Canon officially announces the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

#61
Am I the only one who thinks that the SA changes impact the focus in a HORRIFIC way? The rose in the video is suddenly extremely soft which looks realy ugly to me... I think this could be not so easily achieved in post - but this kind of blurred focus looks realy not desirable for me in any context... also the change in the Bokeh doenst look nice to me in any means...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#62
David_E said:
Identical optical performance suits me just fine; there isn't a lot of room for optical improvement.
Click to expand...
Agree, sharpness is just fine for me on my 100mm EF. But the focus breathing is VERY extreme though...
anyway, this lense isnt realy interesting for me, since the 100mm EF works perfectly fine on the R5 =) Also I would lose the possibility to use the filter adapter, which is super handy =)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#64
peters said:
Am I the only one who thinks that the SA changes impact the focus in a HORRIFIC way? The rose in the video is suddenly extremely soft which looks realy ugly to me... I think this could be not so easily achieved in post - but this kind of blurred focus looks realy not desirable for me in any context... also the change in the Bokeh doenst look nice to me in any means...
Click to expand...

No, I agree completely. Those images looked horrible. "Soft focus effect" who on earth would like that effect haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#70
Dockland said:
If you have the lens, try it yourself. High contrast situation, with something blurred in front of focus and some backlit, and contrasty background out of focus, at f/2.8
Click to expand...
My guess is that I will go through life without ever facing that situation with my 100mm macro lens. I can't recall anything like it so far. I did for a while use it as a portrait lens until I got a proper one, and I still didn't put blurry objects in front of the subject. Some were made in contrasty light, which I don't like for portraits. And on the macro, that made the "clinical" look even more so.
 
Upvote 0
#71
stevelee said:
My guess is that I will go through life without ever facing that situation with my 100mm macro lens. I can't recall anything like it so far. I did for a while use it as a portrait lens until I got a proper one, and I still didn't put blurry objects in front of the subject. Some were made in contrasty light, which I don't like for portraits. And on the macro, that made the "clinical" look even more so.
Click to expand...

It's a good lens. Perhaps not perfect. Used it once for a portrait, and it did good. Not as good as my RF 85 f/1.2 of course, but that's a whole different lens and purpose.
It's all about the user case. What suits one, doesn't suit another. I'm currently using it exclusively for macro, and the old has 1:1, so I'm a bit thrilled this upcoming will have even greater magnification.
 
Upvote 0
#72
Dockland said:
If you have the lens, try it yourself. High contrast situation, with something blurred in front of focus and some backlit, and contrasty background out of focus, at f/2.8
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. I generally don’t get to choose the surroundings for my macro photos in the field, though I don’t like very contrasty photos and I often use a flash for macros. I also never shoot macros at f2.8. I am unable to find an example of the CA you refer to in my own photos, and I take it that you are unable to direct me to an example. What am I to conclude from that?
 
Upvote 0
#73
Dockland said:
It's a good lens. Perhaps not perfect. Used it once for a portrait, and it did good. Not as good as my RF 85 f/1.2 of course, but that's a whole different lens and purpose.
It's all about the user case. What suits one, doesn't suit another. I'm currently using it exclusively for macro, and the old has 1:1, so I'm a bit thrilled this upcoming will have even greater magnification.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 1.4x is nice. I won’t miss it with my 100mm, since extension tubes work so well on it. 2x is no problem.
 
Upvote 0
#77
David_E said:
Been there, done that. I generally don’t get to choose the surroundings for my macro photos in the field, though I don’t like very contrasty photos and I often use a flash for macros. I also never shoot macros at f2.8. I am unable to find an example of the CA you refer to in my own photos, and I take it that you are unable to direct me to an example. What am I to conclude from that?
Click to expand...

If you're totally happy with the EF-version thats great. If you haven't got any issues with CA on this lens, even greater. Why would i take time to do that for you when you can try it out yourself? If you are curious, try a few shots following my example, but why would you if you are happy with this little toy.
As stated, different user cases.
 
Upvote 0
#79
Dockland said:
If you're totally happy with the EF-version thats great. If you haven't got any issues with CA on this lens, even greater. Why would i take time to do that for you when you can try it out yourself? If you are curious, try a few shots following my example...
Click to expand...
Thank you for recognizing that different users with different examples of a piece of gear and different working techniques may see different results. As for using the lens in a manner that I would not do in the real world just to prove or disprove your point, that makes no sense to me; I’m just a lowly macrophotograper who photographs mainly small arthropods and small wildflowers for a few scientific databases. In every instance, once my identification of the genus and species is confirmed, my photos have been marked “Research Grade.” Never has been one been marked as unacceptable due to some sort of distortion or aberration.

Leptoglossus oppositus​

 

Attachments

  • 15E72D5A-4F2C-44DD-8D63-53773E310AB7.jpeg
    15E72D5A-4F2C-44DD-8D63-53773E310AB7.jpeg
    334.8 KB · Views: 160
Upvote 0
#80
pape2 said:
Who sells 10cm tubes :p?
Click to expand...
I live in the US. You can't expect me to keep straight those units from the French Revolution. I don't even approve of chopping off people's heads.

I looked for my notes from when I was trying different tubes out, but did not find them for the 100mm. Interestingly, I did find them for the 24–105mm non-L zoom. I got 1:1 with a 36mm tube and the lens at 32mm. At 105mm, I got 1:1.89, or 0.53x.

I did some rough tests with and without the tubes. I just eyeballed alignment and focus, and probably not carefully enough. I shot pictures of a ruler (in inches, of course) to calculate magnification. These are 100% crops I believe from pictures taken with and without tubes on the 100mm non-L macro lens. The three tubes together add up to 68mm (6.8cm, 2.68 in., 0.149 cubits), so that would be the maximum for what I must have used (so not really that far off 10cm). So first 1x and then 2x (a bit overexposed):

one2one.jpg

two2one.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon Officially Announces the RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM and RF-S 14-30mm f/4-6.3 IS STM PZ
Replies
96
Views
8K
David - Sydney
D
Canon Rumors
Does The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Have A Design Weakness?
Replies
123
Views
13K
scyrene
S
Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
1K
freejay
F
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z joins supply shortage list
Replies
40
Views
6K
vjlex
vjlex
Richard CN
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
36
Views
10K
OldDudePhotog
O
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu