It's a question of definition and my FD 3.5 50mm has an engraved "MACRO" + lots of markings of the reproduction ratio on its outer tube. But does only 1:2. But it's from 1973 ( https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd156.html ) where 1:2 was state of the art in macro.I thought 1x and above is considered "macro"?
It's a question of definition and my FD 3.5 50mm has an engraved "MACRO" + lots of markings of the reproduction ratio on its outer tube. But does only 1:2. But it's from 1973 ( https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd156.html ) where 1:2 was state of the art in macro.
Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade. We've seen a few patents for TS-e macro lenses, some which have made it to market and some that haven't. One lens that pro macro shooters have been crying out for years is an update to the venerable ef 180mm macro. It seems there was developement of a replacement around the time the fantastic ef 100mm LIS macro was launched....but news of that lens seems to have gone quiet...leading me to suspect that it was shelved for future Rf mount re-work. It makes sense as it would be a low volume lens that would be another push for serious Pro photographers to get into the Rf mount. It certainly would prick up my ears and make me contemplate an Rf mount camera.
We can only speculate on what such a lens could be...but here's a few thoughts.
TSe 200mm f2.8 LIS Macro.
135mm f2.0 LIS macro....that would cover 2 genres and make many reach for their wallet.
TSe 100mm f2.8 LIS Macro.
I know the news states faster than f2.8..but it would be curious if a macro lens could be made a constant T2.8 (all the ones I've tried substantially loose brightness as the focus draws in).
Something like a 300mm f4 LIS half Macro wold be amazing too. A lot of fungi shooters need longer focal lengths to separate the small fungi from the busy backgrounds.
Interesting info about the EF 50, never knew that detail about the adaptor.And it came with a custom extension tube, the Extension Tube FD 25-U, that gave it 1:1 capability. I have the FDn version of the lens and it maintained the original chrome ringed 25mm extension tube.
The EF 50 Macro did a similar thing but the Life Sized Convertor has glass elements in it as well. The dedicated Convertor costs more than the lens!
If it is released with the high megapixel mirrorless camera, it will likely be pretty special, and very expensive. Maybe a zoom? Realisticly, how long could its focal length be and still have an aperture wider than f2.8? What about a very short focal length for lots of depth of field?Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade.
Interestingly, almost nobody is talking about the high-res "RS". Beginning of next year sounds a bit more promising than the previous report that mentions "first half of the year".
Meanwhile, while I was thinking whether or not I should get a A7RIV, this test chart was published https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9306199729/sony-a7r-iv-added-to-studio-test-scene-comparison and it doesn't look good for Sony! Basically it produces a stronger noise than A7RIII even after normalising the samples to the same size.
Definitely not getting the A7RIV. I'll wait for other reviews but this doesn't look like an improvement, so will be looking forward to seeing what Canon offers with their high-res RS.
I don't know how much the DR magic numbers influence actual sales, but they sure generate a lot of internet posts. At this point, maybe the biggest effect of the DR magic numbers is to convince people that it isn't worth upgrading the equipment they already have.Not picking on you but quoting since you brought it up. I am amazed a the number of people who buy or not based on sensor performance test charts. I can't imagine a full frame camera produced recently having image quality issues. What is the application for the camera? This is coming from someone who has no interest in Sony cameras. I am genuinely curious.
Apparently these magic numbers really matter to some people. One guy called the EOS R substandard, and one of the reasons he gave was that it had less DR than the 5DIV (according to DxO, the difference is a whopping 0.1 stops).I don't know how much the DR magic numbers influence actual sales, but they sure generate a lot of internet posts. At this point, maybe the biggest effect of the DR magic numbers is to convince people that it isn't worth upgrading the equipment they already have.
Interesting point. If you filter lenses by "macro" at the online Canon store, it results in a set of lenses that does not include the 24-70 f4 or any other zoom lens for that matter. Apparently the filter selects lenses that have macro in the name. The 24-70 f4 would seem to be an intermediate case between lenses that have macro in the name and lenses that are not called macros but have "macro" printed on the barrel. Macro is not included in the name of the 24-70, but the promotional material on the Canon website features its "macro" capability. Maybe the upcoming RF lens will be the first Canon zoom lens to have macro included in the name.Canon prints the word ‘macro’ on the barrel of many lenses, even the original 24-105/4 had that badge.
The problem is that as you increase magnification, the degree of actual tilt of the plane of focus becomes smaller, to a point of being pretty useless for the added complexity. Shift can be of use at strong tilt to reduce some vignetting effects, but that depends on lens design and usage.I’m aware of them, thanks (and although I don’t have the new TS-E lenses with 1:2 max mag, I have the 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses).
No, I mean tilt only. Combined with 1:1 macro that would be unique. From a purely macro perspective (pun intended), shift doesn’t offer much but tilt can be very useful. I suspect that by sticking to tilt, Canon could both allow higher max magnification and a greater degree of tilt (the latter would be important if the lens has a longer focal length, which I think is likely given that there’s already an RF 35mm macro).