svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Patent: Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS STM Macro

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

    By 42 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    The RF mount is obviously missing macro offerings, but I expect that to change in 2021. Here we have an interesting patent for a macro optical formula uncovered by Canon News.

    An RF 100mm f/2 IS STM would definitely be a welcomed and cost conscience lens for RF mount shooters. If this does become a consumer product, it'll be very interesting to see what they do with an RF L Macro.

    Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS STM
    Focal Length 99.80mm
    F Number 2.06
    Half Angle of View 12.23°
    Image Height 21.64mm
    Lens Length 118.38mm
    Back Focus 21.99mm
    Canon RF 70mm f/2 IS STM Macro
    Focal Length 70.50mm
    F Number 2.06
    Half Angle of View 17.06°
    Image Height 21.64mm
    Lens Length 94.86mm
    Back Focus 17.89mm

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    42 comments

    4. Does every L lens need to be massive?
      Both size & price, although some are not too bad with discount, such as the 24-105 F4L.
      If IQ matches or exceed the RF85 non-L, and assuming similar pricing, then I would be most interested in this 100 F2.
    5. Can’t wait for this to be released. Might beat the 85mm one. Hope it’s will be in that sameness price range.
      Given the current L Macro is back to its MSRP(1299) this would cost slightly more than old lens its replacing.
    6. I’ve been waiting a while now to see more new and impressive lenses from Canon in the RF mount like we were promised. The 28-70 f/2 lens was an awesome start but after that i was really left underwhelmed. The RF 70-200 is cool but what else is there?
    7. I’ve been waiting a while now to see more new and impressive lenses from Canon in the RF mount like we were promised. The 28-70 f/2 lens was an awesome start but after that i was really left underwhelmed. The RF 70-200 is cool but what else is there?
      RF 85 f1.2 DS. An AF 50mm f1.2 that actually works. The smallest and lightest 70-200 f2.8 around. The minuscule and very high image quality 70-200 f4.

      The trouble is if the developments are not in areas we specifically want we might feel there aren’t any...
    8. Given the current L Macro is back to its MSRP(1299) this would cost slightly more than old lens its replacing.
      You are right. F2 certainly commands a premium. But I was hoping the STM designation points to a likely budget friendly offering. I know this could be just wishful thinking. The thing is that this is the first true macro that opens up to f2 if I am not mistaken. So it could be both portrait and macro. Replacing the 85/1.8 100/2 100/2.8 135/2 offerings in one go.
    9. You are right. F2 certainly commands a premium. But I was hoping the STM designation points to a likely budget friendly offering. I know this could be just wishful thinking. The thing is that this is the first true macro that opens up to f2 if I am not mistaken. So it could be both portrait and macro. Replacing the 85/1.8 100/2 100/2.8 135/2 offerings in one go.
      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.
    10. An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
      Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...
    12. An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
      Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...
      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.
    13. 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.
    14. An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
      Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...
      Trouble is macro lenses are usually optimized for close-up photography, and can be disappointing at infinity setting.
      I bought 2 lenses for "universal" usage, EF 100L and Zeiss 50mm f2, both are excellent macros, but only just good for landscapes (center dead sharp, sides and mostly corners OK...).
      So, I learnt my lesson, either use them for macros or portraits, or replace them with the unfortunately manual-only Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100, superb at macro and landscapes.
      But I'm hoping the RF 100mm f2 could be the solution...chances are good!
    16. 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 fully understand what you mean - I am more of a "close focus" guy who likes to have some 1:3 or similar close focus capability.
      While I understand that 85 and 100 are similar in perspective I like the 50 - 100 - 200 - 400mm series because of sheer beauty :)
      For real macro @ 1:1 I have re-established my EF-S 60 macro with my M50 which gives 1.6 : 1 macro if you compare it with a 1:1 macro in FF sensor land and I really enjoy it sometimes. I bought this lens in 2005 with the EOS 20D (that lens was the reason to buy a digital ILC system) and it is good enough for a 24 MPix sensor - until physics manages IQ via diffraction.
    17. Trouble is macro lenses are usually optimized for close-up photography, and can be disappointing at infinity setting.
      I bought 2 lenses for "universal" usage, EF 100L and Zeiss 50mm f2, both are excellent macros, but only just good for landscapes (center dead sharp, sides and mostly corners OK...).
      So, I learnt my lesson, either use them for macros or portraits, or replace them with the unfortunately manual-only Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100, superb at macro and landscapes.
      But I'm hoping the RF 100mm f2 could be the solution...chances are good!
      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"!
    18. 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 EF 100mm L is one of my most used lenses. I use it for true macro, mushroom photography, frogs, flowers and all the way up to people portraits. I use all apertures from f2.8 up to about f16! These lenses aren’t just about true 1:1 macro.
    19. Is this going to be a 1:1 macro lens or more as companion to the RF 85 f/2 STM with a half macro? The EF mount had both an 85 f/1.8 and a 100 f/2.0 that were both affordable and similar design (same size even).

      Maybe this RF 100mm is going to be to the RF 85mm as the EF 100mm is to the EF 85mm...

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment