A New Zoom Macro Coming? [CR1]

[Marsu42]

I hope Canon would update the 180mm macro with IS - you'd get long macro working range plus a tele prime (with tc) in one piece, IS isn't really necessary for macro range but it is for 300mm+. For the very same reason I doubt this will happen - why would Canon design one lens if they can sell two :-\ ?

 

[marshall]

I wonder if a version of the MP-E 65 in which the position of the focal plane can be adjusted internally (a focusing ring) at any given magnification, is a technically feasible.

Such a lens, with a motorized focusing ring for remote control, would be extremely attractive to me because it would obviate the need for focusing rails in many situations (focus stacking over a few millimeters for example). If the focusing motor is fast, it may dramatically improve the ability to produce nice focus-stacked images in the field as well.

 

[mackguyver]

I hope Canon would update the 180mm macro with IS - you'd get long macro working range plus a tele prime (with tc) in one piece, IS isn't really necessary for macro range but it is for 300mm+. For the very same reason I doubt this will happen - why would Canon design one lens if they can sell two :-\ ?

Personally, I'd rather have a 180mm f/2.8 that's lighter and sharp as hell without the $500-1000 IS premium. IS is of limited use for my use of the 180 - just when chasing butterflies and such, but even then, the weight is more of the issue than the lack of IS. I love IS, but the 100mm f2.8 IS fills that need and it's focal length is much better suited for running around to get shots at less than 1:1.

Just my two cents...

 

[Marsu42]

Personally, I'd rather have a 180mm f/2.8 that's lighter and sharp as hell without the $500-1000 IS premium.

My envy comes from a photog acquaintance of mine who has the 200mm Nikon with a 2x extender and is extremely flexible with this combination next to having top-notch sharpness - that's why I also want it, but with IS

Btw for a macro, there's no need for f2.8 on 180mm as far as I understand it - I don't need that thin dof & it would add much more weight, I'd prefer f4+IS...

 

[mackguyver]

My envy comes from a photog acquaintance of mine who has the 200mm Nikon with a 2x extender and is extremely flexible with this combination next to having top-notch sharpness - that's why I also want it, but with IS

Btw for a macro, there's no need for f2.8 on 180mm as far as I understand it - I don't need that thin dof & it would add much more weight, I'd prefer f4+IS...

Yes, the 180mm works incredibly well with both extenders - which is why I went for it over the 100mm. Having extenders is awesome for skiddish or dangerous critters. Even shooting less than 1:1, it gives a unique look you can't seem to get with an equivalent telephoto, such as this one of a green anole with the 1.4x extender (on a crop sensor with a 403mm effective focal length):

As for the f/2.8, I want it to for a brighter viewfinder and AF with the 2x extender. Even though the supposed max aperture with the 180 is f/7, the 1DX and 5DIII don't support AF with it. Also shooting wide open can be used for creative photos such as the one below shot at f/3.5: