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

[David_E]

I have been told by an anonymous source that a Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro lens is in the hands of select photographers...

First RF lens to grab my attention. I use the EF 100mm macro via an adapter, but would likely buy this lens for the R5.

 

[mb66energy]

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

Why lug two lenses around (100 macro and 100 f/2) if one lens can work in both categories?
I like the 100mm focal length (close shots of nature, landscape) and I like at least 1:2 close up capabilities.
I am waiting for such a lens for a very long time and IS will help a lot e.g. for my RP and surely in conjunction with IBIS.

 

[mb66energy]

If a lens like that comes out, my guess would be 2000$

Was my first guess too in the moment I read the headline - hopefully they put some
of these dollars into keeping it at reasonable size and weight.
High probability that I will pay 2k and have the allround lens for my shooting needs
(landscape, townscapes, close-up of nature and things, low light settings).
IS + IBIS + f/2 + great high ISO quality + DPAF = "a pure dream"

Off topic: the last two or three days I used the EOS RP and the non-IS USM macro
and I was blown away how good AF acquisition is. Now I can make the photos
I ever wanted, e.g. crop plants waving in the wind - servo AF helps a lot in these
situations.

 

[Stuart]

2 is the new 2.8

LOL True - but there is a certain irony in the Bodies getting a little smaller and lighter, and the lenses getting much bigger and heavier.

 

[DrToast]

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

Just because a lens has macro capability, you're not required to only use it as a macro lens.

 

[Chaitanya]

Now bring that APS-C sized RF camera and we are golden.

 

[shawn]

This is a super smart move on Canon's part. Would love to have this lens to carry around on my next trip. It's also a great wedding photography lens as it can do portraits and detail shots with equal aplomb. Looking forward to this one for sure!

 

[richperson]

2 is the new 2.8

If you shoot Canon. It sure looks to me like Canon is smartly providing the same lenses as everyone else, but at 1/2 to 1 stop faster. Once all the RF lenses come out that is going to be hard to compete with. A lot of pros will want that extra speed and/or shallow DOF.

 

[jolyonralph]

Now bring that APS-C sized RF camera and we are golden.

I'll take "Things that are never gonna happen" for $1,000

 

[sanj]

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

Some may use it for other shots besides macro. Like portraits.

 

[lawny13]

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

but it can also double as a portrait lens. Especially if it can focus quickly. I would rather than a f2 macro than an f2.8 macro and 85 F1.8.

But of course I ain’t everyone.

 

[usern4cr]

This will be a wonderful lens for portrait use, as well as high magnification work. However, the "RF 35mm f1.8 IS macro" has only 1:2 maximum magnification and is thus not a true macro lens. Therefore it is very possible that the 100mm version also has a 1:2 maximum magnification. But whether it turns out to be 1:2 or 1:1 it will still be a wonderful lens to own for portrait and high magnification use.

So thank you Canon for coming out with such wonderful lenses! Now just get your R5 and R6 into all our hands, please!

 

[IcyBergs]

If you shoot Canon. It sure looks to me like Canon is smartly providing the same lenses as everyone else, but at 1/2 to 1 stop faster. Once all the RF lenses come out that is going to be hard to compete with. A lot of pros will want that extra speed and/or shallow DOF.

Yeah its really a smart move to position themselves against the competition and gives R shooters a range of options EF shooters never had, from f2 zoom perspective.

Would be nice if eventually f2.8 moved down market and became the new f4 in terms of budget L zooms but thats *very* wishful thinking

 

[SteveC]

2 is the new 2.8

Or 7.1 becomes the new 5.6.

Depends on which end of the market, I suppose.

More seriously I'm happy to see this come to the RF, but of course it will be too much for some people (as in, "Wow!!! but I can't afford that!"), luckily both the 2.8L and the 2.8 no-L will work fine on an RF body with extension-tube style adapter. (But now cue the kvetching from people who won't use an adapter.)

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

f/2 on a macro lens is also useful for avoiding diffraction blurring at extreme magnifications when using focus stacking. Although you really need to get to 3-4x before that would be an issue at f/2.8, at which point a 1:1 macro lens is already probably not your best choice...

But yeah, my 100mm macro is my portrait lens on the odd occasion that I need one. I got some pretty nice result's at my buddy's wedding (not the primary photographer). I've also heard them recommend specifically for portraits of babies, and babies are pretty ugly, so the shallow depth of field must be great to pretty them up.

 

[tcphoto]

It's an electronic viewfinder, it won't become any brighter as long as there is enough gain on the sensor to sustain it (but it will be less noisy in dim light).

Thanks, I do not care for an electronic viewfinder.

 

[koenkooi]

Thanks, I do not care for an electronic viewfinder.

Then why are you commenting in an RF lens thread!?!?

 

[Kit.]

I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).

How does 90mm give you more room?

 

[koenkooi]

How does 90mm give you more room?

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.

 

[Jasonmc89]

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

Doubles up as an awesome portrait lens.

(Sorry if you’ve already got this reply. Haven’t read all comments yet!)