Like I said--compactness. The answer to your question is in the post you're responding to.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?
On my 7D, 700D and 350D.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.
... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...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...
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.... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...
Beautiful shot, John!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
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 updgradeF2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?
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.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
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 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.
Thanks! It was with a home made set.Beautiful shot, John!Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?