- Mar 26, 2014
Well, it's handy for low light shots with static subjects....focus stacking is pretty easy to do.Why they make macro lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.
I know 2 other lenses excellent @ 100mm: the 70-200 f4 L IS II and the 100-400 L II, both very good for close-ups (I'm often using them for global pics of wild orchids...)I do not know the EF 100L but the EF 100 USM macro is very usable for infinity shots in my experience but this is restricted to a 5D classic and EOS M50 - my RP hasn't seen my 100mm USM macro seldomly. Maybe the IS system of the latest EF 100 macro has some impact to the optical quality at infinity or I haven't used my older 100mm macro not often enough to see the difference.
But one thing I remember during writing: The EF 2.0 100 @ f/4 is tack sharp, contrasty lens which reproduces textures etc very very well. Maybe I should investigate both lenses with my EOS RP in the next future to support any future decisions about 100mm lenses for the RF mount. Until that I have to choose from two lenses and have to go without IS ...
About the chances to make a much better compromise with a hypothetical RF 100 F2 IS macro: I agree, now we have new glass types, new methods of producing e.g. aspherical shapes an more freedom to place the lens elements (closer to the sensor e.g.) and maybe some additional tools to move more groups of lenses to optimize the system to a very low "degree of compromise"!
Easier to focus manually on a specific part of the flower.I don't shoot macro, but...
You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still. If you want neither the shallow depth of field nor the short exposure, why invest in f/2?
I mistyped it, its a 2:1. A 85 f/2 is close focus but not a macro design. f/2 or f/2.8 isn't needed for macro, at 2:1, f/5.6 or f/8 would be fine, the wider stop allows for focusing but my R5 focuses fine in less light. My 100mm L macro works fine with my R5 so I'd be hesitant to change unless it was something like 150mm 0r 200mm @2:1.As someone who enjoys macro, I'd have 0 interest in a 1:2 100mm close up lens, and for those that do want that there's already the 85 f2. Although the 35mm is fun for wide angle flower shots, you're so close to the subject that most living things have left.. Even the 1:1 of the 100l often isn't enough - 2:1 would be better... I look forwards to there one day being a RF version of the mpe65.
I agree that macro insists on stopped down shooting for any meaningful DOF however many of us use these lenses for portraits etc. and thus would enjoy the increment of speed.Why they make macro lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.
The software has been improved and can correct a lot.You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still
It proves the quoted statement by you is wrong?Your point being...?
nor the camera. Software has been improved.perfectly still
and1. More "natural" background separation.
2. Less blur from camera shake.
Couple of years back I had gone to Himalayas for butterflying and soon afterwards had to attend my cousin's wedding. Since I was alone decided to pack light and only carried a 100mm L on me. And I shot all the photos of said wedding using 100mm L and I also forgot to change out of setting I use for butterflying.So a bargain. What a deal!
I have used my EF 100mm macro for portraits, but I didn’t care for the look. So I bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 when it was on sale. I doubt the usefulness of f/2 for actual macro shots, maybe if you are chasing around insects in dim light and going for an artsy one eye in focus look.
The Canon News link identifies this as an RF version for the EF 100 f2, just as the recent RF 85 f2 replaces the 85 1.8 EF. It is projected by CanonNews to have the handy 0.5x "macro" that the RF 85 f2 has. It's not really intended as a true macro lens like the 100 f2.8 L IS macro, so angst on that point is misplaced.
An understandable request as expressed by others, but the downside would be a bulkier (mostly longer) lens that has less chance of fitting into a pocket or a small walk-around camera bag. With the RF 35 and RF 85 Canon has demonstrated that one can push the MFD down to a very low value, around 1:2 ratio, while maintaining or even achieving a smaller form factor than the EF equivalent.I want 2:1 macro not just 1:1
Like... repainted by hand?1. Can be done with software.
How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?2. Optical IS & IBIS go quite a long way nowadays.
The extremes of wide open fast lens pictures often don't look natural, either.Like... repainted by hand?
Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".
How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?