We have that in some of the cameras. I forget what Canon calls it.I would have liked to see some sort of stacking assistance using linear bellow(motorised).
Upvote
0
We have that in some of the cameras. I forget what Canon calls it.I would have liked to see some sort of stacking assistance using linear bellow(motorised).
Most macro lenses used to be 50%, and with an included (most of the time) tube, got to 1:1.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.
Or...Most macro lenses used to be 50%, and with an included (most of the time) tube, got to 1:1.
Very interesting, indeed.... Very interesting innovation. I wonder how it works, optically.
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 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
It was mentioned in a Tweet by Nokishita:is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it?
I do not know what You expect, but IMO it will adjust the bokeh. This would be very useful for some of my pictures (flowers eg). A 1.4 magnification would be a dream!But correcting for spherical distortion
It’s based on Nokishita tweet. Very reliable.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.
Sounds expensive! I'm thinking 1599 USD at launch.
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."
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!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.
The quote is actually lifted (and not referenced) from here https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology-of-photography/Black-and-white-filmsIt’s based on Nokishita tweet. Very reliable.
Actually, I was not referring to the quote, but to the question “Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from”. This formation came from Nokishita, as did the images of the new lens showing the SA control.The quote is actually lifted (and not referenced) from here https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology-of-photography/Black-and-white-films
Regardless, agree on the reliability of the source