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

[Antono Refa]

Not necessary with focus stacking.

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?

 

[Canfan]

Why didn’t the go USM, not really a fan of the STM motors. Looking to upgrade my 100mm IS macro L. Sigh..

 

[cayenne]

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.

Well, it's handy for low light shots with static subjects....focus stacking is pretty easy to do.

 

[Del Paso]

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"!

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...)
As to the EF 100 f2, I totally agree, super value for few $$$.

 

[Del Paso]

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?

Easier to focus manually on a specific part of the flower.
I'd even prefer - if same quality was granted - an f 1,4

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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 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.


Image surface infinity
Various data
Focal distance 99.75
F number 2.92
Half field angle (degree) 12.24
Whole-length-of-the-lens 168.47
BF 14.00


Magnification ∞ - 1.0 - 2. 0

 

[Nemorino]

If you want neither the shallow depth of field nor the short exposure, why invest in f/2

I want both! But I need higher mag, not only 0,5x like these two lenses.

 

[chrysoberyl]

STM may be fine for video, but is sloppy for manual focusing. And f/2 for a macro lens? No, thanks.

 

[deleteme]

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 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.
I believe Zeiss had an f2 macro 100 but it was not great wide open close up but did very well stopped down as all lenses do.

 

[Nemorino]

You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still

The software has been improved and can correct a lot.
I posted two examples of handheld focus stacking in the flowers thread. Especially the second was not a perfectly still subject.
flowers and other flora

 

[Antono Refa]

The software has been improved and can correct a lot.
I posted two examples of handheld focus stacking in the flowers thread. Especially the second was not a perfectly still subject.
flowers and other flora

Your point being...? What did you get by focus stacking hand held photos that you wouldn't have gotten with a smaller aperture?

 

[Kit.]

Your point being...? What did you get by focus stacking hand held photos that you wouldn't have gotten with a smaller aperture?

1. More "natural" background separation.
2. Less blur from camera shake.

 

[Nemorino]

Your point being...?

It proves the quoted statement by you is wrong?
Neither the subject has to be

perfectly still

nor the camera. Software has been improved.
And of course the points Kit mentioned:

1. More "natural" background separation.
2. Less blur from camera shake.

and
3. Less blur from slightly moving subject.
The wind moved the blossom of the second image. A longer exposure with a tripod would have been useless.

 

[Chaitanya]

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.

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.



Here are butterfly pics from few days prior to that:
Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Common Punch(Dodona durga) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Tailed Punch by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Straight-banded Treebrown(Lethe verma verma) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Azure Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Yellow bordered flat by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Himalayan yellow jester(Symbrenthia brabira brabira) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

 

[Tangent]

Continue reading...

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.

The user reviews I've seen are positive for the 85 f2 RF, but the more thorough reviews such as Gordon Laing, Christopher Frost, Dustin Abbott (etc.) point out that the STM performance is -- err -- not the best. So here's hoping that the RF 100 has the same good points as the RF 85 and STM performance on the 100 is beefed up! (And include the doggone lens hood, too!)

 

[figiko]

I want 2:1 macro not just 1:1

 

[Rivermist]

I want 2:1 macro not just 1:1

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.
This lower MFD goes in the category of "handy feature" and to label this "Macro" is admittedly somewhat misleading. It is nice for a portrait lens (85 or 100) to not have a minimum focus limit so that one can get close to the subject. The 35mm's small MFD can offer some nice opportunities for focus stacking with a close foreground for landscape. But these are not really macro lenses.
So it is about portability, compare the EF 100mm f:2.0 and either of the EF 100 macros and you can see that to deliver the 1:1 the lenses sported larger and heavier specifications while offering one stop less in aperture:
Lens Weight Length Filter
EF 100 f:2.0 460g 74mm 58mm
EF 100 f:2.8 Macro 600g 119mm 58mm 30% heavier / 60% longer
EF 100 f:2.8 Macro L IS 625g 123mm 67mm

 

[Antono Refa]

1. More "natural" background separation.
2. Less blur from camera shake.

1. Can be done with software.
2. Optical IS & IBIS go quite a long way nowadays.

 

[Kit.]

1. Can be done with software.

Like... repainted by hand?

Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".

2. Optical IS & IBIS go quite a long way nowadays.

How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?

 

[stevelee]

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?

The extremes of wide open fast lens pictures often don't look natural, either.

I have on a few occasions selected the subject, inverted the selection, gone into Quick View mode, used a white to black gradient in lighten mode to paint from near bottom to top and then exited the QV. Then I'd apply the lens blur at a moderate amount, adjusting with the "fade" command. That makes distant things blur more than the closer background. In judicious amounts it can look OK. But that doesn't happen often. Mostly I just try to choose the right lens for the job.