Patent: Optical formulas for Canon RF macro lenses

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,588
2,948
I know many want to use their macro lens as a portrait lens but us macro shooters don't give a damn about it being fast. Hell, make it f/5.6 but make it crazy sharp without aberrations at 1:1 or higher. A middle ground is needed between the 100L and the MP-E 65. Real world usability, handheld and stabilized. Not a beast necessarily needing focus rails, twin strobes or focus stacking to achieve the results but basically an update of the 100 on the RF mount with today's optics.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
RF 180mm f2.8 macro would be great for me, as I prefer to take high magnification/macro photos with long telephoto lenses so I have a good separation to the subject. If it had (optical)OIS it would be spectacular. I know the future R... bodies will have IBIS, but OIS + IBIS is always better. I sometimes use a tripod, but prefer to walk around without one (which would need the best total IS possible).

I am also assuming it has AF, as I'd be surprised if it didn't. With AF & OIS it would allow it to be exceptional for general photos as well as macro use - so exceptional that I might consider having it with a RF 15-35 f2.8 and RF 70-135 f2 as a 3 lens set. It would be nice if they came out with a RF 200-500 f5.6(or 6) to top off the long range end.
 
Last edited:

Bennymiata

EOS R
CR Pro
I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romain and usern4cr

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,860
I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.

Would you want AF or IS in it? The Laowa 100mm EF version finally has electronic apterture, but it pretends to be an EF-S lens, so it's useless for me on my RP. The EF-M 28mm is a good start: IS, separate 1:1.2 mode, builtin ring light. I hope Canon scales that up to full-frame, 50-80ish mm and much, much stronger LEDs. I've been playing with the RAW burst feature on my M6II this week and I'm really starting to appreciate IS and strong video lights.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,320
1,445
EF 100/2.8 L IS optics dont need an update to RF. they are absolutely fine. :)
Side- sharpness could certainly be improved, at least on mine.
And, if you take a look at "Optical limits" or "Imaging Resource", they seem to confirm my impression.
Yet, for flower macro pictures, where centre-sharpness matters more than side-sharpness, this lens really shines (love mine !).
But Canon has proven in the last few month that they are able to improve even great lenses (RF are almost all better than their EF counterparts).
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,860
Side- sharpness could certainly be improved, at least on mine.
And, if you take a look at "Optical limits" or "Imaging Resource", they seem to confirm my impression.
Yet, for flower macro pictures, where centre-sharpness matters more than side-sharpness, this lens really shines (love mine !).
But Canon has proven in the last few month that they are able to improve even great lenses (RF are almost all better than their EF counterparts).

And for centered macro pictures, the ability to use the CPL filter adapter on an RF mount camera is a big bonus. A new RF macro lens would net to offer something that the 100mm L doesn't offer for me to consider it: more than 1:1 magnification, useable builtin LEDs or a filter slot compatible with the CPL filter in the EF-RF adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.
I think the weight of a 180mm f2.8 macro would be OK to handhold. If it had AF and IS with a 45MP R5 with IBIS I would hope I could get good handheld results at high magnification (say 0.5x) but maybe not at 1:1, and I've got a tripod when needed. If there's no AF then I wouldn't buy it as I want the choice of AF and MF. If there's no IS then I'd rely on the 5x(or so) IBIS for whatever it gives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
This is RF mount, so a 100 f/2 IS macro would be more fitting based on what's been released so far. Would make it a more versatile lens IMO.
A RF 100 f2 would be a superb lens for portraits or general use. It would probably have a 0.25x or so max magnification. But I would be surprised if they made it a 1:1 macro.
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,860
A RF 100 f2 would be a great lens for them to come out with as a general purpose lens. It would probably have a 0.25 maxMagnification. But I would be surprised if they made it a 1:1 macro. But, then again, I'm rather surprised they're possibly coming out with a 180mm f2.8 macro which (if at 1:1) is also asking quite a lot.

Compare the 100mm f/2 with the 100mm f/2.8 non-L, roughly the same width but a lot more length in the macro version. That could be fixed my making it like the RF35 f/1.8 and use a barrel to make it longer when focussing close.
 

bclaff

EOS M6 Mark II
Sorry I'm arriving a little late to this thread.

Note that what is reported as Angle of view is actually the half-angle so you need to double those figures.

Example 5 in JP2020-060660 incorrectly states 1x and 2x; it's actually 0.5x and 1.5x

I find it fun to actually see these in my interactive ray tracer at the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench

Here's a direct link to the 110mm 2x lens.
You can modify the example number or patent number in that URL to get to other patents.
(Some patents are in the drop down list but many are not.)
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
131
80
Sorry I'm arriving a little late to this thread.

Note that what is reported as Angle of view is actually the half-angle so you need to double those figures.

Example 5 in JP2020-060660 incorrectly states 1x and 2x; it's actually 0.5x and 1.5x

I find it fun to actually see these in my interactive ray tracer at the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench

Here's a direct link to the 110mm 2x lens.
You can modify the example number or patent number in that URL to get to other patents.
(Some patents are in the drop down list but many are not.)
Wow, that is cool. I guess aspherical elements could be problematic, is there enough information in the patents to sort that out?
 

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
589
492
Would you want AF or IS in it? The Laowa 100mm EF version finally has electronic apterture, but it pretends to be an EF-S lens, so it's useless for me on my RP.
Yes, the Laowa EF similarly didn't work on my EOS R either. I was waiting for their RF mount, but that seems to have caught the coronavirus. I'd love Canon to bring out it's own 100mm (or 90mm - I'm not precious) soon.

Edit: having just checked Venus' website, the Laowa 100mm RF mount actually is now available. How brave do I feel?
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
Compare the 100mm f/2 with the 100mm f/2.8 non-L, roughly the same width but a lot more length in the macro version. That could be fixed my making it like the RF35 f/1.8 and use a barrel to make it longer when focussing close.
If a RF 100mm f2 could get "good enough" macro results with an extension tube then I'm sure you'd be happy, especially since 100mm f2 is a superb prime for general portrait use and the travel weight/size/cost with tube would be low which would be great for longer hiking/backpacking.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
I'm happy enough with my EF 180mm f/3.5L macro. Was the sharpest black EF lens for a long time, maybe still is? What are other people looking for in a macro lens that this one doesn't do?
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,247
2,133
Kentucky, USA
Just IS, nothing else , wonderful lens, indeed!
I looked at the Canon patent for the RF 70-200 f2.8, which uses the conventional up&down arrowed lines to indicate the IS lens group. But the macro patents above don't show anything like that, so it looks like they won't have IS (unless I'm missing something?). I sure hope the R5 IBIS is really good.
 
Last edited:

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,898
1,046
UK
www.flickr.com
I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.

Everyone is different, but I use a 180mm f/2.8 macro lens handheld. IS really helps of course!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr