# Patent: Canon RF 180mm f/3.5L Macro and Canon RF 200mm f/4L Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 1, 2021)

> It looks like Canon is working on another macro lens for the RF mount, with the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM having been released, there is likely a niche need for a longer focal length macro lens. Canon didn’t sell a ton of EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lenses, but the people that did need it loved it.
> Canon RF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro
> 
> Focal length 174.43mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 1, 2021)

Pretty cool. I think the MPE-65 is also long overdue a replacement and it is the fave for very tiny subjects.


----------



## DrToast (Oct 1, 2021)

Whoa!

Thanks, Canon.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 1, 2021)

These are not good news.
These are hyper-mega excellent news!
I must get one of them!


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 1, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> *Sigh, no, this is not a patent on any particular lens spec, neither 180mm nor 200mm nor RF nor f/3.5 nor f/4.0.*
> 
> This is a patent on a general macro lens architecture or design that is meant to minimize fluctuations of aberrations.
> 
> ...


correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.

The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away.


posted already in another channel, but this was handheld with only a LED light (not particularly powerful) on my R5 and 180L.. had to do some denoise work (cloudy day 5000 ISO), but as usual, the 180 gives some sweet results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I've mentioned several times that this website is being misleading by claiming that patents of formula or designs are somehow really patents of the examples. I've asked if anyone can point to any production lens specific design actually being first mentioned as an example in a patent application and no-one's pointed out a single case to me. I also haven't seen such a case myself.


How many examples would you like? I didn't bother going back too far.









Patent: Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro 1:1.4x


Canon News has uncovered a patent for a Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro 1:1.4x. A macro for the RF system is already long overdue and I expect that we'll se



www.canonrumors.com













Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM


Yesterday I posted a patent showing the optical formulas for both an RF 15-35mm f/4L and an RF 16-35mm f/4L. I noted that an RF 14-35mm f/4L is rumored to be co



www.canonrumors.com













Patent: Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 #EOSR


The 50mm f/1.8 is a must lens for pretty much any manufacturer, and it's safe to say that Canon will be bringing this affordable prime lens to their RF mount.



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 1, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.
> 
> The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away. [..]


Judging from the focus motors in the RF100L and RF100-500L, an RF180mm-ish macro will be huge improvement over the EF180L. Likely enough for me to trade in EF180mm and sell a kidney to get the RF version.

As for the MP-E, get a twin flash or a well engineered diffuser, it really needs lots and lots of soft light for reaching its potential. And if you're going to be using it in the field, get the metal lenshood (JJC makes a good, cheaper variant) as well.


----------



## tcphoto (Oct 1, 2021)

I specialize in Food images and the 100LIS is my main tool but a 180 and 200 seems to similar and redundant.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 1, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> I specialize in Food images and the 100LIS is my main tool but a 180 and 200 seems to similar and redundant.


Being patents only I think we are unlikely to see both of these brought to the market as actual products. That happens a lot with these - they patent a number of things that are similar, and later decide what to actually produce. I'm sure there are good reasons for doing that - to protect as much of their development work as possible I assume. 

It may be more fun to speculate which we will see.....in RF so far they seem to have tried to do a little extra vs. the EF equivalents. So maybe the 200 is what we will see. But the DLSR like back focus distance makes me wonder. 

Brian


----------



## john1970 (Oct 1, 2021)

It would be interesting if Canon could make such a lens with DO optics to reduce the overall length and weight so it could be closer in size to the 100 mm macro, but maybe DO elements do not work well for macro photography. Pure speculation on my part.


----------



## Joel C (Oct 1, 2021)

I would be interested if they can keep the price under 2,000$....


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 1, 2021)

Let them fit with TCs!
Hoping for a new Tele-Macro for a long time!
But my Sigma 150 2.8 + TC is awesome!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> But the DLSR like back focus distance makes me wonder.


Since the back focus is the distance between the rear element and the sensor, the extra 19mm beyond the flange distance means free space between the mount and the rear element. 

That suggests an RF 200/4 macro with such a design would be compatible with the RF extenders…which would be awesome.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since the back focus is the distance between the rear element and the sensor, the extra 19mm beyond the flange distance means free space between the mount and the rear element.
> 
> That suggests an RF 200/4 macro with such a design would be compatible with the RF extenders…which would be awesome.


Sure would be. The EF 180L can use extenders, but Holy cow the DOF is hard to work with.

Yep recognize the RF extenders have created further limitations (70-200 comes to mind)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> The EF 180L can use extenders, but Holy cow the DOF is hard to work with.


Try the MP-E 65mm (especially with the 2x TC).


----------



## entoman (Oct 1, 2021)

The EF 180mm macro is an absolutely fabulous optic, although a little slow to focus in AF mode, and difficult to hand hold steadily for insect photography in the field.

So I can absolutely guarantee that I’d buy a stabilised RF version - 

But, I hope that *IF* a stabilised RF 180mm macro comes to fruition that it will be limited to F4 or even F5.6, to keep the cost and weight/size within reasonable bounds. It is handy to have apertures of F2.8 or F3.5 to allow for a bright viewfinder image with a DSLR, but with a mirrorless I see little if any need for an aperture wider than F4 on a long focal length macro.

Personally I don’t want or need aspherical aberration control (as per RF 100mm macro). It’s more important IMO to create a design with minimal focus breathing, for better alignment of focus-stacked images.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Try the MP-E 65mm (especially with the 2x TC).


Pretty much why I haven't gone in that direction.. gorgeous results, but seems to need studio level light and stacking. I prefer to get stuff in field :-/ but sure impressive with right conditions


----------



## lexptr (Oct 1, 2021)

Nice! The long awaited long macro update! If it will have the same IQ as the RF100mm, hopefully with x1.4 mag too, hopefully without the SA control - that would be fantastic! Release and take my money, Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> Pretty much why I haven't gone in that direction.. gorgeous results, but seems to need studio level light and stacking. I prefer to get stuff in field :-/ but sure impressive with right conditions


I typically use it in the field, but the twin flash is pretty much a requirement.


----------



## roby17269 (Oct 1, 2021)

A 180mm or even better 200mm macro with greater than 1:1 magnification would be great. I love the 100 2.8 macro but for many subjects you have to get too close.... although I have finally pulled the trigger on a second hand MP-E 65mm, which goes even closer, reasoning (not that I really really need any logical rationales for my photographic procurement process  ) that it would be more useable on my R5 than it was on DSLRs.

Darn! Another one on the wishlist. My poor credit card


----------



## entoman (Oct 1, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual).


With the 100mm macro and 180mm macro on my R5, I find the best approach is to set the lens to AF, and the camera in SERVO, but to pre-focus (approximately) with the manual focus ring, and then half-press the shutter release and let the AF do the final adjustment.

It’s a lot more reliable than using AF alone, and much faster than using MF alone, especially with a subject that is in forward-backward motion, such as a butterfly resting on a flower that’s swaying slightly in the breeze.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I use my FD 200mm f4.0 macro lens with adapter to RF..


----------



## SteveC (Oct 1, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Darn! Another one on the wishlist. My poor credit card


Another couple of months of eating Ramen and the occasional orange to avoid scurvy.

PRO TIP: Ramen is much cheaper at Walmart than other grocery stores.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Oct 1, 2021)

What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


----------



## DrMathochist (Oct 1, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


Not casting a shadow on your subject, for one.


----------



## entoman (Oct 1, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


Butterflies, bees, dragonflies, grasshoppers, beetles, flowers, lichens, fungi, frogs, lizards, close-ups of any small subject that is difficult to approach. I also use my 180mm macro for portraiture, landscapes, birds. Just a few examples. There are many more in other genres of photography.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 2, 2021)

All I can say is best Rumor of the month.

I would love to have either an RF 180mm or 200mm macro lens.

The very first lens I mounted to my R5 was my EF 180mm macro lens. I was impressed how much faster it was focusing compared to my old bodies. 
It has been a few years but with the flip screen it will be much easier to get down on the ground bug hunting.

The EF 180mm was superior to the 100mm, but the 100mm had IS and you could hunt bugs hand held much easier.

Bring on their release!!!


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 2, 2021)

tcphoto said:


> I specialize in Food images and the 100LIS is my main tool but a 180 and 200 seems to similar and redundant.



Probably would be for what you do. You would be able to shoot farther away so probably not much help for you. The bokeh on the old 180mm is superior to the 100mm IMO.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 2, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?



Just like all longer lenses, you can stay farther away with the same framing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 2, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Just like all longer lenses, you can stay farther away with the same framing.


No you can't. You can fill the image with a subject from further away, but that changes the perspective, ergo different framing.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No you can't. You can fill the image with a subject from further away, but that changes the perspective, ergo different framing.


Yep, typically with better dof and better access to light. I've been using the Laowa 100mm (2x) f2.8 for a while, and even without AF, I'm thoroughly addicted now to the reach. Whether I'd pay 5x as much for one of these ... who knows, retirement looms and with it access to my superannuation.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No you can't. You can fill the image with a subject from further away, but that changes the perspective, ergo different framing.


Good point, for these two lenses with a minimum focal distance of 11.51' vs 1.57' and a extremely narrow DOF just about everything else is bokeh.
It was important to correct this for the conversation that was taking place.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Oct 2, 2021)

I could see Canon developing one or the other of those, but both? Separated by a fraction of a stop and only 20mm? Seems pretty unlikely.!


----------



## Frodo (Oct 2, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


For flighty creatures like lizards where extra subject distance needed. Like this skink in our garden yesterday. EF 200/2.8L, with 25mm extension tube and adaptor on my R.


----------



## amfoto1 (Oct 2, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


You wouldn't ask if you ever photographed biting, stinging, poisonous subjects! 
The minimum focus distance of the 100mm lenses is about 11 inches. The MFD of the 180mm is around 18 inches. 
I do hope Canon puts IS in their "long" macro lens, be it 180mm or 200mm. In my opinion, this lens doesn't necessarily need to be able to do more than 1:1, like the RF 100mm Macro. If higher magnification is needed, add an extension tube or switch to the 100mm lens... Or go with the MP-E 65mm for really high magnifications.
I'm not a fan of ring lites with most macro lenses (too flat lighting... I use a twin lite instead with 100mm and 180mm). But one does work well with the 65mm at magnifications 2:1 and greater ( the least that lens can do is 1:1 and it goes up to 5:1).
The 100mm is best "all purpose" macro for most people. The 65mm and 180mm are both rather specialized lenses.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Try the MP-E 65mm (especially with the 2x TC).


I do!  With an MT-24EX flash on the other end, but...


amfoto1 said:


> [...]
> I'm not a fan of ring lites with most macro lenses (too flat lighting... I use a twin lite instead with 100mm and 180mm). But one does work well with the 65mm at magnifications 2:1 and greater ( the least that lens can do is 1:1 and it goes up to 5:1).
> [...]


... do you guys have any suggestions, what type[s ] of batteries are both suitable and convenient for use with the Twin Lite?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I do!  With an MT-24EX flash on the other end, but...
> 
> ... do you guys have any suggestions, what type of batteries are both suitable and convenient for use with the Twin Lite?


I use eneloop batteries in all my flashes, including the MT-24 EX.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 2, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I do!  With an MT-24EX flash on the other end, but...
> 
> ... do you guys have any suggestions, what type[s ] of batteries are both suitable and convenient for use with the Twin Lite?


Like @neuroanatomist I can recommend Eneloop batteries. I'm also using Ikea brand batteries, which seem to perform like eneloops, even after a year or 2 of use.
I'm looking at getting a CP-E4 clone to get a faster recharge time, but I live in fear of burning out the bulbs on the MT-24, I bought mine used about a decade ago and the MT26-EX is using RF-like pricing.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Oct 2, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I love it.
> 
> When I decided to go to RF (first couple R reviews were just available) I sold a dozen-plus EF lenses, keeping only the 135/2, 180/3.5 and 600/4IS.


I haven't regretted moving over to the R5 and RF glass. However good luck now you have sold your EF glass, ordering and buying RF glass. I ordered the RF 100-500MM Lens on 17/08/21 and am still waiting. Apparently, I am number 16 on the list and they are not receiving any stock so unlikely to be before xmas. Not sure which xmas, 2021 or maybe 2022. I don't think it's just Canon suffering with the worldwide chip shortage so I'll just have to be patient. Hope you have better luck.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 2, 2021)

Worst bit of advice I ever got when getting into macro was “ You need a long lens because of working distance”. All that not spooking the subject rubbish. So I got the Canon 180mm and it really held me back. Once I switched to a 60mm and 100mm, then later adding the MPE-65 that I felt more comfortable shooting insects. The 60mm especially has given me loads of enjoyment. I have no regrets whatsoever in selling the 180 so really cannot get excited about the possibility of new long macros in RF. If Canon announce shorter macro lenses and an MPE65 replacement then my interest would be sparked.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 2, 2021)

A lens like one of these is obligatory for Canon on the RF system.
And of course very good news for macro lovers.
Canon has been doing an outstanding job on their RF L grade lenses, so I expect this will be incredible.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 2, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> What would you need a 200mm macro lens for?


Anything that you need macro for but it won't let you close enough to it, small animals, insects, birds, anything that might "run away" when you are too close to it. It also allows you the "distance" to follow the moving object while too close you won't be able to.


----------



## neurorx (Oct 2, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.
> 
> The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away.
> 
> ...


Wow! What did you use for denoise, the results are amazing.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 2, 2021)

neurorx said:


> Wow! What did you use for denoise, the results are amazing.


I use On1 RAW for my processing with their new DeNoise engine. The denoise engine is good quite good and can deal with fairly heavy noise, though noticed results are best when the exposure is relatively good initially. The ON1 Raw is good overall, but still have problems getting my color profiles correct with it. Not sure why. Was hoping to find someone with proper profiles, but it only accepts.. .icc or .icm

I also have Topaz Denoise (latest), similar quality, but you have to convert to DNG and then process.. somehow it seems to lose some color and sometimes introduce artifacts in the process so, was using Topaz in a limited fashion.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 2, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Worst bit of advice I ever got when getting into macro was “ You need a long lens because of working distance”. All that not spooking the subject rubbish. So I got the Canon 180mm and it really held me back. Once I switched to a 60mm and 100mm, then later adding the MPE-65 that I felt more comfortable shooting insects. The 60mm especially has given me loads of enjoyment. I have no regrets whatsoever in selling the 180 so really cannot get excited about the possibility of new long macros in RF. If Canon announce shorter macro lenses and an MPE65 replacement then my interest would be sparked.


genuinely interested, other than semi stationary bugs, how do you get close? I find them skittish, or slightly over water where I can't reach etc.


----------



## entoman (Oct 2, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> genuinely interested, other than semi stationary bugs, how do you get close? I find them skittish, or slightly over water where I can't reach etc.


Move slowly and deliberately towards the subject, as a steady pace, keep low and don’t change your angle of approach, because insects are highly sensitive to sideways movement.

Use cover, such as bushes or tall grasses to creep up slowly to the subject. Tread lightly on the ground and be careful to avoid breaking twigs etc, as insects are also highly sensitive to ground vibrations. Many are also sensitive to airborne vibration (sound).

Avoid wearing white or reflective clothing, which makes your presence and your movements far more obvious to the subject.

Avoid bright sunlight, when insects will be far more alert, and there is a danger of casting your shadow over them. Bright overcast conditions are ideal. Insects are less active and easier to approach on cool days, although they can be harder to find.

Be aware that while using flash may get you an initial shot, it’s quite likely to scare a nervous insect, leaving you with no second chance.

In many cases it’s actually easier to photograph an insect with a 100mm macro, because it generally takes longer to steady yourself for a sharp shot if you use a 180mm or 200mm.

The main uses of these longer focal lengths are to get better bokeh (the 180mm macro is a stunner in this regard), or to be able to photograph subjects that are harder to reach (e.g. high up on bushes or on the other side of a ditch).


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 2, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Unlike other respondents, I would rate the EF 180mm f/3.5 as "good," not superb. It is a workhorse lens for me (and yes, I've owned both Canon EF 100mm macro lenses prior to the L, but working distance matters for insects). I've shot with it exclusively on hundreds of outings. Center and mid-frame sharpness are middling. The autofocus engine is mediocre at best, and frustrating at worst; it's inadequate for flying subjects. Build quality also seems pedestrian.

If an RF 180mm version comes out, my wish list would be for 1) improved sharpness, 2) improved autofocus, and 3) f/2.8 [even with extra weight], in that order of priorities. I'm ignoring image stabilization as I don't know how feasible it is for a long macro. I would like to keep the filter size no greater than 82mm, and preferably no more than 77mm, but I don't know if that is possible getting to f/2.8. Ideally moving elements toward the rear would result in a lens that is actually more easily handled, focuses faster, and meets these specs. I really wish Canon would make a true "pro" macro lens, as the reason I never bought the EF 100L is it isn't significantly better optically than the previous USM version I already have (it's also an oddball filter size for Canon--would prefer a 72mm filter and f/2.5 as I'm trying to stay at mostly 72/77mm for filters). I think the 180mm is the best candidate focal length to change into a professional tool as the EF/RF 100Ls adequately serve most amateurs. Since an RF 180mm price would likely be prohibitive for casual amateurs anyway, why not up the price and quality a bit and give advanced amateurs and professionals the tool they crave?

Making an RF 180mm professional grade is like adding garlic to a pasta dish: both are tastier, and both result in GAS.  

I have to agree that the MP-E 65mm is now outdated and in need of an optical upgrade to remain competitive in the market. Also, it is rather pointless to provide an f/16 aperture on a lens where it is not effective; f/2.8 thru f/5.6 is about all that is practical at 1x - 5x, and I would gladly accept a fixed aperture f/2.8 in exchange for better optical quality. At this point, if Canon can't improve the optics significantly, I wouldn't replace mine. Given that higher optical quality can be had through microscope objectives, my concern is that an RF successor would be strictly an amateur lens and unlikely to provide the needed improvements. The main advantage for the 1x-5x Macro Zoom lens is efficiency for field work, but it generally works best for stationary subjects (like tiny mushrooms, or deep-chilled critters).

I'm curious about the OP's comment that Canon "didn't sell a ton of these." I wouldn't expect a long macro to sell a large unit count due to its cost and the experience necessary to realize the need for it, but what is the source of this information? Photo manufacturers typically don't revealing much about sales of particular products.


----------



## entoman (Oct 2, 2021)

scottburgess said:


> Unlike other respondents, I would rate the EF 180mm f/3.5 as "good," not superb. It is a workhorse lens for me (and yes, I've owned both Canon EF 100mm macro lenses prior to the L, but working distance matters for insects). I've shot with it exclusively on hundreds of outings. Center and mid-frame sharpness are middling. The autofocus engine is mediocre at best, and frustrating at worst; it's inadequate for flying subjects. Build quality also seems pedestrian.
> 
> If an RF 180mm version comes out, my wish list would be for 1) improved sharpness, 2) improved autofocus, and 3) f/2.8 [even with extra weight], in that order of priorities. I'm ignoring image stabilization as I don't know how feasible it is for a long macro. I would like to keep the filter size no greater than 82mm, and preferably no more than 77mm, but I don't know if that is possible getting to f/2.8. Ideally moving elements toward the rear would result in a lens that is actually more easily handled, focuses faster, and meets these specs.


It’s interesting how our experiences differ.

I’ve shot thousands of (published) insect images with both (EF) 100mm macros and hundreds with the 180mm macro. At one stage I foolishly sold my 180mm but later replaced it, so I have experience of 2 samples.

The 100mm lenses are extremely sharp but have pronounced onion-ring bokeh which I find very distracting if there are defocused highlights in the background. AF is very rapid and precise. I find the working distance is fine for most insects and small vertebrates.

The 180mm macro is just as sharp as the 100mm versions, and has vastly more attractive creamy smooth bokeh, and less noticeable onion-ring effect. AF is slow, but I always prefocus manually and just leave the AF to do the final adjustment, which speeds things up greatly. It’s heavy, and has no stabilisation, which is the major drawback. The IBIS on my R5 helps, but it really needs OIS as well for macro. I’d rate build quality as superb, and the manual focus ring is among the smoothest and most precise of any lens I’ve owned.

For insects in flight, I always pre-focus manually and shoot a burst as the insect passes through the field of sharpest focus.

I haven’t been tempted by the RF 100mm macro, as reviews indicate that it’s optically no better than the EF version, and I have no need for 1.4x magnification or aspherical aberration control.

My wish list would be for a lightweight stabilised 180mm macro with a maximum aperture of F4 or 5.6, as I see no need for wider apertures with long macros - even when focus-stacking F4 or 5.6 are fine. However, Canon are hell-bent on producing previously “impossible” lenses, so what I’m actually expecting is a stabilised 180mm F3.5 with some additional feature(s), as was the case with the RF 100mm macro.


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> In many cases it’s actually easier to photograph an insect with a 100mm macro, because it generally takes longer to steady yourself for a sharp shot if you use a 180mm or 200mm.
> 
> The main uses of these longer focal lengths are to get better bokeh (the 180mm macro is a stunner in this regard), or to be able to photograph subjects that are harder to reach (e.g. high up on bushes or on the other side of a ditch).


I agree with most of your points except these two.

I don't find it at all harder to steady myself with a 180mm macro, or even a 100-400mm at 400mm and closest focus. If someone is having trouble with longer, heavier lenses it is most commonly due to inadequate physique. Lift weights and you'll find it much easier to steady such lenses once your strength is much greater than required to merely hold the lens. Same for legs: it is straightforward to hike mountainous terrain with 50lbs of camera gear for several miles if you deadlift 300lbs each week. It's all about the strength ratio of what you can do maximally to what you are doing presently. [Start small, work up slowly, don't compare yourself to others but rather to where you were a couple months ago. Even a small increase in muscle mass is often quickly noticed in the field.]

The primary reason one should consider a 180mm macro over a 100mm macro is control of the background (it has a narrower angle of view), followed by working distance (I deal with a lot of active daytime subjects in hot weather, so this is critical for me). Background blur is mainly a function of the ratio of distances ( subject to background / camera to subject ), and increasing that value will give you good blur. I don't typically photograph subjects "high on bushes or on the other side of a ditch" simply because the subject won't likely be at a good angle, fill the frame, or be properly lit. Adequate image quality is challenging without composition, pixels on subject, and pretty light. With most macro subjects I work to a position inches away, taking photos as I work my way in to both slow my approach and ensure I can at least document a specie's presence at a working location for future reference.

I'll add something you left out: insects are more sensitive to movement from above than an approach at/below their level, so it is best to approach them from a low angle where possible. But the rest of your take on this was both accurate and concise.


----------



## entoman (Oct 2, 2021)

scottburgess said:


> I don't find it at all harder to steady myself with a 180mm macro, or even a 100-400mm at 400mm and closest focus. If someone is having trouble with longer, heavier lenses it is most commonly due to inadequate physique. Lift weights and you'll find it much easier to steady such lenses once your strength is much greater than required to merely hold the lens. Same for legs: it is straightforward to hike mountainous terrain with 50lbs of camera gear for several miles if you deadlift 300lbs each week. It's all about the strength ratio of what you can do maximally to what you are doing presently. [Start small, work up slowly, don't compare yourself to others but rather to where you were a couple months ago. Even a small increase in muscle mass is often quickly noticed in the field.]
> 
> The primary reason one should consider a 180mm macro over a 100mm macro is control of the background (it has a narrower angle of view), followed by working distance (I deal with a lot of active daytime subjects in hot weather, so this is critical for me). Background blur is mainly a function of the ratio of distances ( subject to background / camera to subject ), and increasing that value will give you good blur. I don't typically photograph subjects "high on bushes or on the other side of a ditch" simply because the subject won't likely be at a good angle, fill the frame, or be properly lit. Adequate image quality is challenging without composition, pixels on subject, and pretty light. With most macro subjects I work to a position inches away, taking photos as I work my way in to both slow my approach and ensure I can at least document a specie's presence at a working location for future reference.


My comments were aimed mainly at those with limited experience of photographing insects.

The vast majority of insect photographers I meet are butterfly/dragonfly enthusiasts, whose primary goal is to obtain a “proof of sighting” record shot. Hence my mention of using long focal length lenses for insects high on bushes or on the other side of ditches, which as you rightly point out are far from ideal for aesthetically pleasing images.

When I use my 180mm it is usually either because the subject can’t be approached any closer, or because I want better control over background by excluding matter that would be unavoidably in the frame when using a lens with a wider angle of view. But I also find the 180mm produces a much smoother bokeh (irrespective of depth of field).

I agree that one can build up strength to hold a heavier lens steadily (I often carry a 100-400mm all day long), but comparatively speaking, a short, lighter and better-balanced lens like the 100mm macro will always be easier to keep steady than a front-heavy optic like the 180mm macro.


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 2, 2021)

entoman said:


> The 100mm lenses are extremely sharp but have pronounced onion-ring bokeh which I find very distracting if there are defocused highlights in the background. AF is very rapid and precise. I find the working distance is fine for most insects and small vertebrates.


I would control background highlights by not including them if at all possible, so for me that comes back to background control. But I don't photograph much around water, either, and if you are then that immediately changes things. The most recent 100mm lenses do much better with AF, but that seems to be true of most lenses Canon has built after 2010, roughly, in my experience. Not sure how that technology evolved.



entoman said:


> The 180mm macro is just as sharp as the 100mm versions, and has vastly more attractive creamy smooth bokeh, and less noticeable onion-ring effect.


As they say, "your mileage may vary." My experience with the Canon macro lenses has matched the IQ images recorded on The-Digital-Picture.com. My sharpest 100mm lens was the old micromotor version. I'm happy for you if you've lucked out on your 100mm purchases, but I don't think of any of these lenses as exceptional. Compared to, for example, my 35mm f/1.4 II, I remain unimpressed. They're perfectly serviceable, they just don't "wow" me at all.

In short, it's useful for folks to hear a range of experiences. Even people doing similar things like us can have different experiences, different approaches, different equipment preferences, and different styles. Thanks for the conversation!


----------



## Deleted (Oct 3, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> genuinely interested, other than semi stationary bugs, how do you get close? I find them skittish, or slightly over water where I can't reach etc.


Just to add to the excellent advice above a few other bits.

Mainly it is all about getting to know your subject. For instance, how it reacts to light, movement, temperature and wind. At certain times of the day insects go torpid. This happens when the temperature drops below a certain level which can be different depending on where you are on the planet. In spring here in the UK for instance I was out photographing the dukes of burgundy butterfly. On the right day they would be easy to find in flight and as soon as the clouds covered the sun the 1-2 degree temperature drop was enough to send them torpid. At that point you could coax them onto a stick etc and shoot to your heart’s content. The second the sun returned they would fly off, unharmed and carry on feeding or mating.

In the summer, just after a rain shower is another good time. The drop in temp and the rain often catches insects out. Early morning or late evening many insects go to roost so are easy to approach. When mating, many will also be oblivious to what is around them. I also shoot on breezy days as you can often grab a perch and because the insects are used to the movement will not notice. I can then carefully manipulate whatever the plant is with my left hand, camera in my right hand resting on my left arm and take shots. Sometimes one individual of a species will be skittish, but another brave. Some spiders will not budge an inch if they have an egg sac for example.

It really is about spending time in the field and learning your subject. With time you find you can get close to almost anything. Not just insects, I have plenty of shots of,lizards, snakes, rodents etc all take with the 60mm. Oddly, we did this naturally as kids but we seem to loose the skill as we get older.


----------



## Talys (Oct 3, 2021)

This would be so cool. I would buy one for sure. My use case would be miniatures in a studio (most macro shots now taken now with EF100/2.8L), so factors like focus, stabilization and lighting are not an issue, since everything is taken on a tripod with staged lighting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2021)

Talys said:


> This would be so cool. I would buy one for sure. My use case would be miniatures in a studio (most macro shots now taken now with EF100/2.8L), so factors like focus, stabilization and lighting are not an issue, since everything is taken on a tripod with staged lighting.


Try the TS-E 50 with a TC, or the TS-E 135 macro. Both unbelievably good still life studio lenses (amongst other things).


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 4, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.
> 
> The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away.
> 
> ...


the r5 and the mpe65 coupled with the mt26ex is a fabulous combo for macro work, if you ever get the opportunity to try it. That is my daily setup, moved it from the 5dm4.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 4, 2021)

scottburgess said:


> Unlike other respondents, I would rate the EF 180mm f/3.5 as "good," not superb. It is a workhorse lens for me (and yes, I've owned both Canon EF 100mm macro lenses prior to the L, but working distance matters for insects). I've shot with it exclusively on hundreds of outings. Center and mid-frame sharpness are middling. The autofocus engine is mediocre at best, and frustrating at worst; it's inadequate for flying subjects. Build quality also seems pedestrian.
> 
> If an RF 180mm version comes out, my wish list would be for 1) improved sharpness, 2) improved autofocus, and 3) f/2.8 [even with extra weight], in that order of priorities. I'm ignoring image stabilization as I don't know how feasible it is for a long macro. I would like to keep the filter size no greater than 82mm, and preferably no more than 77mm, but I don't know if that is possible getting to f/2.8. Ideally moving elements toward the rear would result in a lens that is actually more easily handled, focuses faster, and meets these specs. I really wish Canon would make a true "pro" macro lens, as the reason I never bought the EF 100L is it isn't significantly better optically than the previous USM version I already have (it's also an oddball filter size for Canon--would prefer a 72mm filter and f/2.5 as I'm trying to stay at mostly 72/77mm for filters). I think the 180mm is the best candidate focal length to change into a professional tool as the EF/RF 100Ls adequately serve most amateurs. Since an RF 180mm price would likely be prohibitive for casual amateurs anyway, why not up the price and quality a bit and give advanced amateurs and professionals the tool they crave?
> 
> ...


f11 on the mpe65 is a great aperture to work with, and have used f13 without too much diffraction murder. I feel comfortable going up to about 3x at f11, sometimes bumping down to f9 or f10 if going to 4 or 5x, and mind you this all handheld as well. At 5.6 you would have sharpness but no depth of field, but for stacking in the lab it would be useful but certainly not in the field doing work, which is how I use the mpe65 so a fixed 2.8 would be absolutely useless unless you were stacking only. Yes, I would love for it to be updated with new optics and a native rf mount, but I have found it to work perfectly on my my r5 since updating.

I disagree with how the lens works best, I chase and photograph active critters all day with the mpe65 in situ in the field with excellent results. It is the lens I photograph most of my subjects with in the field.


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 4, 2021)

joseph ferraro said:


> f11 on the mpe65 is a great aperture to work with, and have used f13 without too much diffraction murder. I feel comfortable going up to about 3x at f11, sometimes bumping down to f9 or f10 if going to 4 or 5x, and mind you this all handheld as well. At 5.6 you would have sharpness but no depth of field, but for stacking in the lab it would be useful but certainly not in the field doing work, which is how I use the mpe65 so a fixed 2.8 would be absolutely useless unless you were stacking only. Yes, I would love for it to be updated with new optics and a native rf mount, but I have found it to work perfectly on my my r5 since updating.
> 
> I disagree with how the lens works best, I chase and photograph active critters all day with the mpe65 in situ in the field with excellent results. It is the lens I photograph most of my subjects with in the field.


Interesting! I've wondered for some time if my copy was more aperture sensitive as my experience with this does seem to deviate from the norm. I can't get adequate sharpness even when using flash/mirror lockup and on a tripod at those aperture/magnification combinations, so there may be a defect in my copy. Not sure why it shows up at smaller apertures though--perhaps a problem with the blades? I wonder if I should send it to Canon for a service?


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 4, 2021)

scottburgess said:


> Interesting! I've wondered for some time if my copy was more aperture sensitive as my experience with this does seem to deviate from the norm. I can't get adequate sharpness even when using flash/mirror lockup and on a tripod at those aperture/magnification combinations, so there may be a defect in my copy. Not sure why it shows up at smaller apertures though--perhaps a problem with the blades? I wonder if I should send it to Canon for a servicey


I would totally send it in to be serviced or looked at, since something doesn't seem right with your copy of the lens. The dof with the mpe65 is pretty thin to start, but you should be able to get sharp and detailed images up to about f11. You can go all the way to f16 for more dof but then you have to be willing to live with diffraction softness even around 1x.


----------



## roby17269 (Oct 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Another couple of months of eating Ramen and the occasional orange to avoid scurvy.
> 
> PRO TIP: Ramen is much cheaper at Walmart than other grocery stores.


hmmmm Ramen... (imagine Homer Simpson salivating about this  )


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 5, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Long focal length macro lenses are a really poor choice for field macro work unless you are using natural light as the light source. Wake me up when Canon releases an RF version of the MP-E 65mm macro lens. 99.9% of my single frame macro work has been taken with the EF version.



Pollen Covered Mining Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 5, 2021)

My kit is mostly primes so 180mm is a very compelling focal length for a 1:1 or greater macro lens, imho.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I've asked if anyone can point to any production lens specific design actually being first mentioned as an example in a patent application and no-one's pointed out a single case to me. I also haven't seen such a case myself. I'm sure it must happen from time to time but I'm still waiting for someone to point such a case out. Until we have a good record of many or even most new lenses being mentioned in patents as examples of their respected general architecture or designs, though, I think it'd be premature to hope that this particular design would be built.





neuroanatomist said:


> How many examples would you like? I didn't bother going back too far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And here's a fresh new example to add to the list.









Patent: Canon stereoscopic lens for the RF mount


Canon News has uncovered an interesting patent for a stereoscopic lens for what appears to be the RF mount. According to the patent, this would only work on



www.canonrumors.com













Canon Introduces Their First Dual Fisheye Lens for Stereoscopic 3D 180° VR Capture in 8K


MELVILLE, NY, October 6, 2021 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, has introduced its first product designed to empower the next gen



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## entoman (Oct 10, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> My kit is mostly primes so 180mm is a very compelling focal length for a 1:1 or greater macro lens, imho.


The 65mm macro is a fine lens for head shots at 1:1 or higher magnifications, but for butterflies, dragonflies, grasshoppers and most other insects that are encountered in the field, a longer focal length is usually preferable.

Most of the participants on my wildlife photography tours use a 90mm or 100mm macro, and find that it offers a good working distance with nervous insects. A few use the Sigma 150mm macro or the 180mm Canon macro.

I’ve used a Canon 100mm F2.8L IS macro for years, and find it offers the best compromise, with a good working distance, light weight, and the important ability to be able to also shoot more distant subjects without having to swap lenses.

I’ve also got the Canon 180mm macro which has superior bokeh, but is more difficult to keep steady, despite the IBIS in my R5. I’ve also got a Sigma 150mm macro, but it’s heavy and slow focusing, so it’s purely there as a backup.

Back in the days of film, when we were generally limited to ISO 100 slide films, most people used flash to enable a usable combination of small aperture and freezing movement, but from my observations, the vast majority of people nowadays prefer to shoot by ambient lighting, unless they are working indoors or in the darkness of a rainforest interior.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2021)

entoman said:


> Back in the days of film, when we were generally limited to ISO 100 slide films, most people used flash to enable a usable combination of small aperture and freezing movement, but from my observations, the vast majority of people nowadays prefer to shoot by ambient lighting, unless they are working indoors or in the darkness of a rainforest interior.


…or shooting at high magnification. For example, shooting with the MP-E 65 at a diffraction-friendly f/11, the effective aperture at 5x is f/66. That’s why I use the twin-flash.


----------

