New Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro features revealed

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
710
466
Well it is the first dedicated macro lens that actually works at 1:1 or greater, I don’t see how a basic lens with a modest close focusing ability is considered a ‘macro’ lens.
Most macro lenses used to be 50%, and with an included (most of the time) tube, got to 1:1.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
600
1,035
I'm not big into optics, but doesn't this sentence sound like SA control could possibly affect diffraction at small apertures? If Canon found a way to combat diffraction for macro photography which is often stopped down, that could be huge.

"Images formed by the lens at large apertures are therefore unsharp but get sharper at smaller apertures."
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
Wasn't the 85mm 2.0 touted as a macro too?

(Now whether it's a legit macro is another question entirely.)
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
120
37
Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from, is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it? It wasn't clear to me whether the quote about spherical aberration in the post came from Canon or was just a definition copied from somewhere.
 

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
The RF 85 ƒ2 macro checks all these boxes, is crazy lightweight and only 600USD. We've been shooting weddings with one and are getting ready to pick up a second one and dump our two 100L's
I own the new 85mm f2 macro, love it, and I have had the 100L EF L Macro for years. I am a product shooter and I also do portraits and hobby street photos. For me, a real macro lens is generally shooting life size or better. I own several lenses that say "macro" on the barrel, but only one I consider real macro (100 L.) Most professionals will call a true macro anything 1:1 or greater.
The 85 f2 and the EF 100 f2.8 L Macro make beautiful bokeh and are very sharp, but generally the 100mm is not my go-to for portraits as much as I use it for commercial product work. If you are not shooting tiny things like jewelry then the 85 f2 macro is a wonderful macro where 1:1 isn't a major concern. The 85 f2 is amazing, one of my favorite lenses. I use it for commercial, portraits, and street photos.

I blame Canon for not having a good naming system. Only 1x, 2x and up should be called true macro. The others should be called CF (Close Focus) or something similar.

Well, I hate to see this lens, lol, since I bought the $200 control ring adapter to use with my 100L EF and my 16-35 f4 EF. At any rate, I would guess this lens is going to be $1599, or at most will start at $1899 and then drop to $1599 after a year.
 
Last edited:

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
For the static macro photography I do the (non-L) EF 100 f/2.8 macro has been quite adequate. (By "static" I mean "camera is screwed to a copy stand") No need for the IS the L version brings to the table. But correcting for spherical distortion and 1.4X might make a big difference to me.

Of course I'd have to ditch the Rebel T6i I have bolted to the copy stand, too! Actually, an RP might be almost ideal for this application, since it's such a controlled environment. (No need for whiz-bang autofocus and dozens of exposures per second; in fact I manually focus via tether and my subjects don't move.)

Of course I'd be going from crop to full frame, and that could make a number of differences. Ironically, "reach" matters here at a range of 30-50 centimeters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

bks54

EOS M50
Aug 30, 2018
47
55
Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from, is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it? It wasn't clear to me whether the quote about spherical aberration in the post came from Canon or was just a definition copied from somewhere.
It’s based on Nokishita tweet. Very reliable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,357
1,221
Turku, Finland
I'm not big into optics, but doesn't this sentence sound like SA control could possibly affect diffraction at small apertures? If Canon found a way to combat diffraction for macro photography which is often stopped down, that could be huge.

"Images formed by the lens at large apertures are therefore unsharp but get sharper at smaller apertures."

No, they're just stating the common fact that lenses tend to get sharper when stopped down (until diffraction hits), partly because SA is strongest at large apertures. They're trying to improve wide-open rendering rather than stopped down. There's little that can be done about diffraction because it's a fundamental limit of physics, a direct result of the wave nature of light, rather than any imperfection of the optics.
 
Last edited:

RBSfphoto

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 18, 2020
31
37
This could be really interesting, or it could be a gimmick ie the touch bar on the Canon R, very interested to see what the real-world application will be
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
I own the new 85mm f2 macro, love it, and I have had the 100L EF L Macro for years. I am a product shooter and I also do portraits and hobby street photos. For me, a real macro lens is generally shooting life size or better. I own several lenses that say "macro" on the barrel, but only one I consider real macro (100 L.) Most professionals will call a true macro anything 1:1 or greater.
The 85 f2 and the EF 100 f2.8 L Macro make beautiful bokeh and are very sharp, but generally the 100mm is not my go-to for portraits as much as I use it for commercial product work. If you are not shooting tiny things like jewelry then the 85 f2 macro is a wonderful macro where 1:1 isn't a major concern. The 85 f2 is amazing, one of my favorite lenses. I use it for commercial, portraits, and street photos.

I blame Canon for not having a good naming system. Only 1x, 2x and up should be called true macro. The others should be called CF (Close Focus) or something similar.

Well, I hate to see this lens, lol, since I bought the $200 control ring adapter to use with my 100L EF and my 16-35 f4 EF. At any rate, I would guess this lens is going to be $1599, or at most will start at $1899 and then drop to $1599 after a year.
For us, for weddings, the RF 85 ƒ2 replaces both the EF 100L and the EF 85L 1.4. As you said, 100 is often too long for portraits (especially in tight rooms) but just as frustrating is any 85's lack the ability to close-focus. Who hasn't griped on a job when you have to back-up with an 85? Now, we have a nice portrait lens and great close-focus lens in one value-priced solution. Thank you, Canon!
 

bks54

EOS M50
Aug 30, 2018
47
55
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
<-- start Taboola -->