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

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
473
214
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

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
678
193
Adelaide, Australia
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Bonich

EOS M50
Apr 29, 2019
29
30
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

Gatekeeper to the Small World
Feb 12, 2015
96
60
... 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
 
Last edited:

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
821
910
Kentucky, USA
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! :oops: Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?
 

RickD

EOS R6
Aug 27, 2016
21
10
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

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
514
784
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickD

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,043
1,899
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.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee