Get closer, with images larger than life, using the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,844
1,141
Canon should give free frogs with their RF 100mm 2.8L IS. Or tell us how to persuade frogs to wait and pose patiently :ROFLMAO:

OK probably I should use a lens like 100-400 L IS II but one cannot carry so many lenses with him (I had already a prime telephoto)

I guess for flowers in an non-windy day RF 100 2.8L IS would do well...

I will not upgrade since even my EF100L is rarely used and its quality is very good. But someone who uses it a lot and does macro often or starts now could probably benefit from the RF version.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and -pekr-

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
35
16
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
I suggest you hang onto it long enough to make sure the new one works properly!
I won't for long... I already have a friend interested in it ;)
In the end the track record I have with Canon and all the lenses I have bought from them (23 during the years) is such that I am confident the new lens will work out of the box. Whether I will end up liking it or not it's a different matter
 

amfoto1

I'm New Here
Aug 29, 2014
15
10
Someone asked about mounting the Canon Macro Ringlite and Twinlite to the RF 100L... Since it uses the same 67mm size filter as the EF 100L, I'm sure it will use the same Macrolite 67 adapter too.

Something that surprised me a little is that the Canon promo materials for the RF 100L completely fail to mention the new Tripod Ring E for the lens. The option to fit a tripod ring to all three of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses is unique and can be a very valuable feature for many users. For example, it will be an ideal accessory to do focus stacking. Might even be more useful on the RF lens than the EF 100mm Macros, since the new lens is a little bit heavier at the same time the R-series cameras tend to be a bit lighter than their DSLR counterparts. No other manufacturer is offering a tripod ring option on shorter than 150mm, 180mm or 200mm macro lens. Canon should note this in their promos!

As best I can tell, the minimum focus distance of the RF 100L and EF 100L are about the same at 1X magnification (remains to be seen if this also means slightly less "working distance" between front of lens and subject, as is the case with EF 100L vs EF 100 non-L/non-IS). Of course, the RF lens can do 1.4X magnification, which no doubt means further reduced minimum focus distance. I've seen conflicting info about that though... Waiting for hands-on reviews by some of the more credible web sites.

MFD correlates to the effectiveness of IS. According to Canon the RF lens is rated similar to the EF 100L in this regard. But, at what magnification? If they're getting the same degree of assistance from IS at 1.4X on the RF lens as at 1X on the EF lens, that would be a definite plus for the new lens. It's another matter entirely if the similar rating is with both lenses at 1X. Another question is what about total stabilization on the cameras that now have in-body IS too? Of course, "your mileage may vary" with IS... and high magnification macro is challenging for IS. It can help, but doesn't obviate the need for a tripod ring and steady support in some situations.

It's interesting someone notes that their 100mm macro is their least used lens. While mine isn't my most used lens by any means (that would be a toss up between some non-macro lenses)... But myy Canon 100mm is easily my most used MACRO lens, out of five different macro lenses in my kit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dockland

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,845
4,508
Also, and perhaps most importantly, smaller sensors give more effective depth of field, which is extremely important in macro work.
Well no they don’t actually. Once you equalize reproduction ratio at output my tests have shown there is practically no difference in dof across sensor size.
 

Dockland

EOS 90D
Nov 14, 2019
129
212
Sweden
Someone asked about mounting the Canon Macro Ringlite and Twinlite to the RF 100L... Since it uses the same 67mm size filter as the EF 100L, I'm sure it will use the same Macrolite 67 adapter too.

Something that surprised me a little is that the Canon promo materials for the RF 100L completely fail to mention the new Tripod Ring E for the lens. The option to fit a tripod ring to all three of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses is unique and can be a very valuable feature for many users. For example, it will be an ideal accessory to do focus stacking. Might even be more useful on the RF lens than the EF 100mm Macros, since the new lens is a little bit heavier at the same time the R-series cameras tend to be a bit lighter than their DSLR counterparts. No other manufacturer is offering a tripod ring option on shorter than 150mm, 180mm or 200mm macro lens. Canon should note this in their promos!

As best I can tell, the minimum focus distance of the RF 100L and EF 100L are about the same at 1X magnification (remains to be seen if this also means slightly less "working distance" between front of lens and subject, as is the case with EF 100L vs EF 100 non-L/non-IS). Of course, the RF lens can do 1.4X magnification, which no doubt means further reduced minimum focus distance. I've seen conflicting info about that though... Waiting for hands-on reviews by some of the more credible web sites.

MFD correlates to the effectiveness of IS. According to Canon the RF lens is rated similar to the EF 100L in this regard. But, at what magnification? If they're getting the same degree of assistance from IS at 1.4X on the RF lens as at 1X on the EF lens, that would be a definite plus for the new lens. It's another matter entirely if the similar rating is with both lenses at 1X. Another question is what about total stabilization on the cameras that now have in-body IS too? Of course, "your mileage may vary" with IS... and high magnification macro is challenging for IS. It can help, but doesn't obviate the need for a tripod ring and steady support in some situations.

It's interesting someone notes that their 100mm macro is their least used lens. While mine isn't my most used lens by any means (that would be a toss up between some non-macro lenses)... But myy Canon 100mm is easily my most used MACRO lens, out of five different macro lenses in my kit.

On my 5D I almost only used 16-35, 100mm and 70-200.
On my R5/R6 its the 15-35, EF 100mm L and 100-500mm
 

LostToFollowUp

I'm New Here
Apr 5, 2021
10
2
I'm dying to know if the new canon RF 100mm macro version will work with the RF teleconverter / extender, as I currently use my canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens with a 2x teleconverter. Figure if it does work then doubling that 1.4x up to 2.8x would be exactly what I'm looking for, if anyone finds out PLEASE let me know
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
339
251
I'm dying to know if the new canon RF 100mm macro version will work with the RF teleconverter / extender, as I currently use my canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens with a 2x teleconverter. Figure if it does work then doubling that 1.4x up to 2.8x would be exactly what I'm looking for, if anyone finds out PLEASE let me know

99% sure it will not work with the current RF TC's.

2 Reasons why...
Canon's product page does not state compatibility (vs the other 2 big white specifically state they are).
On one of the review sites they had a picture showing a partial view of the mount side of the lens. Although it was hard to make out the distance of the 1st glass element clearly (in relation to the mount), it appeared that there wasn't near enough room to fit the TC (the new RF TC's go into the lens a significant amount).
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,202
2,073
My current macro setup is a Rebel T6i with the old 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L version) so it has no image stabilization, nor is one needed.

I use it to take pictures of coins on a copy stand. The rebel's sensor is 6000x4000, so the max diameter of the coin image in pixels is 4000. Let's assume I have a coin the same diameter as the sensor is tall, so that at 1.0x, the camera is as close to the coin as it will focus.

If I were to buy this lens and put it on my RP, I'd be moving from a crop sensor to a full frame. so the same coin, at the same distance, that just filled my crop sensor, now fills 2600 pixels diameter on the RP's 4160 pixel tall sensor (4160/1.6 = 2600). This is a bit of a loss of pixels. BUT, with this lens it goes to 1.4x, so I can get closer, until the coin is 1.4x on the sensor, but that's 2600 x 1.4 = 3640 pixels across on that sensor. So I'm worse off with this lens and the RP, than I am now with an APS-C camera and the old lens.

If I use my R5 instead, I can get an image that has a diameter of 4,770 pixels (5464/1.6 * 1.4). Which is somewhat better than I have now.

But I tend to just leave the macro camera bolted to the copy stand, and I don't want to do THAT with my R5; it's convenient not to have to remove my camera from the copy stand, and use a different one instead.

Ironically, because I need "reach" in a macro setup I have to pass on this (or also buy another R5!). Apparently, all of the Canon 100 mm macros (even the really old one without USM) are basically equal in plain old optics, so that's OK.

If my T6i dies and I can't get another one, I can probably use my M50 (with an adapter) in the same role as the T6i. If the lens dies, I'm better off replacing it with another EF lens. Ironic, huh?
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,568
1,395
My current macro setup is a Rebel T6i with the old 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L version) so it has no image stabilization, nor is one needed.

I use it to take pictures of coins on a copy stand. The rebel's sensor is 6000x4000, so the max diameter of the coin image in pixels is 4000. Let's assume I have a coin the same diameter as the sensor is tall, so that at 1.0x, the camera is as close to the coin as it will focus.

If I were to buy this lens and put it on my RP, I'd be moving from a crop sensor to a full frame. so the same coin, at the same distance, that just filled my crop sensor, now fills 2600 pixels diameter on the RP's 4160 pixel tall sensor (4160/1.6 = 2600). This is a bit of a loss of pixels. BUT, with this lens it goes to 1.4x, so I can get closer, until the coin is 1.4x on the sensor, but that's 2600 x 1.4 = 3640 pixels across on that sensor. So I'm worse off with this lens and the RP, than I am now with an APS-C camera and the old lens.

If I use my R5 instead, I can get an image that has a diameter of 4,770 pixels (5464/1.6 * 1.4). Which is somewhat better than I have now.

But I tend to just leave the macro camera bolted to the copy stand, and I don't want to do THAT with my R5; it's convenient not to have to remove my camera from the copy stand, and use a different one instead.

Ironically, because I need "reach" in a macro setup I have to pass on this (or also buy another R5!). Apparently, all of the Canon 100 mm macros (even the really old one without USM) are basically equal in plain old optics, so that's OK.

If my T6i dies and I can't get another one, I can probably use my M50 (with an adapter) in the same role as the T6i. If the lens dies, I'm better off replacing it with another EF lens. Ironic, huh?
Or replace it with an MP-E if you get smaller coins :)
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,202
2,073
Or replace it with an MP-E if you get smaller coins :)

Of course, with larger coins this whole issue is moot. Some are small enough they won't fill an APSC sensor even as close as my 100mm macro will take me. They certainly would fill it up with this new lens...if it would only work with a Rebel!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaitanya

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
472
140
53
I've gotta say... I'm a little disappointed in the new RF 100's IS capabilities at macro distances... At 3:04 on Canon's promo video it states "Approx. 2-Stops of stabilization at 1.0x magnification." That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS... Maybe it's just the Laws of Physics limiting the real-world effectiveness of IS at macro-levels... I don't know... But when I first read that this new RF 100 would have 8-Stops of stabilization on my R5, my pre-order trigger-finger started to twitch... Now, I might have to wait for some hands-on reviews... Sure, the additional 0.4x magnification is great. And the new SA adjustment might be fun to play with for portraiture, though I'm not sure if it'll really be applicable to macro work. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling or anything; I would love for someone to tell me what it is I'm not seeing here... BTW according to Bryan at The Digital Picture, the new RF 100 Macro will have the same 64mm filter threads as the EF 100, so the existing ring &/or twin flashes should be compatible.
For the 'net' IS affect one must take into consideration the Canon body this RF lens will be mounted on. On an R6 or R5 effective IS stops will be much greater than on an R or RP. I believe Canon's ~2 stops of correction at 1.0X mag is the lens only and not factoring in if shooting on a body with IBIS. I could be wrong - haven't researched this. Just thinking out loud.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
183
140
Orewa , New Zealand
You don’t get 1.6 times magnification with a crop camera that isn’t How it works. You never get more magnification with a crop camera, just less field of view.
Same thing , my 7D ii with 100-400 ii lens at 400mm gives me 12.8 x magnification whereas on a FF it would only be 8x magnification
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,845
4,508
Same thing , my 7D ii with 100-400 ii lens at 400mm gives me 12.8 x magnification whereas on a FF it would only be 8x magnification
No it really isn’t the same thing! Do we have to go through all this again? Crop cameras crop, nothing else, you don’t get more magnification with a crop camera you get less field of view. For telephoto use that can be an advantage especially if you are focal length limited because you’d crop anyway and crop cameras often have higher pixel densities. But you are not getting ‘more’ anything.

But the maths for macro is completely different anyway, you are not focal length limited for macro and magnification is much more literal.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,202
2,073
No it really isn’t the same thing! Do we have to go through all this again? Crop cameras crop, nothing else, you don’t get more magnification with a crop camera you get less field of view. For telephoto use that can be an advantage especially if you are focal length limited because you’d crop anyway and crop cameras often have higher pixel densities. But you are not getting ‘more’ anything.

But the maths for macro is completely different anyway, you are not focal length limited for macro and magnification is much more literal.
You don't get more magnification, but you do usually get a higher pixel pitch, so you can print a larger image of the same thing at some given dpi. And I'm pretty sure that's what was actually meant here. I see it termed "reach," the apparent magnification that's actually caused by a higher pixel pitch combined with a crop.

Obviously a full frame camera with the same pixel pitch would A) have a monstrous megapixel count and B) have to be cropped to get the same result as the cropped camera, but you actually would get the same result when you did that, rather than something that looks like it was blown up.

(PBD, I'm sure you understand all of this. But I am trying for the benefit of others to shed light on the disconnect here.)
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,845
4,508
You don't get more magnification, but you do usually get a higher pixel pitch, so you can print a larger image of the same thing at some given dpi. And I'm pretty sure that's what was actually meant here. I see it termed "reach," the apparent magnification that's actually caused by a higher pixel pitch combined with a crop.

Obviously a full frame camera with the same pixel pitch would A) have a monstrous megapixel count and B) have to be cropped to get the same result as the cropped camera, but you actually would get the same result when you did that, rather than something that looks like it was blown up.

(PBD, I'm sure you understand all of this. But I am trying for the benefit of others to shed light on the disconnect here.)
But as I said that singular ‘advantage’ of a crop camera doesn’t factor into macro use at all. A crop camera does not get you more magnification (ever) but that is especially relevant in macro shooting.
 

pape2

EOS 90D
Mar 19, 2021
111
145
For the 'net' IS affect one must take into consideration the Canon body this RF lens will be mounted on. On an R6 or R5 effective IS stops will be much greater than on an R or RP. I believe Canon's ~2 stops of correction at 1.0X mag is the lens only and not factoring in if shooting on a body with IBIS. I could be wrong - haven't researched this. Just thinking out loud.
2 stop could be absolute max what can be achieved with 1:1 . To better stabilation needs intelligent distortion correction and ability to push some details from underexposed sub images to places where is hole from distortion correction on another layer.
I can explain this better too if wasnt understandable ?
 
Last edited:
<-- start Taboola -->