Another Mention of a New Macro Lens in 2014 [CR1]

[Rudeofus]

Wouldn't that formula be protected by a patent? It would eat out of the profits, if Mamiya agrees to license it at all.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I know a number of camera makers which have 18-55mm lenses in their lineup without stepping on each other's patent.

I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.

Canon has a 90mm T&S lens in their lineup, and it's well known that this lens is not exactly the most popular lens.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.

For me though a potential 90mm TS-E update is more intriguing.

 

[Rudeofus]

Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.

Canon's macro flash accessories (MR-14EX, MT-24EX) are made for 72mm or smaller filter thread ...

 

[StudentOfLight]

Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.

Canon's macro flash accessories (MR-14EX, MT-24EX) are made for 72mm or smaller filter thread ...

... so if Canon upped the filter size on a new macro lens then they'd have a reason to sell a new macro Flash.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.

There are some wedding photographers that use TS creatively for people shots, although some people say that this is now a bit cliche. For me I think the only opinion that really matters is that of the client. If they want it and like it then great.

Obviously, as you've said TS DoF manipulation is extremely useful for product photography. It's a huge time saver compared to focus-stacking, especially when you have lots of samples to set up and shoot.

 

[Loswr]

Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.

Canon's macro flash accessories (MR-14EX, MT-24EX) are made for 72mm or smaller filter thread ...

Yes, but have you looked at the front of those macro lenses? The front elements are all substantially smaller than the filter ring, which is why you can step the 72mm filter down to a 58mm ring and not get vignetting. Using an MT-24EX on a 70-200/2.8 (77mm filter thread and a front element that goes almost to the filter thread) via a step-down ring results in only a very slight increase in optical vignetting with the lens at f/2.8, and no noticeable effect with the lens stopped down.

Canon could simply bring out a Macrolite 77C adapter and call it a day.

 

[Chaitanya]

Mostly in field working with live insects I have never cross 2x mag ratio. So if Canon really releases a new zoom macro capable of going all the way upto 2x then for most macro shooters that would be the only lens to carry in field. Also I don't think it will be a cheap lens and will cost around 2500$ atleast.

 

[mb66energy]

It would be expensive and it would sound like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.

I don't think so because the lens is usually tilted around an axis which lies in the image plane. Actually the projection of the image plane at 30° tilt is smaller than the image plane at zero tilt.

 

[mb66energy]

All internally focusing lenses do this by shortening their focal length. If you go all the way to 1:1 macro, your focal length would be cut in half. This means your beautiful 200mm macro lens with internal focusing would turn into an 100mm macro lens at 1:1 magnification. Pretty pointless, isn't it?

The distance between image plane and object is 4 times the focal length at 1:1 or otherwise: the focus distance at 1:1 will give you the focal length if you divide it by four:

EF-S 60 MFD 200mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 50mm
EF 100 MFD 300mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 75mm
EF 180 MFD 480mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 120mm

Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
focal length.
Modern lenses bend the light by crazy ways so there is a chance that you simulate lens positions to get
1:1 without loosing any focal length. Think about EF-S10-22 at 10mm which leaves 35mm space between back lens and image plane!

 

[Rudeofus]

Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
focal length.

All the macro lenses you just listed do not use internal focusing, so your point is moot. I did not argue against macro lenses in general, only against macro lenses with internal focusing.

Modern lenses bend the light by crazy ways so there is a chance that you simulate lens positions to get
1:1 without loosing any focal length. Think about EF-S10-22 at 10mm which leaves 35mm space between back lens and image plane!

These lenses do all kinds of crazy stuff, but when it comes to focusing they are still as they always were: internally focusing lenses which forfeit focal length at MFD for elegance, and lenses that maintain their focal length but become longer as you focus closely.

 

[mb66energy]

Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
focal length.

All the macro lenses you just listed do not use internal focusing, so your point is moot. I did not argue against macro lenses in general, only against macro lenses with internal focusing.

Modern lenses bend the light by crazy ways so there is a chance that you simulate lens positions to get
1:1 without loosing any focal length. Think about EF-S10-22 at 10mm which leaves 35mm space between back lens and image plane!

These lenses do all kinds of crazy stuff, but when it comes to focusing they are still as they always were: internally focusing lenses which forfeit focal length at MFD for elegance, and lenses that maintain their focal length but become longer as you focus closely.

I own the 60mm and the 100 mm USM Macro-both do NOT extend and use (including the 180mm Macro) after Canon's USA home page a
"Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with USM"
- so I do not understand your arguments - or is there a difference between "inner focusing system" and "internal focusing"?

 

[Rudeofus]

I own the 60mm and the 100 mm USM Macro-both do NOT extend and use (including the 180mm Macro) after Canon's USA home page a
"Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with USM"
- so I do not understand your arguments - or is there a difference between "inner focusing system" and "internal focusing"?

I stand corrected, these lenses do indeed use internal focusing and lose a fair amount of focal length at minimum focus distance. The 100L goes down to 75mm. I'm not sure people would want this for longer focal length macro lenses, though. There's already enough bitching and moaning about Sigma's 120-300 and its loss of focal length at MFD.