# Another Mention of a New Macro Lens in 2014 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 5, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15733"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15733">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve been told again that Canon will unveil a zoom macro lens in the 200mm range some time in 2014. The lens is currently in prototype form. It’s apparently a constant aperture zoom macro, though we can’t confirm that it is a 1:1 macro lens. Although, it was mentioned that lens would be 2:1, and could be “locked out” to 1:1 at the long end.</p>
<p>We weren’t told how fast the lens would be, but I’d expect f/3.5 or f/4 and it would also have the latest and greatest IS.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 5, 2014)

Macro *zoom* sounds a bit surprising, but a 180mm macro replacement sounds plausible.

It's almost 20 years old, and the Sigma 180mm macro is almost a stop faster + has IS, though it's IQ isn't as good as the Canon's.

My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4


----------



## NancyP (Feb 5, 2014)

The target audience of serious macro shooters, particularly insect photographers, likely cares less about zoom than about getting 1:1 magnification at a fixed 180, 200mm, or even longer. Good IS would have to be a must, because the existing 180mm f/3.5L without IS is a fine lens already.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Feb 5, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4



Nikon has a zoom macro I think...

Too big a zoom range might sacrifice one of quality, price or weight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> Nikon has a zoom macro I think...



The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 *1-5x* Macro is a zoom macro…well, sort of…


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 5, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > My (naïve?) expectation is for a 180mm w/ the 100mm's HIS, and that a macro zoom that ends at ~200mm would compete with one of the 70-200mm models, but maybe Canon is going for something to compliment the 24-70mm f/4
> ...



A 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6, which has been discontinued, and takes the "world's first" bragging rights from Canon.

I don't think Canon can release such a zoom lens w/o IS, which would make profit issues worse, as Canon has two new stabilized 70-200mm lenses (f/4 from 2006, f/2.8 from 2010) which magnify ~1:5 w/o extension tubes to compete with it.

Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 5, 2014)

Ah, something like this, only with less range ;D

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Ah, something like this, only with less range ;D
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review



Maybe... But Canon would use a floating focusing group for much better IQ at macro distances, add Hybrid IS, and charge a helluva lot more for the lens.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 5, 2014)

I would love a 200mm F5.6 Macro Hybrid Image Stabilizer, costing $ 700.  After all, in macro using F11 or more closed most of the time. : Dreaming does not cost anything. :-*


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2014)

I *LOVE *my 180mm macro - sharp and by far the best color of any lens I own, but I would love to see a f/2.8 version (for better viewfinder manual focus and extender AF [maybe I'm dreaming on that one]). I'd also like it with more aperture blades (bokeh gets a bit geometric when stopped down). Lighter weight would be nice, too, but not critical. IS would be at the bottom of my list primarily because the only time I use my 180mm handheld is to chase little critters and I'm usually shooting f/11 at 1/1000s of better to stop the subject motion, and 98% of my macro shooting takes place on a tripod.


----------



## photonius (Feb 5, 2014)

a say, 135 (150) - 200mm (or 180mm) macro with 1:1 at 200mm and IS does not sound implausible. zooming out while keeping the same distance would allow for easier framing, would allow better flexibility getting the shot.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 5, 2014)

120mm TS-E macro ;D


----------



## dadgummit (Feb 5, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> 120mm TS-E macro ;D



That would be a very cool lens that I could not afford. It would probably cost $2500-3000.


----------



## dadgummit (Feb 5, 2014)

photonius said:


> a say, 135 (150) - 200mm (or 180mm) macro with 1:1 at 200mm and IS does not sound implausible. zooming out while keeping the same distance would allow for easier framing, would allow better flexibility getting the shot.



I don't see a 150-200 range to be enough to make it worthwile to bother with the complication of a zoom lens over a prime. 

I was thinking a 100-200mm f3.5L IS USM with inner zooming (does not extend) that costs about $1500 street and 1800-2000 MSRP at launch. 1:2 at 100 zooming to 1:1 at 200. I do like the idea of no focus breathing (hope I am using the term correctly) 

Personally I would prefer a 50-150 f2.8 IS USM this would be a much more useful range for all of my Macro purposes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > 120mm TS-E macro ;D
> ...



It would be expensive and it would _sound_ like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 6, 2014)

Has to be pretty special in order for me to sell my EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS for it


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 6, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> I do like the idea of no focus breathing (hope I am using the term correctly)



There are two ways to focus a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Move it away from the film/sensor plane
[*]Make its focal length shorter
[/list]

All internally focusing lenses do this by shortening their focal length. If you go all the way to 1:1 macro, your focal length would be cut in half. This means your beautiful 200mm macro lens with internal focusing would turn into an 100mm macro lens at 1:1 magnification. Pretty pointless, isn't it?


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It would be expensive and it would _sound_ like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.



Killjoy :'(


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



First: Mamiya makes an excellent 140mm macro that covers the image area of a 6x7cm system. Using its rather simple optical formula for making a 140mm T&S lens for 35mm cameras should be quite doable.

Second: as you approach higher magnifications, the image circle of a lens automatically becomes larger. And it's the higher magnifications where I really miss T&S ...

The reason why I don't think that Canon would make a T&S macro is because it is unwieldy for portrait and for hand held shooting and would therefore attract only a tiny niche market.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 6, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> First: Mamiya makes an excellent 140mm macro that covers the image area of a 6x7cm system. Using its rather simple optical formula for making a 140mm T&S lens for 35mm cameras should be quite doable.



Wouldn't that formula be protected by a patent? It would eat out of the profits, if Mamiya agrees to license it at all.



Rudeofus said:


> The reason why I don't think that Canon would make a T&S macro is because it is unwieldy for portrait and for hand held shooting and would therefore attract only a tiny niche market.



I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 6, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Wouldn't that formula be protected by a patent? It would eat out of the profits, if Mamiya agrees to license it at all.


There are many ways to skin a cat. I know a number of camera makers which have 18-55mm lenses in their lineup without stepping on each other's patent.


Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.


Canon has a 90mm T&S lens in their lineup, and it's well known that this lens is not exactly the most popular lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 8, 2014)

Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open. 

For me though a potential 90mm TS-E update is more intriguing.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 10, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.



Canon's macro flash accessories (MR-14EX, MT-24EX) are made for 72mm or smaller filter thread ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 13, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.
> ...



... so if Canon upped the filter size on a new macro lens then they'd have a reason to sell a new macro Flash.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 13, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I'm not sure why would people want to use such a lens for portraits, but it would still be useful on a tripod in studio for that purpose.



There are some wedding photographers that use TS creatively for people shots, although some people say that this is now a bit cliche. For me I think the only opinion that really matters is that of the client. If they want it and like it then great.

Obviously, as you've said TS DoF manipulation is extremely useful for product photography. It's a huge time saver compared to focus-stacking, especially when you have lots of samples to set up and shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Both of the current 200mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 L macro takes 72mm front filters. So I believe there is potential for increasing the front-element size and increasing the aperture to get 200mm f/2.8 macro with good optical performance wide open.
> ...



Yes, but have you looked at the front of those macro lenses? The front elements are all substantially smaller than the filter ring, which is why you can step the 72mm filter down to a 58mm ring and not get vignetting. Using an MT-24EX on a 70-200/2.8 (77mm filter thread and a front element that goes almost to the filter thread) via a step-down ring results in only a very slight increase in optical vignetting with the lens at f/2.8, and no noticeable effect with the lens stopped down. 

Canon could simply bring out a Macrolite 77C adapter and call it a day.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 13, 2014)

Mostly in field working with live insects I have never cross 2x mag ratio. So if Canon really releases a new zoom macro capable of going all the way upto 2x then for most macro shooters that would be the only lens to carry in field. Also I don't think it will be a cheap lens and will cost around 2500$ atleast.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It would be expensive and it would _sound_ like a very cool lens...but it would be mostly a marketing gimmick. You'd think tilt would let you achieve an apparently deeper DoF for macro shooting, right? Well...it would, but the amount of tilt required increases with magnification. I think you'd need 30° of tilt or more, meaning a truly massive image circle would be needed, and even then the optical quality would suffer with such extreme tilt.



I don't think so because the lens is usually tilted around an axis which lies in the image plane. Actually the projection of the image plane at 30° tilt is smaller than the image plane at zero tilt.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 13, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> All internally focusing lenses do this by shortening their focal length. If you go all the way to 1:1 macro, your focal length would be cut in half. This means your beautiful 200mm macro lens with internal focusing would turn into an 100mm macro lens at 1:1 magnification. Pretty pointless, isn't it?



The distance between image plane and object is 4 times the focal length at 1:1 or otherwise: the focus distance at 1:1 will give you the focal length if you divide it by four:

EF-S 60 MFD 200mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 50mm
EF 100 MFD 300mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 75mm
EF 180 MFD 480mm Calculated Focal length at 1:1 120mm

Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
focal length.
Modern lenses bend the light by crazy ways so there is a chance that you simulate lens positions to get
1:1 without loosing any focal length. Think about EF-S10-22 at 10mm which leaves 35mm space between back lens and image plane!


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 13, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
> focal length.



All the macro lenses you just listed do not use internal focusing, so your point is moot. I did not argue against macro lenses in general, only against macro lenses with internal focusing.



mb66energy said:


> Modern lenses bend the light by crazy ways so there is a chance that you simulate lens positions to get
> 1:1 without loosing any focal length. Think about EF-S10-22 at 10mm which leaves 35mm space between back lens and image plane!



These lenses do all kinds of crazy stuff, but when it comes to focusing they are still as they always were: internally focusing lenses which forfeit focal length at MFD for elegance, and lenses that maintain their focal length but become longer as you focus closely.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 14, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, it is not a true "single lens" but there is a good chance that you do not loose 50 % of the initial
> ...



I own the 60mm and the 100 mm USM Macro-both do NOT extend and use (including the 180mm Macro) after Canon's USA home page a
"Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with USM" 
- so I do not understand your arguments - or is there a difference between "inner focusing system" and "internal focusing"?


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 15, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> I own the 60mm and the 100 mm USM Macro-both do NOT extend and use (including the 180mm Macro) after Canon's USA home page a
> "Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with USM"
> - so I do not understand your arguments - or is there a difference between "inner focusing system" and "internal focusing"?



I stand corrected, these lenses do indeed use internal focusing and lose a fair amount of focal length at minimum focus distance. The 100L goes down to 75mm. I'm not sure people would want this for longer focal length macro lenses, though. There's already enough bitching and moaning about Sigma's 120-300 and its loss of focal length at MFD.


----------

