera is this with?
My EOS R focuses quickly and accurately with all my lenses, better than my dslrs. I've never had any AF issues with non-L 100/2.8 on the R.

On my 7D, 700D and 350D.
I bought my 100mm f/2.8L and then sold my 100mm f/2.8 non-L (which was before I bought my 80D and M5).

So I can't vouch for the 100mm f/2.8 nonL's AF accuracy at non-macro ranges, using DPAF, or on the newer DSLRs.
However, I had repeatable experiences of 2 x copies of the 100mm non-L macro on multiple DSLRs, at non-macro ranges... it wasn't always accurate or reliable.
Whereas 2 copies of the 100mm L were much better to AF at non-macro ranges on all my DSLRs (i.e. accurate and reliable, as well as a bit faster too).

I expect the 100mm f/2.8 L will be superb on the EOS R5 (which is my plan for the future).

 

[Vivid Color]

I would like an RF update to Canon's 180mm macro.

 

[Bonich]

Depth is a function of magnification and Fstop only -the focal length of a macro lens does not change the depth of field in any significant way.

I do agree that a lens that can reach 2x natively is better than one that has a maximum aperture of F2. The Fstop makes me think that this specific rumor is just that -a rumor. Someone's wishful thinking who already owns the EF version.

Better still would be an MP-E 65mm RF mount lens...

... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...

 

[Dalantech]

... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...

Due to the way that the MP-E is constructed, basically a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube, I doubt we'll ever see an AF version of it.

If you can learn how to control were the depth of field is going to fall in a scene then focus stacking, for the most part, isn't necessary. I took this shot in the heat of the day and although I didn't get close every time I tried I only need to get close once.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (set to roughly 2.5x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT (E-TTL metering, -2/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Denoise AI, and Clarity in that order.

Violet Darter VII by John Kimbler, on Flickr

 

[usern4cr]

Due to the way that the MP-E is constructed, basically a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube, I doubt we'll ever see an AF version of it.

If you can learn how to control were the depth of field is going to fall in a scene then focus stacking, for the most part, isn't necessary. I took this shot in the heat of the day and although I didn't get close every time I tried I only need to get close once.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (set to roughly 2.5x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT (E-TTL metering, -2/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Denoise AI, and Clarity in that order.

Violet Darter VII by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Beautiful shot, John! Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?

 

[RickD]

F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?

Could be because they want to appeal to current EF 100mm 2.8 holders to upgrade if they need / want the extra stop. if it was the same as the current 100 macro L, there's no reason for anyone who owns the current EF version to updgrade

 

[H. Jones]

Could be because they want to appeal to current EF 100mm 2.8 holders to upgrade if they need / want the extra stop. if it was the same as the current 100 macro L, there's no reason for anyone who owns the current EF version to updgrade

I wouldn't mind this at all, I know the 100mm F/2.8 has already been a great portrait lens, but making it F/2 would be an even bigger incentive to pick one up as a faster portrait lens alongside an excellent macro lens.

One of the big audiences for the 100mm macro has always been wedding photographers, I could see them using F/2 to appeal to them as a slightly wider 135mm f/2, which could replace two lenses in their bag with one in a pinch.

 

[SteveC]

I wouldn't mind this at all, I know the 100mm F/2.8 has already been a great portrait lens, but making it F/2 would be an even bigger incentive to pick one up as a faster portrait lens alongside an excellent macro lens.

One of the big audiences for the 100mm macro has always been wedding photographers, I could see them using F/2 to appeal to them as a slightly wider 135mm f/2, which could replace two lenses in their bag with one in a pinch.

Of course, there was already a 100 mm f/2.0, though I don't recall whether they ever made an L version of it.

I know in my signature it says they can pry my 100 mm f/2.8 out of my cold dead hands, but I won't be getting this one, at least not as a replacement for that. Because it lives on a Rebel T6i. Besides I typically run mine at f/5.6. (If I need portraits done I use my 85mm f/1.8, another lens they're talking about not quite replacing with a f/2.0.)

 

[Dalantech]

Beautiful shot, John! Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?

Thanks! It was with a home made set.