Patent: Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS STM Macro

Mar 26, 2014
Like... repainted by hand?

Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".
It isn't "natural", its familiar.
How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?
You claim IBIS & optical IS introduce shake along the optical axis that wasn't there to begin with? Otherwise, either its not a problem to begin with (as Nemerino claims, as software will correct for it), or you need a tripod.
Upvote 0


Nov 20, 2019
I'm just about to upgrade my EF 85 1.8 to the RF 85 f2, the macro feature being a huge bonus for me as I regularly go between shooting close up to further away with products/lifestyle/food/drink shoots. So not having to swap out extension tubes will be a massive bonus.

However, if the RF100 f2 is around the same price I will 100% be swapping the 85 for it. That slightly longer reach and maintaining f2 will be a huge benefit. If anything when stopped down to f2.8/4/5.6 it should be insanely sharp for product work. I've used the old EF 100 f2 and it's a beautiful focal length to shoot.
Upvote 0


Terrible photographer
Feb 17, 2020
Focus stacking also lets you avoid softness due to diffraction. Shooting at f/8 at 1:1 magnification is equivalent to f/16* at infinity, so you definitely have some diffraction softness already. If you go beyond 1:1 it starts getting pretty crazy. I shoot coins at f/5.6, which for small coins like dimes is barely enough to get the whole relief in focus (or even not quite enough); that's already into diffraction limited territory, with a very flat subject.

I was really delighted to realize that the R5's high frame rate would let me do hand-held focus stacking. This was literally my first attempt at it after getting the camera. This wasn't even a completely still subject (the spider only had one line but the focus stacking rendered it as several because it was fluttering in the breeze). It's pretty small; this is close to 1:1 magnification with a bit of a crop.


* This assumes some specific details about the lens's optics, but it's usually correct, or at least close.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0