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...
Canon officially announces the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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 =)
There are definitely aspects of optical performance that can be improved. Sharpness is quite good, but longitudinal CA is kinda bad, and that's pretty important for any kind of macro photography with strong contrast.
No, I agree completely. Those images looked horrible. "Soft focus effect" who on earth would like that effect haha.
How many years do I have to use my EF 100 macro before I or one of my clients notices this “important” defect?
Well it's important to meee!
Yes, agree. The CA is all over the place in some situations. I hope the RF version has addressed this. It's sometimes fixable in post, but sometimes a bit tricky. Other than that, the EF-version is great.
Could someone please point me to an on-line, high-res photo where this alleged problem is evident? Thanks!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You can stack as many shorter ones as you can afford!Who sells 10cm tubes
But the far focus distance decreases horribly
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
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.Who sells 10cm tubes
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):
Similar threads
