An RF Zoom fisheye is coming [CR2]

[SwissFrank]

But the 180 macro is a different beast for 2 reasons:
1: It is pretty heavy, much heavier than the EF 135
2: Even 1 EV shake reduction means a lot in, for instance, a 1/1 hand-held macro situation.
That's why I'd welcome an optically stabilized 180-200mm RF macro.

For EF, the 135/2 was 780g vs. 180/3.5 1090g.
For RF, the 135/1.8 is 935g.

For me these are all pretty much in the same ballpark. I owned the first two from about the month they went on sale in the 90s, until this year and last year. Having owned IS lenses from the first 75-300 in like 1995, until today, I don't think lens weight has much effect on handholdability.

1 stop IS certainly will be good in SOME situations but consider it that way: without that extra stop you can simply double your ISO. Are there images that are fine at ISO X but cannot be used at ISO X*2?? Or open up one stop: are there images at f/11 that simply fail at f/8? I don't really think that's the case. I'd agree one would be slightly preferable, but photography is the art of the possible. If you can't shoot f/11, you simply shoot f/8, and make a great picture with the settings you're forced to use.

Just doing a sanity check: If shooting macro on sunny day, the "sunny 16" rule says you could shoot ISO 200 f/16 at 1/200. Hazy f/11, partly cloudy f/8, cloudy f/5.6, overcast f/4. Now to make a worst-case overcast shot that needs f/22? Starting at the rule, you have ISO 200 f/4 1/200, and can go to ISO 200 f/22 1/6 from there. That's a REALLY cloudy day with a ridiculously small aperture, and quite hand-holdable I think (my tests of the EF 135 show you can get pretty good results at 1/4 on an R5). You only need that extra stop if you're shooting hand-held macro at dusk or dawn AND don't need to stop motion. Of course the best photos are when you do what no-one else is doing, but I just don't see ANYONE shooting natural-light hand-held macro at dusk or dawn. I haven't been a pro shooter in decades but I guess I don't see what real-world case one more stop might be critical.

 

[SwissFrank]

My wishlist for an RF 180 or 200mm L macrolens, ranked by importance (to me, from high to lower):

• Same (or better) optical quality as the EF 180 mm
• 1:1 magnification
• Fast AF
• Compatible with RF extenders (for increased working distance with dragonflies, butterflies and other insects)
• Sufficient number of aperture blades for a round opening (for good bokeh)
• Image stabilization
• Internal focusing (like the EF 180 mm)
• Focus limiter (from closest focus to +/- 1 meter)
• f 2.8
• Removable tripod collar
• Weight: equivalent to, or lighter than, the EF 180 mm

And please NO Spherical Aberration Control.

Optical quality on everything I tested is far higher on RF than EF even when the MTF chart doesn't suggest there will be a huge difference.

I think the days of 1:1 macro lenses are kind of over. When even the "cheap" 100mm macro is 1.4:1, I'd expect the "cost no object" macro to be 2:1.

f/2.8 is utterly useless for macro and is totally incompatible with the idea of it being lighter than the EF. If you're saying you want a dual-use lens of course I get it, but a 180/2.8 would be a LOT heavier.

I have the RF100/2.8Mac and I see no issues with SAC. I played around with it and it wasn't useful for the things I tried but other things may come up, and since I don't use it I locked it and it doesn't come unlocked.

 

[Del Paso]

For EF, the 135/2 was 780g vs. 180/3.5 1090g.
For RF, the 135/1.8 is 935g.

For me these are all pretty much in the same ballpark. I owned the first two from about the month they went on sale in the 90s, until this year and last year. Having owned IS lenses from the first 75-300 in like 1995, until today, I don't think lens weight has much effect on handholdability.

1 stop IS certainly will be good in SOME situations but consider it that way: without that extra stop you can simply double your ISO. Are there images that are fine at ISO X but cannot be used at ISO X*2?? Or open up one stop: are there images at f/11 that simply fail at f/8? I don't really think that's the case. I'd agree one would be slightly preferable, but photography is the art of the possible. If you can't shoot f/11, you simply shoot f/8, and make a great picture with the settings you're forced to use.

Just doing a sanity check: If shooting macro on sunny day, the "sunny 16" rule says you could shoot ISO 200 f/16 at 1/200. Hazy f/11, partly cloudy f/8, cloudy f/5.6, overcast f/4. Now to make a worst-case overcast shot that needs f/22? Starting at the rule, you have ISO 200 f/4 1/200, and can go to ISO 200 f/22 1/6 from there. That's a REALLY cloudy day with a ridiculously small aperture, and quite hand-holdable I think (my tests of the EF 135 show you can get pretty good results at 1/4 on an R5). You only need that extra stop if you're shooting hand-held macro at dusk or dawn AND don't need to stop motion. Of course the best photos are when you do what no-one else is doing, but I just don't see ANYONE shooting natural-light hand-held macro at dusk or dawn. I haven't been a pro shooter in decades but I guess I don't see what real-world case one more stop might be critical.

According to TDP, in use weight of the 180 macro is 1230 g, for the 135 F2 it's 780 g. So, the actual weight difference is about 450g, and that's quite a lot. I'm using both lenses on a regular basis, and, believe me, I feel the weight difference.
The 180 feels in hands rather like an EF 100-400 used without OIS.

 

[SwissFrank]

According to TDP, in use weight of the 180 macro is 1230 g, for the 135 F2 it's 780 g. So, the actual weight difference is about 450g, and that's quite a lot. I'm using both lenses on a regular basis, and, believe me, I feel the weight difference.
The 180 feels in hands rather like an EF 100-400 used without OIS.

are you also a Leica shooter? Around 1999-2002 I was shooting an M6 a lot and a friend with an M3 always was quick to assure me the M6 was, relatively speaking, crap :-D

I actually got lots of good portraits with it as people were very natural--no-one takes a small mechanical camera seriously, while they tense up if you point a big modern camera at them.

But I also found them something like 10-50x more prone to damage, needing a repair trip nearly every time I dropped it, compared to the Canons I mainly shot which only had one usage damage issue in a quarter century.

 

[Del Paso]

are you also a Leica shooter? Around 1999-2002 I was shooting an M6 a lot and a friend with an M3 always was quick to assure me the M6 was, relatively speaking, crap :-D

I actually got lots of good portraits with it as people were very natural--no-one takes a small mechanical camera seriously, while they tense up if you point a big modern camera at them.

But I also found them something like 10-50x more prone to damage, needing a repair trip nearly every time I dropped it, compared to the Canons I mainly shot which only had one usage damage issue in a quarter century.

Well...
The M6 wasn't bad, but couldn't be compared quality wise to an M3, best M ever, or to the Leicaflexes. I also had 2 M6 TTL, no issues, unless dropped.
Whenever dropped (fortunately not often) : Solms or Wetzlar and 4-6 weeks waiting...and sometimes dissatisfaction + return to sender for one more try...
I've dropped my Canons too (5 D III, 5 D IV, R), but never had to send them for a repair. Leica M's weapoint was always the rangefinder, so I ended by learning to adjust it myself. On the other hand, I dropped twice my M 240, nothing broken or out of adjustment.
Yet, I couldn't imagine not having and using an M, especially with wide-angles. The lenses are simply fantastic!

 

[ashmadux]

I bought the ef 8-15mm L fisheye as soon as it was available and it's a really fun lens that is suprisingly versatile. However it needs judicious use in a collection of photographs. It's ability to cover fully circular 8mm and full recilinear 15mm fisheye views is unique. It's very small and light...and with a ef-rf drop in filter adapter...I can use ND filters with it.
I personally can't see what a RF version can bring to the table except that it gives Canon permission to kill off the old ef version in 5 years or so.
There are a few niche ef lenses that really do need a warm over. These will never see the light of day as mk II ef lenses...so my only hope is that thye will be RF lenses instead. The ef 180mm f3.5 L macro is another of those niche lenses. It's far better than any other variant of it's type from any other brand. It's not until you try the Sigma, Nikon, tamron etc until you realise how good the Canon variant is in comparision. But it could do with newer optics, coatings, AF motors and yes...a modern macro capabile IS system. However, the EF version is so niche it still commands a high price...I shudder to think what Canon would charge for an RF version!
If canon were smart with their TSE-RF lenses, they would include a rear drop in filter slot. That would level the "features" playing field between ef and rf variants.
I like the idea of a super wide f1.2 prime lens. Looking at the block chart...that's got some seriously funky glass shapes in there...that isn't going to be cheap or light weight!

I rented this lens many times (on crop mostly), it can take some really nice pictures, just a great small solid piece of kit. With canons current cost cutting leading plastics that argualby feel worse, im a bit skeptic of how the new build would compare to the old one. If one can afford it, this is definitely a good buy to use several times a year...its just unique and nice.

 

[ashmadux]

Canon would make every type of lens, except a high quality RF-S standard zoom.

The missing RF 50 mm 1.4 says hello. I'll keep saying it, is absolutely abominable they refuse to bring this lens out. I simply don't have a replacement for it for RF, and its ridiculous.

Think about it - we got stereo 3d lenses before a far more necessary 50 1.4. As far as canon is concerned, it's but the 50 1.2 for 2000.00 or just use the cheap stuff.

 

[koenkooi]

I rented this lens many times (on crop mostly), it can take some really nice pictures, just a great small solid piece of kit. With canons current cost cutting leading plastics that argualby feel worse, im a bit skeptic of how the new build would compare to the old one. If one can afford it, this is definitely a good buy to use several times a year...its just unique and nice.

The ‘plastic’ EF100L has been on the market for about 14 years now, have you heard any stories of it unexpectedly disassembling?

Judging from the lack of online outrage outside of the announcement window, the complaints about using non-metals seem to be mostly elitist whinging, not based on actual build quality.

 

[SwissFrank]

With canons current cost cutting leading plastics that argualby feel worse, im a bit skeptic of how the new build would compare to the old one. If one can afford it

The feedback from experts like Lens Rentals seems to be that today's Canons are the best build quality they've ever made. While the exterior is still a man-made material, inside (where it counts) they're tougher than ever.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The missing RF 50 mm 1.4 says hello. I'll keep saying it, is absolutely abominable they refuse to bring this lens out. I simply don't have a replacement for it for RF, and its ridiculous.

Think about it - we got stereo 3d lenses before a far more necessary 50 1.4. As far as canon is concerned, it's but the 50 1.2 for 2000.00 or just use the cheap stuff.

I agree, it's strange. Speaking about the RF 50 1.2, it's not just about the cost but size as well. Not everyone wants to lug around a 2kg lens but Canon offers no option if you want a high quality weather sealed but compact lens. Either buy the cheap plastic 50 1.8 or the brick 1.2 version. Same situation with the 85mm also.

 

[unfocused]

The feedback from experts like Lens Rentals seems to be that today's Canons are the best build quality they've ever made. While the exterior is still a man-made material, inside (where it counts) they're tougher than ever.

I think a lot of people don't really understand modern manufacturing techniques and materials.

 

[SwissFrank]

I think a lot of people don't really understand modern manufacturing techniques and materials.

And in this case "modern" can even mean "post-1950s." People always go on about how rugged the Leica M gear is, bragging that there's no plastic in it, etc. etc. Yet every time I dropped my Leica M6 or lenses, they needed a repair. I've only needed a repair on Canon gear once. Yet I've had five times more Canon gear and for almost ten times as long.

 

[Roo]

Ok, I'll bite... which sports?

Mostly ice hockey.

 

[scyrene]

I think the days of 1:1 macro lenses are kind of over.

Lenses like the RF 100-400 definitely make dedicated macro setups less necessary.

f/2.8 is utterly useless for macro

I disagree strongly!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Interesting because i heard exactly the opposite from a pro photographer who sold the Sigma 180mm macro for the Canon version and said it was not worth it.

I think you read my stement wrongly. The Canon ef 180mm L is vastly superior to the Sigma. I had the sigma 180mm macro for about a year. Optically it was fine. However...it's AF was pedestrian and inaccurate (like a lot of Sigma lenses that i've used) and the focus ring was gritty and unpleasent. It's body casing finish was rediculously soft and easily marked. It also didn't take teleconverters very well. It pales next to the Canon version which is the best currently available. So no, the Sigma is nowhere near as good as the Canon version. Yes the Sigma get you to 180mm macro 1:1 (although I seem to find that it frames wider than the Canon and it's way darker than the Canon at 1:1). Yes the Sigma is cheap S/H for good reason.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

What's the use case for ND filters with the EF8-15mm? CPL would probably have issues if there is a lot of blue sky in frame. NDs for waterfalls/moving water etc mean getting very close ie wet

If I have a shot that is low light and the contrast is well beyond the dynamic range of the camera. I'll put it on a tripod, shoot 3 shots with different ND filters to keep the same iso and aperture, but vary the shutter speed. Then I can either HDR or photo blend the three images to get a single perfect exposure with no loss of detail in the highlights or low lights.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The EF180L allows me to use the CPL drop in filter, which saves $$$$ for a front mount CPL Comparing the RF100L, RF85STM and the EF180L, I find that the R5/R8 AF system works a lot better with fast AF motors. That makes me wish for an RF180L, but I agree that will likely be a €2500 lens.

I would rather see an RF180 LIS macro than a replacement for the ef 8-15mm L fisheye any day.
Unfortuatnly there's a lot of nuvo-rich R5 users who seem to be more interestied in collecting the latest gear than actually using what is already available (and great). These seem to be driving Canon's sales figures and hence their developement direction. Canon make a lot of money selling new and shiney gear to a lot of very wealthy customers, who are only interested in native RF mount lenses. Canon don't care in the demographic other than shifting new product.

 

[SwissFrank]

Lenses like the RF 100-400 definitely make dedicated macro setups less necessary.


I disagree strongly!

Can you share some compelling f/2.8 macro shots? I don't care if they're yours or off the net. If I'm wrong I'd like to learn it sooner than later :-D

 

[unfocused]

I would rather see an RF180 LIS macro than a replacement for the ef 8-15mm L fisheye any day.
Unfortuatnly there's a lot of nuvo-rich R5 users who seem to be more interestied in collecting the latest gear than actually using what is already available (and great). These seem to be driving Canon's sales figures and hence their developement direction. Canon make a lot of money selling new and shiney gear to a lot of very wealthy customers, who are only interested in native RF mount lenses. Canon don't care in the demographic other than shifting new product.

Sorry but this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. Canon hasn’t yet made the lens you want so anyone buying other lenses is rich and just collecting shiny gear?

 

[David - Sydney]

f/2.8 is utterly useless for macro

I disagree. I have used it underwater (needing bursts to get exactly the focus point for small subjects), for rings at weddings, or for portraits eg newborn's feet (although a close up macro eg 85mm/2 could be similar). Also okay for normal portraits ie of headshots at f2.8 but I also have a 70-200/2.8 that could be used.