# Review: Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

> The-Digital-Picture has complete its review of the brand new Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, It looks like it’s a great lens, but there may be an issue with focus shifting, and the price may cause some buyers pause.
> From The-Digital-Picture
> I consider a telephoto macro lens to be a mandatory part of my kit and always include the best available option. What is the best Canon macro lens? Focus shift aside, the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens is that lens.
> I didn’t see the focus shift issue coming, and this issue is my primary complaint with this lens. Precise focusing is especially important with a macro lens, and this lens falls below expectations in regards to focus shift. Again, I see no issues at f/2.8 or f/11 and narrower. Hopefully, Canon can resolve this issue completely.
> With an extremely fast, high-performing AF system and an advanced image stabilization system, this professional-grade lens is capable of delivering outstanding image quality, optically outperforming all...



Continue reading...


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Jul 19, 2021)

It's a ton of fun. I did a lot of 4K 120 capturing bees in action, then went stills mode. Once humidity drops, I'll be back out there grabbing more of summer under the 100mm. Shot a lot 1:6 crop, but will focus on 1:1 this week. Put out a video with my weekends findings. It's not a review, but the assessment of a video shooter of a primary stills lens.


----------



## David_E (Jul 19, 2021)

Great lens on my R5.

__
https://flic.kr/p/2ma9Li3


----------



## Fischer (Jul 19, 2021)

Hoped (actually expected) Canon was past focus shift issues since moving to mirrorless. Highly disappointing.


----------



## padam (Jul 19, 2021)

They've fixed the focus shifting in the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 with a firmware update.
So why didn't they do the same with this lens, or the RF 70-200mm f/4? I don't get it.


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Jul 19, 2021)

David_E said:


> Great lens on my R5.
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2ma9Li3


Nicely nailed. They don't always pose for pictures


----------



## jdavidse (Jul 19, 2021)

padam said:


> They've fixed the focus shifting in the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 with a firmware update.
> So why didn't they do the same with this lens, or the RF 70-200mm f/4? I don't get it.


This lens has been out a week.


----------



## padam (Jul 19, 2021)

jdavidse said:


> This lens has been out a week.


So? Is it normal to ship out a lens with a firmware that lacks these corrections?

The RF 70-200 f4 has been out for a while, and there is no mention of a firmware fix coming either, they should be more transparent about why the RF 70-200 f2.8 firmware was deemed faulty, but not the rest.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 19, 2021)

Honestly, focus shifting is unacceptable in a macro lens. I don't know how you could "fix it in firmware" but this lens has been 100% removed from my list. You absolutely can't trust a macro lens that changes its focus when the aperture changes.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 19, 2021)

padam said:


> They've fixed the focus shifting in the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 with a firmware update.
> So why didn't they do the same with this lens, or the RF 70-200mm f/4? I don't get it.


I am thinking that they will update it via FW. 
The fact they did not get it on the initial deliveries of the product is about par for so many businesses today.

SHIP NOW! Fix later.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 19, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Honestly, focus shifting is unacceptable in a macro lens. I don't know how you could "fix it in firmware" but this lens has been 100% removed from my list. You absolutely can't trust a macro lens that changes its focus when the aperture changes.


I would not remove it too hastily.

Focus shift is fixed like any other adjustment in computer controlled devices. A map is made of the pattern of focus shift and the compensation is mapped to the AF motors.

EF lenses had AFMA which were user adjustments but the principle is the same. See where the error is and create an offset to the calculated value.

Many of the operations of electronic devices have such adjustments to accommodate the real world mechanics to the absolutism of math.


----------



## rontele7 (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.

f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.

RF mount has very little going for it that didn’t exist in the same or better form in EF. 

Let’s hope they get some better engineers on staff in the future.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 19, 2021)

The R6 got a firmware update for compatibility with this lens and the 400mm/600mm. I'm curious if that helped at all with focus shift on that body, compared to the R5 (still no firmware update yet).
I am hoping for a quick fix to the focus shift issue as it is a pretty big drawback for such an expensive macro lens. You just can't shoot an entire bee or butterfly at F2.8 and very close distances and expect good depth of field.

For those who have the lens, please join me in reporting the focus shift issue to Canon ASAP! Let's get this fix prioritized!!!

Link to find the Canon Support page for your region:

https://global.canon/en/support/


----------



## jam05 (Jul 19, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Hoped (actually expected) Canon was pass focus shift issues since moving to mirrorless. Highly disappointing.


It can only be disappointing if one only accepts one source of information. There are other reviews of the same product. Nothing about focus shift. The person may have received a bad copy. Most often "focus shift issues" are merely operator error.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 19, 2021)

I would say that this person either received a bad copy. There are other reviews and 


rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...


BS. Quite the opposite.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 19, 2021)

Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...



Yes and no--mostly no.

If Canon never put out any other RF 600mm or 800mm than those f/11 primes, the statement might have some justification. As we don't know what they won't do...especially this early in the history of the mount...it's way too early to say this. (And I doubt it will pan out.)

f/7.1 zooms: If this is a reference to the 100-400, it's basically the _same spec_ as the old 100-400, except that once you get to 400-f/5.6 you can then continue to extend it to 500 at f/7.1. So this is added capability, not less. The other 100-400 is a consumer level lens, just like those f/11 zooms, and can't rightfully be compared to the EF 100-400 L.

The 24-240, I'm a bit sympathetic to the complaint here, until I remember that this, too, is a consumer-level lens; they traded optical quality for 10x range, using software to compensate. Not a tradeoff I am interested in making, but still, a "new" niche filled.

If they never made any other lens to fill the 24-240 range (OK, this would require lenses in the plural, to be honest), or the 600 and 800mm, and stuck red stripes on the lenses, you would have a stronger argument.

As for the 100mm I'm going to wait to hear more.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...


There are several excellent and indeed groundbreaking R-lenses. All of mine are top-notch: 28-70, 50, 70-200, 100-500. Just looking for the 300mm prime to come. So not sure this is a general problem even if its disappointing.


----------



## David_E (Jul 19, 2021)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> _Nicely nailed. They don't always pose for pictures_


You got that right! This individual had its proboscis in the solo blue flower at bottom center milliseconds before I snapped the shutter. (They coil the proboscis prior to flight to protect it from damage, which would lead to starvation.) Milliseconds _after_ I made the picture, the individual was gone.


----------



## David_E (Jul 19, 2021)

Fischer said:


> _Hoped (actually expected) Canon was past focus shift issues since moving to mirrorless. Highly disappointing._


Really? Be honest. I can take it like a man. Is my photo of the sachem skipper _highly disappointing_? Does it show evidence of a focus problem? I need to know what is wrong with my photos if I am to improve.

I would also appreciate hearing about your personal experience with this lens.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...


I am going to disagree strongly. Their new lenses are amazing. Everyone always clamors for innovation but it seems what they really want is another 24-70 or 70-200. Give someone a pint sized 800mm lens nope. I think they are producing some very nice glass. Have you tested the 50 and 85 1.2? They are crazy sharp.


----------



## reef58 (Jul 19, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.


Are you saying "The Digital Picture" is not a reliable source? Maybe I am misunderstanding but they are basically the goto for Canon lens reviews.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 19, 2021)

Not a


Normalnorm said:


> I would not remove it too hastily.
> 
> Focus shift is fixed like any other adjustment in computer controlled devices. A map is made of the pattern of focus shift and the compensation is mapped to the AF motors.
> 
> ...


Not at all convinced. Focus shift, as LSXPhotog already wrote, is NOT acceptable for a macro lens.
What if the lens is used in manual focus mode? No firmware, in my opinion, could help since AF motors are switched of. I'm certain I'm not the only one using manual mode most of the time for macros...
And using depth of field button, provided existing (none on EOS R and RP), isn't very practical. What I'm hoping for is Canon mechanically-optically correcting this phenomenon!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...



It's funny you mention the F7.1 zooms but omit the F2 zoom. The F11 primes are actually something new, never been an 800mm focal length so affordable. It's not that they going to replace the 600mm F4 lens. It's just an extra option.

In the EF mount they had plenty of lenses with issues. The 50mm 1.4 was notorious for broken USM motors, the 50mm 1.2 had focusing issues. 
The 70-300 DO had horrible image quality for the price.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 19, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Not a
> 
> Not at all convinced. Focus shift, as LSXPhotog already wrote, is NOT acceptable for a macro lens.
> What if the lens is used in manual focus mode? No firmware, in my opinion, could help since AF motors are switched of. I'm certain I'm not the only one using manual mode most of the time for macros...
> And using depth of field button, provided existing (none on EOS R and RP), isn't very practical. What I'm hoping for is Canon mechanically-optically correcting this phenomenon!



For RF lenses the focus motor does all the focusing, even in manual mode.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 19, 2021)

I wonder how easy it is to knock the SA Control ring just slightly out of neutral. Or if during shipping it can be bounced around and "0" is no longer the actual neutral position. Focus shifting, after so many years of Canon macros not having the issue, is startling.


----------



## Frodo (Jul 19, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.


Bryan is one of the most systematic reviewers out there, taking way more time and effort than working professionals could invest. "Operator error"? Highly unlikely. "Bad copy"? Maybe, but he did check a second example that also exhibited this problem.


----------



## Joules (Jul 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...


I guess you don't know that engineering is not at all about achieving top performance. It is about meeting requirements effectively and efficiently. All the things you list as negatives are just engineering measures to meet the demands of the respective market segments. If you aren't part of the market segments seeking for affordable or compact lenses, that's fine. No need to dismiss them just because of it.

As has been pointed out Canon has already designs that absolutely are improvements on their EF counter parts. If you can call the RF 28-70mm 2.0 or the 1.2 primes poorly engineered, I doubt it is worth discussing with you further.


----------



## jdavidse (Jul 19, 2021)

padam said:


> So? Is it normal to ship out a lens with a firmware that lacks these corrections?


Have you met Canon?


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 19, 2021)

The focus shift issue could be addressed by focusing stopped down to working aperture or a fixed aperture (ala Nikon's f/5.6) when smaller apertures are set. What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> What does "systematic" mean in your book?
> 
> I read this review and it seems mostly boilerplate filler. Is telling us what the magnification _would_ be if Canon _did_ offer an small-sensor RF camera something so important it must be mentioned before the spherical aberration control?


The magnification would be the same and the fov would be less if it were on an imaginary crop RF camera.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 19, 2021)

jam05 said:


> It can only be disappointing if one only accepts one source of information. There are other reviews of the same product. Nothing about focus shift. The person may have received a bad copy. Most often "focus shift issues" are merely operator error.


Bryan's reviews are usually spot on. I would trust what he says. As far as dismissing it as a "bad copy" he goes on to say:


> Did I get a bad copy of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens? My guess was no, and the issue has been confirmed in a second lens. Test results have been forwarded to the Canon lens team in Japan.


So it's not a single copy issue. It could be a limited batch problem, or something more general.

I've no affiliation with Bryan, outside of occasionally reading his reviews and finding them helpful. He's always seemed balanced in his reviews and quite methodical. You only have to look at his pictures to know he has good technique. He also buys his kit and doesn't rely on loan or gifted equipment from manufacturers. He's certainly capable of praising canon kit when it is merited. He even says of this lens (in that very review):


> Dealing with abnormalities significantly extends the time required to complete a lens review. This one, upon discovery of the focus shift issue, took a long detour. While that issue is significant, the other optical properties of this lens are, overall, remarkable. The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens is capable of producing jaw-dropping imagery.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> *POTENTIAL SOLUTION?*
> 
> So this guy's reported the focus shift in two lenses... yet sounds puzzled that in photos of a berry he wasn't having problems with it... while other reviewers don't mention it.
> 
> Right now my best guess is that maybe the focus shift issue is present when the Spherical Aberration Control isn't zeroed. It'd probably be an easy control to overlook, especially as his explanation shows he doesn't understand it. It'd be sometimes set this way, sometimes that, and he never mentions what it is for any given shot (which he absolutely should have--for EVERY SINGLE SHOT here, just as you'd mention focal length were it a zoom).


It seems unlikely, given that he says that the control can not only be zeroed but it can also be locked at zero.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 19, 2021)

fish_shooter said:


> The focus shift issue could be addressed by focusing stopped down to working aperture or a fixed aperture (ala Nikon's f/5.6) when smaller apertures are set. What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.


Can you elaborate on the relationship between the flat port and the front element? I believe (mistakenly??) that the flat port is not a lens but a neutral piece of glass similar to a UV filter fixed on the lens. 

If you are using a wet lens for macro then there could be issues but hard to imagine that the wet lens is mechanically both fixed and perfectly axially aligned so that focus shifting when changing aperture would be noticeable.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jul 20, 2021)

I haven’t do some decent macro 1.4x shots with tripod yet on this lens, I found it is super difficult to shooting at 1.4x magnification with hand held


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> I found it is super difficult to shooting at 1.4x magnification with hand held


I routinely shoot handheld at 3-5x magnification. Focus coarsely, then move the camera back and forth to put the focal plane where you want and shoot. At mag that high, you need a strobe – I use the MT-24 EX, a hotshoe flash on a macro bracket would work, too (I use that to light the background).


----------



## roby17269 (Jul 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder how easy it is to knock the SA Control ring just slightly out of neutral. Or if during shipping it can be bounced around and "0" is no longer the actual neutral position. Focus shifting, after so many years of Canon macros not having the issue, is startling.


There is a switch that locks the SA ring. If it is engaged the ring doesn't move at all


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 20, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you elaborate on the relationship between the flat port and the front element? I believe (mistakenly??) that the flat port is not a lens but a neutral piece of glass similar to a UV filter fixed on the lens.
> 
> If you are using a wet lens for macro then there could be issues but hard to imagine that the wet lens is mechanically both fixed and perfectly axially aligned so that focus shifting when changing aperture would be noticeable.


Front element - The glass part of a lens closest to the front of the camera lens. Also called the first lens element

Flat port - The piece of glass between the camera lens and water that is planar, .i.e., flat. The other major port type is the dome port that must be used for wide angle lenses but can also be used with longer focal lengths. 

To make an underwater housing useful there has to be a port in place otherwise you will have a housing full of water ;-<<. One generally has the front element as close to the port as possible with flat ports. I have used lenses with fairly big spaces behind the port needed to accommodate lens extension during focusing (e.g. compact macro 50 lens) without major issue. There are wet lens accessories that one can place on the water side of the port that need to have the lens close to the glass, see: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav
There is a lens guide for Canon (and another for Nikon) lenses to see which wet lenses work with which Canon lanes.
At this time I have not read any report on using this new Canon lens with any wet lens but I am sure they are coming...


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 20, 2021)

I had this lens on pre-order for quite a while, since it was the only true macro and L version lens so far. I didn't really want a 100mm macro lens, and would have strongly preferred a 180mm macro lens for a longer distance to the subject (which I assume they'll come out with eventually).

After this review, there seem to be these issues:
* I was excited that the SA ring might allow for better background bokeh. But now I see that any change away from center blurs the subject focus so much as to be (to me) unusable. It doesn't matter how good the background blur gets if you have to blur out your subject focus to get it.
* The focus distance shifts when you change aperture. Really? It's hard to imagine why this would happen. Since I'd probably use AF most of the time, this might not be an issue to me. But if on a tripod with manual focus I'd be upset with this issue.
* The field of view changes (somewhat) with changing focus. This happens on a lot of lenses so I'm used to it. I could see it affecting focus stacking. But I probably wouldn't do focus stacking unless they change their user interface to a better version where the focus distance when you pressed the shutter is the *center* of the stack (and not the front of the stack). That would allow animal eye AF to work and get extra shots before & after what is the true subject focus.
* I still prefer a longer focal length for a macro lens. That's just my preference.
For the last reason (mostly), and the worthless (to me) SA ring, I have now cancelled my pre-order of this lens and will wait for a longer true RF L macro (180mm or longer) to be introduced. But for those of you that like the 100mm macro range and can deal with the focus stacking issues, I'm glad they made this lens for you (truly). The more lenses available the better!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 20, 2021)

fish_shooter said:


> Front element - The glass part of a lens closest to the front of the camera lens. Also called the first lens element
> 
> Flat port - The piece of glass between the camera lens and water that is planar, .i.e., flat. The other major port type is the dome port that must be used for wide angle lenses but can also be used with longer focal lengths.
> 
> ...


I have a 8" dome from my 16-35mm and 8-15mm and macro flat port for my 100mm macro. I am trying to understand your previous comment 

"What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. *This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system. *"

Why is it advantageous to have a fixed relationship between front element and lens port? The flat port won't become part of the optical system unless it is a lens or when a wet lens is added in front on the flat port.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 20, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I have a 8" dome from my 16-35mm and 8-15mm and macro flat port for my 100mm macro. I am trying to understand your previous comment
> 
> "What I found interesting is potentially zero front lens element movement during focusing as this is implied in the posted pix unless there was an error as the SA ring appears to have moved. *This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system. *"
> 
> Why is it advantageous to have a fixed relationship between front element and lens port? The flat port won't become part of the optical system unless it is a lens or when a wet lens is added in front on the flat port.


The advantage is for wet lenses which are growing in number. Being able to add a wet lens increases the versatility of an underwater camera system. I have not tried a mismatch (not following a maker's recommendation) so see how far off one can be - an expensive experiment unless one already has the parts to work with as well as the time. 

I was shooting with a dome port combined with a macro lens a couple days ago but it was one of my Nikon systems not not one of my Canons. I did a bunch of testing a few years ago to see how much port extension to use - one needs the right amount as you already know from experience with the 8-15 and 16-35.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 20, 2021)

fish_shooter said:


> The advantage is for wet lenses which are growing in number. Being able to add a wet lens increases the versatility of an underwater camera system. I have not tried a mismatch (not following a maker's recommendation) so see how far off one can be - an expensive experiment unless one already has the parts to work with as well as the time.
> 
> I was shooting with a dome port combined with a macro lens a couple days ago but it was one of my Nikon systems not not one of my Canons. I did a bunch of testing a few years ago to see how much port extension to use - one needs the right amount as you already know from experience with the 8-15 and 16-35.


I'm not sure that you are clarifying your original point "*This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.*"
Domes are used to reduce vignetting in wide angle and return to a normal field of view and flat ports are used for magnification, minimum focus distance (especially for strobe use) and better sharpness. The use of an external wet lens is optional but only possible with a flat port vs a dome.
I can't see how the flat port is part of the "optical system" in the sense of this thread being about focus shift in the RF100mm


----------



## JoeDavid (Jul 20, 2021)

I received this lens from Canon USA as soon as they started filling preorders and have been pretty impressed with its performance. It came with lens firmware v1.1.1. I’ll do a little more testing later but, with a quick test of f2.8-11, I didn’t see a focus shift occur. I was using a lens calibration tool with the target at 45 degrees to the lens. I’ll need to redo it at something like 30 degrees to get a more distinct view of the DOF at the smaller apertures. Anyway, the R5 was tripod mounted, IS off, electric shutter, remote release, and SA locked at zero.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 20, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not sure that you are clarifying your original point "*This is important for underwater photography since it is advantageous to have a fixed relationship between the front lens element and lens port (which is typically of the flat variety for a 100mm lens) as the lens port (part of the underwater housing) becomes part of the optical system.*"
> Domes are used to reduce vignetting in wide angle and return to a normal field of view and flat ports are used for magnification, minimum focus distance (especially for strobe use) and better sharpness. The use of an external wet lens is optional but only possible with a flat port vs a dome.
> I can't see how the flat port is part of the "optical system" in the sense of this thread being about focus shift in the RF100mm


My comment on the focus shift issue has nothing to do with underwater photography but instead on the aperture that is being used to do the focusing.

I also noticed a lack of movement in the front element between infinity and 1.4x (scroll down a bit in the report to see the pix) but also noticed the CA ring had moved so maybe there is an error there. The lack of movement would be good since this would allow using wet lenses per above. There is already a discussion on Wetpixel about a potential extension of the lens when focusing of a few mm. I expect Nauticam will be testing the new lens and reporting back on compatibility...


----------



## deleteme (Jul 20, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Not a
> 
> Not at all convinced. Focus shift, as LSXPhotog already wrote, is NOT acceptable for a macro lens.
> What if the lens is used in manual focus mode? No firmware, in my opinion, could help since AF motors are switched of. I'm certain I'm not the only one using manual mode most of the time for macros...
> And using depth of field button, provided existing (none on EOS R and RP), isn't very practical. What I'm hoping for is Canon mechanically-optically correcting this phenomenon!


I guess you will have to cast Canon into the lake of fire then.
I see it as very unlikely that they will do any hardware work on a released lens.
I think they count their base of customers as far more casual in their approach to focus and will default to AF in almost all cases.
The other thing they are banking on is that most people do not shoot macro wide open. 
Yes, I get that even stopped down their will be a slight degradation. Canon is betting most will never see it.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder how easy it is to knock the SA Control ring just slightly out of neutral. Or if during shipping it can be bounced around and "0" is no longer the actual neutral position. Focus shifting, after so many years of Canon macros not having the issue, is startling.


The SA ring has a lock switch on the bottom right:


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 20, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> For RF lenses the focus motor does all the focusing, even in manual mode.


That's right, but in manual mode, there will be no "firmware focus correction".
Yet, since all my macros are shot with MT 24 at f11 or f16, does it matter there's a bit of focus-shift? I'll give it a try (field-test) and then decide.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 20, 2021)

fish_shooter said:


> My comment on the focus shift issue has nothing to do with underwater photography but instead on the aperture that is being used to do the focusing.
> 
> I also noticed a lack of movement in the front element between infinity and 1.4x (scroll down a bit in the report to see the pix) but also noticed the CA ring had moved so maybe there is an error there. The lack of movement would be good since this would allow using wet lenses per above. There is already a discussion on Wetpixel about a potential extension of the lens when focusing of a few mm. I expect Nauticam will be testing the new lens and reporting back on compatibility...


I think you mean the SA ring 
Be interesting to see if Nauticam would include a focus and SA ring control on their port.
I am not following your point about lack of front element movement and wet lenses. It isn't a collapsing design. The EF16-35mm/4 has the front element moving with focal length within a fixed length external lens but doesn't have any issues with focusing as far as I know


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> That's right, but in manual mode, there will be no "firmware focus correction". [..]


Why wouldn't there be? Since you can configure direction, acceleration and sensitity of the focussing ring, there will always be a hefty chuck of software between the ring and focus motors.


----------



## lnz (Jul 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Yes and no--mostly no.
> 
> If Canon never put out any other RF 600mm or 800mm than those f/11 primes, the statement might have some justification. As we don't know what they won't do...especially this early in the history of the mount...it's way too early to say this. (And I doubt it will pan out.)
> 
> ...


on the 100-500 @400mm you are at f/6.4 so it's really a stepback. teleconverter work only @300mm plus another stepback


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2021)

lnz said:


> on the 100-500 @400mm you are at f/6.4 so it's really a stepback. teleconverter work only @300mm plus another stepback


The RF 100-500 @400 comment is muddy, because what you get displayed depends on whether you have set your aperture stops set to halves or thirds and it is hard to compare to the EF 100-400mm, as that is not exactly true 400 mm on the long end. In practical terms, they are very close.

As for the TC compatibility, that's a trade off. Keep in mind that the RF lens is much lighter than the EF counterpart. There's no free lunch, it is all a complicated set of compromises. That alone does by no means make it poor engineering.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

Joules said:


> The RF 100-500 @400 comment is muddy, because what you get displayed depends on whether you have set your aperture stops set to halves or thirds and it is hard to compare to the EF 100-400mm, as that is not exactly true 400 mm on the long end. In practical terms, they are very close.[..]


In my mind the physical aperture is the same in both the EF100-400II and the RF100-500. Which is not how I tend to think about those things, I'm too used to thinking in f-stops, which, as you say, are rounded differently when shown on the camera.


----------



## jeanluc (Jul 20, 2021)

I have very little experience with macro shooting. Could someone more knowledgeable about it please explain exactly what focus shift is and how it works?

My (probably flawed) understanding is that the focus plane can shift when the aperture changes.

Is this when you deliberately change aperture after focusing? Or is it something the camera does by itself after autofocussing? I read something about focus shift not happening if you use autofocus. I know in the macro world MF is often used.

Just trying to understand. Thanks to any for a little more info.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 20, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Why wouldn't there be? Since you can configure direction, acceleration and sensitity of the focussing ring, there will always be a hefty chuck of software between the ring and focus motors.


I can't imagine it will work.
Example: what if I focus manually, using depth of field preview, would the firmware still (unnecessarily ) correct focus to compensate for a no longer troublesome focus shift ?
Just to say that this focus shift issue (if really exists !) still bothers me...


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> I have very little experience with macro shooting. Could someone more knowledgeable about it please explain exactly what focus shift is and how it works?
> 
> My (probably flawed) understanding is that the focus plane can shift when the aperture changes.
> 
> ...


With lenses that have an electronically controlled aperture, an R camera will always have the aperture wide open and only close it down when taking the actual photo or when the DoF preview button is being pressed.

So it doesn't matter if you're using AF or MF, you can only ever focus with the aperture wide open.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 20, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I can't imagine it will work.
> Example: what if I focus manually, using depth of field preview, would the firmware still (unnecessarily ) correct focus to compensate for a no longer troublesome focus shift ?
> Just to say that this focus shift issue (if really exists !) still bothers me...


That depends on Canon covering that use case when working on the firmware.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 20, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> I am thinking that they will update it via FW.
> The fact they did not get it on the initial deliveries of the product is about par for so many businesses today.
> 
> SHIP NOW! Fix later.


if memory serves well, Volker Pispers, a German comedian called it "Banana product, ripens at the customer."


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 20, 2021)

I compared the RF version against the EF USM non-IS version
via the great TDP ( the-digital-picture.com ) web site and
I see better contrast and maybe better resolution on the RF (while
different sensors are some caveat for a good comparison).

But I think the vignetting is substantially lower with the old EF version
-- maybe some shift of priorities and the tendency to rely on post processing
which is easy in vignetting (if you have enough range).

Maybe the EF 100 is sufficient for my use with the EOS RP but will shine on
45 or 90 MPix!


----------



## Fischer (Jul 20, 2021)

David_E said:


> Really? Be honest. I can take it like a man. Is my photo of the sachem skipper _highly disappointing_? Does it show evidence of a focus problem? I need to know what is wrong with my photos if I am to improve.
> 
> I would also appreciate hearing about your personal experience with this lens.


I do not do macro normally - and focus shifting is only visible at certain f-stops, which I cannot see from your post. However, no modern HQ lens should have focus shift imho as it will potentially ruin some pictures, because the focus system gets fooled. Of course you can avoid this by avoiding the affected f-stops. Which is what some people tend to learn how to do.

But welcome to the club of EF 50mm L f/1.2 apologetics which now can add another group of lens owners (a lens I did use and dropped because of the focus shift). To me focus shift belongs to the graveyard of modern lens design. There are no excuses possible. YMMV.

The RF 50mm is a way better lens the old EF 50mm L lens for many reasons - the lack of focus shift is probably the most important.


----------



## David_E (Jul 20, 2021)

Fischer said:


> _…focus shifting is only visible at certain f-stops, which I cannot see from your post._


I’m not saying it isn’t a problem for some people with some lenses, only that I haven’t experienced the problem. There are, however, myriad things that can go wrong when photographing skittish arthropods _in vivo_ and _in situ_.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 20, 2021)

David_E said:


> I’m not saying it isn’t a problem for some people with some lenses, only that I haven’t experienced the problem. There are, however, myriad things that can go wrong when photographing skittish arthropods _in vivo_ and _in situ_.


You have now twice made references to your photo - which I have not commented on at all. I'm sure its a great macro shot and it looks good too.


----------



## AJ (Jul 20, 2021)

The focus shift issue is surprising. You'd think this would have dropped out of their CAD modeling, or ray-tracing, or whatever they do. Or else out of testing of physical prototypes. I imagine this will be an easy fix with firmware. If so, why didn't they do this right off of the bat, rather than a later fix? Did they rush this lens to market? In any case this seems somewhat of an embarassment for the Canon brand. I imagine many 'togs will wait for the firmware update before plunking down their dollars/euros/pounds/dinars etc.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 20, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Not really a reliable source. There are plenty of professional photographers to chose from rather than pushing online magazines and publishers.


TDP not reliable?


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon would do well to implement a firmware fix on the focus shift issue as they have on another model.

But let's dispense with the drama. The technical reality check is that an object optimally focused wide open gets* even sharper* as the lens stops down, not defocusing one iota. WITH a "focus shift" problem. 

The "shift" is for the reason that the ideal focus for the bundle of rays that includes those from the peripheries of the lens is slightly different than the bundle with only a central part of the lens. Microscopically so. (If they all focused to the exact same spot then stopping down wouldn't make an image sharper - perhaps that's nearly true for a $12,000 telephoto).

So, that subject test chart in focus wide open is even sharper when stopped down, but the "shift" is simply a misnomer for the fact that stopped down there is an even slightly better point of focus just forward or aft of the subject.

Those who take pictures of rulers laying on tables might document if they tried very hard, but I've never seen a real life example of an image visibly harmed by focus shift.

Let's not pretend that the engineering and optical design geniuses who develop these products are boneheads who don't have a clue about these things that impact 0.00% of actual owner images, and the internet commenters are the smarties who'd do a better job at designing lenses. Get the lenses to the customers who need them, then worry about the little fixes of hypothetical problems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> So, that subject test chart in focus wide open is even sharper when stopped down, but the "shift" is simply a misnomer for the fact that stopped down there is an even slightly better point of focus just forward or aft of the subject.
> 
> Those who take pictures of rulers laying on tables might document if they tried very hard, but I've never seen a real life example of an image visibly harmed by focus shift.


Plenty of 'real world' examples of the focus shift on the 50/1.2L. Having a blurry eye and 'an even slightly better point of focus' on the ear is not better at all. Here's one blog example.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 20, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> I am thinking that they will update it via FW.
> The fact they did not get it on the initial deliveries of the product is about par for so many businesses today.
> 
> SHIP NOW! Fix later.


This is an artifact of 'Agile' buisness models. MINIMUM VIABLE PRODUCT - what is just enough to get to the customer? Whatever that is, ship it and update it later. This was born in the software industry. Anyone who plays PC games knows how buggy they are when they first come out. Same process. 

This lens works, lets say, 90% of how you would expect it to. That's good enough. Get free testing from your customers and fix it later. 

Brian


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 20, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Canon lens engineering has taken a HUGE step backwards the last few years.
> 
> f/11 primes, f/7.1 zooms, telescoping 70-200’s, and now we have a poorly engineered macro lenses. And don’t forget the 24-240, top contender for the worst lens Canon has ever produced.
> 
> ...


You mean an 800mm lens regular people can afford - made possible by the new system's ability to focus all the way down to F11, zooms with all the functionality of those that came before plus an extra 100mm of reach (100-500), the smallest package professional 70-200 lenses on the market, and 10x zoom range consumer lens for about $800 that does really well when compared with the built in lens correction capability in the new bodies? 

RF is definitely going places. 

Let's hope they don't hire people like you to work in their engineering department.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plenty of 'real world' examples of the focus shift on the 50/1.2L. Having a blurry eye and 'an even slightly better point of focus' on the ear is not better at all. Here's one blog example.


correct me if I'm wrong, but what is described in this blog post appears to be backfocusing instead of focus shift. In particular, it says 'The backfocusing happens only when using autofocus. Manual focus works OK.'

Focus shift would affect manual focus as well.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 20, 2021)

yeahright said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but what is described in this blog post appears to be backfocusing instead of focus shift. In particular, it says 'The backfocusing happens only when using autofocus. Manual focus works OK.'
> 
> Focus shift would affect manual focus as well.


and since I could not wrap my head around how a *lens* (instead of a body) could actually backfocus, I searched a little more and found the accepted answer to this question (https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/73740/how-can-lens-cause-consistent-front-or-back-focus) which says that AF control algorithms are (or were?) typically open loop (which explains why lenses can back-, or frontfocus), when I really couldn't imagine that open loop control was used for the purpose of autofocus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

yeahright said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but what is described in this blog post appears to be backfocusing instead of focus shift. In particular, it says 'The backfocusing happens only when using autofocus. Manual focus works OK.'
> 
> Focus shift would affect manual focus as well.


I missed that, but note that focus shift in the context of a lens focused wide open (which is how AF works) then stopped down for the exposure will always result in backfocus. Even in a perfectly AF microadjusted body/lens combo. The 50L has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberration (SA) to improve the bokeh, and that leads to focus shift. 

Manual focus with the DoF Preview button pressed is one of the workarounds for the 50L's focus shift. Another is to just shoot the lens wide open, since it's the change in aperture that's causing the focus shift. Or shoot at a sufficiently narrow aperture that the shifted focus is still within the DoF. But f/2 isn't narrow enough on an f/1.2 lens with a fair bit of SA.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I missed that, but note that focus shift in the context of a lens focused wide open (which is how AF works) then stopped down for the exposure will always result in backfocus. The 50L has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberration to improve the bokeh, and that leads to focus shift.
> 
> Manual focus with the DoF Preview button pressed is one of the workarounds for the 50L's focus shift.


but do we agree that @InchMetric is correct in saying that even in the presence of focus shift the point in 'perfect' focus wide open will not become blurrier due to focus shift but sharper, albeit not as sharp as a point further away (or nearer). Focus shift can only affect lenses that are quite soft wide open.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plenty of 'real world' examples of the focus shift on the 50/1.2L. Having a blurry eye and 'an even slightly better point of focus' on the ear is not better at all. Here's one blog example.


That blog was written by someone with vision problems, judging by the giant type face. 

I'm glad to know that the best example is an old design for a camera mount I don't have. And the article doesn't seem to be about focus shift when stopping down, and might be a totally different issue with a bad lens. Evidence of focus shift might include an image showing focus on a subject point at full aperture, then an image stopped down with something at a different distance focused better than the subject point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> That blog was written by someone with vision problems, judging by the giant type face.
> 
> I'm glad to know that the best example is an old design for a camera mount I don't have. And the article doesn't seem to be about focus shift when stopping down, and might be a totally different issue with a bad lens. Evidence of focus shift might include an image showing focus on a subject point at full aperture, then an image stopped down with something at a different distance focused better than the subject point.


That was the first example I ran across (and the typeface is rather small on my iPhone and Mac, although the blogger seems to have issues with those devices). I’ve seen others. Focus shift is independent of the design age of a lens. In practice, it’s probably not a huge issue with the 50L because the typical subject distance for that lens is great enough to obviate the issue.

The magnitude of focus shift is inversely proportional to subject distance, and the RF 100L is a macro lens. If you’re using it for portraits, you likely won’t be affected by the focus shift. If you’re stopped down to f/14 for macro, also little to no effect. But with macro subjects at middle apertures, I suspect it will be noticeable with subjects like insects, where sharp focus on the eyes (or nearest eye) is critical, and focus shift would put the focal plane behind the eye.


----------



## pardus (Jul 20, 2021)

picked up the RF100 the other day, shooting in studio it is noticeably softer than my EF version. pulled out the Spyder Lenscal and is also back focusing as well. At f11 is about 1/2" off. I guess no micro adjustment on the R5. Taking it back to the store tonight or tomorrow. attached image show 400% zoom on product label. for $2000cdn, you would expect it to be at least as good as the EF version. R5 on camera stand, IS off (on makes no difference in sharpness I found), f11. left is EF and right is the RF.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 21, 2021)

There is a possibility that some of these RF 100 macro lenses are more affected than other copies when it comes to focus shift. My RF 35mm 1.8, for example, was quite bad with it, to the point that I returned it for a refund. My RF 85mm F2 Macro on the other hand is one of my best focusing lenses at any aputure (even though some reviews say it also has a bit of focus shift?).

Honestly, I wouldn’t consider this lens if the Focus shift is picked up by other reviewers… but if it seems like a one off, I would be a bit less concerned…. Let’s see if other people pick up on this issue..


----------



## darth mollusk (Jul 21, 2021)

Just tested my copy using the same methods as TDP – no sign of focus shift at all...


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That was the first example I ran across. I’ve seen others. Focus shift is independent of the design age of a lens. In practice, it’s probably not a huge issue with the 50L because the typical subject distance for that lens is great enough to obviate the issue.
> 
> The magnitude of focus shift is inversely proportional to subject distance, and the RF 100L is a macro lens. If you’re using it for portraits, you likely won’t be affected by the focus shift. If you’re stopped down to f/14 for macro, also little to no effect. But with macro subjects at middle apertures, I suspect it will be noticeable with subjects like insects, where sharp focus on the eyes (or nearest eye) is critical, and focus shift would put the focal plane behind the eye.
> 
> View attachment 199065


When your best example has no relation to the topic, I’m unimpressed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> When your best example has no relation to the topic, I’m unimpressed.


I said it was the first example I ran across, not ‘my best example’. Either read more carefully or avoid attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. The issue isn’t of sufficient importance to me to find a ‘best’ example.

Not many examples out there at all from a barely-released new lens. Neither my EF 100 L macro nor my MP-E 65 exhibit focus shift (nor does my EF-M 28mm macro), and because I have both of those, I have no intention of buying the RF 100 L macro to see it and/or demonstrate it personally.

I trust Bryan’s (TDP) reviews, and if he tested two copies and found focus shift, it’s there. If you’re interested in the lens and confident the focus shift will not affect your images, you should buy the lens. I am neither, so I’m not planning to buy it.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 21, 2021)

It's a pity...
My dream macro combo was the R3 with Eye-Control AF plus the RF 100 .
Exit RF 100, unless a convincing fix is offered by Canon. I still can't understand what went wrong, how can a brand new macro lens have focus-shift, didn't anybody notice before Brian ???


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I said it was the first example I ran across, not ‘my best example’. Either read more carefully or avoid attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. The issue isn’t of sufficient importance to me to find a ‘best’ example.


My apologies. I'll still note that there are no good examples of any modern Canon lens with "focus shift" problems that weren't quickly resolved in formware, virtually undectable in normal shooting, or both. Nothing posted yet on this thread but the hyperbolic "concern".


----------



## pardus (Jul 21, 2021)

Took the lens back, will maybe check out another copy when inventory is available. Here is another example, 100% crop, R5 on camera stand, F11 - top shot is RF and bottom is EF with adaptor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> My apologies. I'll still note that there are no good examples of any modern Canon lens with "focus shift" problems that weren't quickly resolved in formware, virtually undectable in normal shooting, or both. Nothing posted yet on this thread but the hyperbolic "concern".







__





diglloyd.com: Focus Shift and Spherical Aberration






diglloyd.com





I'm sure you'll claim that the EF 50/1.2 is 'not a modern lens', however, it has not been replaced in the Canon EF lineup so if you want a 50/1.2 for a DSLR, that's as modern as you can get. Was it 'resolved in firmware'? No.

I have many personal examples of shots that would be affected by focus shift, if my lens suffered from it – mainly portraits with the 85/1.2L and 85/1.4L, with the subject's face at an angle. 'Real world' examples of the scarecrow face in the above article.

As I said, you are free to believe it's not a problem for you. People have different standards, for many an iPhone delivers sufficient technical quality, for many others an 18-55 kit lens does the same. For me, it focus shift would be a problem in a macro lens. That's not hyperbole, that's my opinion. The mantis shot above would have been focused behind the eye with focus shift.


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 22, 2021)

Received my RF 100mm macro from Adorama last week. I had placed a preorder pretty much the moment it was announced.

Optically, it's pretty amazing, though I must confess the only other macro lenses I've owned are a couple of Nikon DX format. The stabilization is amazing. With auto-ISO allowing up to 25600 on my Canon R6, I can easily get handheld shots that always came out blurry with the Nikon with "VR2".

But 2 things seem a little off. Hoping for some feedback, as I'm pretty new to Canon. Got the R6 only a few months ago.

The RF 100mm macro lens seems to always make a slight whirring sound, as if a motor or tiny fan is constantly spinning inside. The sound is constant as long as the camera is on, even when just sitting still without any use. It can only be heard in a quiet room or if you put your ear right near the lens. Is this sort of thing normal with Canon lenses?

The other problem is occasionally I've getting "Error 70" from the camera, with a message I need to turn the camera off and back on again. Looking this up seems to say it's a problem with the lens. The only other RF lens I have is the STM kit lens which came with the R6, and I don't get Error 70 with that kit lens.


----------



## macrunning (Jul 22, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Received my RF 100mm macro from Adorama last week. I had placed a preorder pretty much the moment it was announced.
> 
> Optically, it's pretty amazing, though I must confess the only other macro lenses I've owned are a couple of Nikon DX format. The stabilization is amazing. With auto-ISO allowing up to 25600 on my Canon R6, I can easily get handheld shots that always came out blurry with the Nikon with "VR2".
> 
> ...


Have you reached out to Canon support? I got an “Error 70” msg while my camera froze from using animal eye auto focus. Had to send my R5 into Canon and they replaced the circuit board!


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 22, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> [..]The RF 100mm macro lens seems to always make a slight whirring sound, as if a motor or tiny fan is constantly spinning inside. The sound is constant as long as the camera is on, even when just sitting still without any use. It can only be heard in a quiet room or if you put your ear right near the lens. Is this sort of thing normal with Canon lenses?[..]


Your description sounds like how the IS sounds on my lens when it's engaged.


----------



## pardus (Jul 22, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Received my RF 100mm macro from Adorama last week. I had placed a preorder pretty much the moment it was announced.
> 
> Optically, it's pretty amazing, though I must confess the only other macro lenses I've owned are a couple of Nikon DX format. The stabilization is amazing. With auto-ISO allowing up to 25600 on my Canon R6, I can easily get handheld shots that always came out blurry with the Nikon with "VR2".
> 
> ...


Do you have continuous AF set to enable in menu?


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 22, 2021)

pardus said:


> Do you have continuous AF set to enable in menu?



Nope.




Must admit, I completely new to Canon and still learning my way around the menus and so many features.

In fact, this blurry shot is with my old Nikon D5100 using 85mm macro at F8, using a couple nearby desk lamps. Even with VR and ISO 3200, a tripod (or a steadier hand than my quick casual effort) is needed to get a sharp image.



koenkooi said:


> Your description sounds like how the IS sounds on my lens when it's engaged.



Does it make the sound all the time when the camera is on?




macrunning said:


> Have you reached out to Canon support? I got an “Error 70” msg while my camera froze from using animal eye auto focus. Had to send my R5 into Canon and they replaced the circuit board!



Nope, not yet. Everything else seems to work (except wifi is very flakey). Sounds like I probably should contact them?


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> [..]Does it make the sound all the time when the camera is on?[..]


IS is on when the viewfinder is active, it will stop when you are in the menus for a while or when the camera goes to sleep.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2021)

I ordered it within minutes of the announcement but about a week before it was released, I realized that I had not used my EF 100L in almost a year, so why was I replacing it with another that would not get used. I cancelled the order, if I start using my 100L again, I can always get the RF. Now, I'll see if they have a fix for the focus shift. I'd think that with the smart lenses they have now, they could do it in firmware but it could be more complicated for macro distances and with the soft focus adjustment.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 23, 2021)

Just to sum it up: focus-shift is inacceptable for a macro lens.
Period!


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I ordered it within minutes of the announcement but about a week before it was released, I realized that I had not used my EF 100L in almost a year, so why was I replacing it with another that would not get used. I cancelled the order, if I start using my 100L again, I can always get the RF. Now, I'll see if they have a fix for the focus shift. I'd think that with the smart lenses they have now, they could do it in firmware but it could be more complicated for macro distances and with the soft focus adjustment.


Just like me (the use part). I use my EF100L rarely so no point. I also use it on my 5DIV mostly so it stays that way.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

I haven't noticed the focus shift so far, but I haven't done controlled experiments yet. Most of the pictures have been either chasing insects or insects on swaying stalks and gunning it with 20fps electronic shutter, or flash + 8fps EFCS.

If there are focus shift issues, I hope Canon releases a firmware update before I start noticing it. I also hope people will start posting @AlanF style experiments to see how it affects their usage.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

Could be a bad batch with "focus shift" issues, mine arrives this week so will report back, fingers crossed


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> Am I correct in assuming the focus shift issue only occurs when for instance you are focused on something at say, f8, and if you change aperture setting the focus will shift ? I generally speaking set my aperture for macro and take the shot /shots . If I were to change aperture I would refocus and take the shot/shots


As far as I know you cannot focus stopped down. Camera always focuses fully open (in this case at 2.8) and it stops down during exposure. So focus shift is always there (at f/8 for example).


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> IS is on when the viewfinder is active, it will stop when you are in the menus for a while or when the camera goes to sleep.



The lens definitely keeps making the same whirring sound when I go into menus. No discernible change (at least to my ears) when going in and out of menus.

It does stop making the sound when the camera goes to sleep, or when I switch it off.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

pardus said:


> Took the lens back, will maybe check out another copy when inventory is available. Here is another example, 100% crop, R5 on camera stand, F11 - top shot is RF and bottom is EF with adaptor.
> View attachment 199082


I didn't realise "focus shift " was the same as back/front focusing , back focusing in this case. My RF 70-200mm f2.8 had the same issue but was quickly fixed in lens firmware update, I would sincerely hope Canon will provide a fix ASAP, it wasn't a major issue on the 70-200 but it certainly will be an issue on a Macro lens


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

Ok, I'm trying to do a controlled test for focus shift. Please forgive me if this method is flawed (I'm not a pro photographer) and gently explain how I should do better.

For a subject, I put 3 tiny electronic parts onto a little stair-step stand made of card stock.




The card stock is about 1mm thick. These parts are approx 1.6 mm size.

Using my R6, I manually focused on the top surface of the middle part.




This is using the lens at more than 1X magnification but not quite all the way to 1.4X. I tried to get close, but the R6 & lens combo is pretty heavy for my manfrotto magic arm. Sorry, I don't have a nice tripod with fine adjustment (with this much weight on it), so this was the closest I could get after a few tries tightening the arm in place.

Here's the manual focus with double zoom in. With the lens at 2.8F the plane of focus is so thin even the metal legs only about half a millimeter farther away are blurry.




I took several shots at apertures from 2.8 to 22. I'm FTP transferring the images now (my R6 wifi seems pretty flakey and it's giving me Error 46 and retrying). Will crop just the subject and post those image in a few minutes....


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> The lens definitely keeps making the same whirring sound when I go into menus. No discernible change (at least to my ears) when going in and out of menus.
> 
> It does stop making the sound when the camera goes to sleep, or when I switch it off.


If I recall correctly, there's a 30s or 60s time-out when using the menus. A better test is using the IS switch in the lens, that should disable both IS and IBIS.


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

Ok, here's the images from my attempt at a controlled focus shift test.






















Again, here's the subject. These 3 tiny parts are about 0.5mm tall, and each is on card stock holding it about 1mm different height.




Here is how I manually focused before taking these 7 shots.







The focus of the F16 & F22 pictures definitely isn't as good as the others, but I'm having a hard time guessing if the focus shifted or the whole images just isn't as sharp?

Any opinions? Is this focus shift?


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> A better test is using the IS switch in the lens, that should disable both IS and IBIS.



The whirring sound from the lens does change slightly when switch the stabilizer switch from ON to OFF. It's still going in the OFF position, but a slightly higher pitch. Difficult to describe the sound with words. Not sure if I have the right sort of gear to get a good recording of the sound.


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2021)

Not an expert but I do not see focus shift.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Ok, here's the images from my attempt at a controlled focus shift test.
> 
> View attachment 199105
> 
> ...


Definitely rear focusing I'm afraid. The object on the left ( furthest away) is more in focus than the one on the right


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

Not sure if it matters, but I had the SA ring in the middle position for all 7 shots. The lock switch was off.

IS was on. The focus range was set to 0.26m-0.5m, though I kept the camera in manual focus mode the whole time and focused just once before taking the 7 pictures.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Not sure if it matters, but I had the SA ring in the middle position for all 7 shots. The lock switch was off.
> 
> IS was on. The focus range was set to 0.26m-0.5m, though I kept the camera in manual focus mode the whole time and focused just once before taking the 7 pictures.


Its definitely rear focusing, with DSLR we could Micro focus adjust for each lens, most of my Canon lenses including primes were rear or front focusing , 5 to 10 adjustment fixed the issue on my lenses/cameras. No option but lens firmware update to fix this on R5/R6, you can see the rear focusing on your first image at f2.8


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

One last detail, in case it matters later... the firmware versions used during this test.


----------



## OutWithIt (Jul 23, 2021)

Excuse me, can someone please explain how to get the magnification indicators to display on this bar like so:


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

At least on my R6, it automatically appears when I turn the focus ring with the lens AF/MF switch is in manual focus mode.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 23, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> I didn't realise "focus shift " was the same as back/front focusing , back focusing in this case. My RF 70-200mm f2.8 had the same issue but was quickly fixed in lens firmware update, I would sincerely hope Canon will provide a fix ASAP, it wasn't a major issue on the 70-200 but it certainly will be an issue on a Macro lens


Focus shift is different from front or back focusing, although the result is essentially the same.

With front or back focusing, the camera thinks it has focused correctly, but it's actually focused a little in front or behind where it should.

Focus shift is where the camera does focus correctly initially, but the focus point moves when the lens stops down to take the shot. So, you wouldn't see any issue if you took the shot with maximum aperture for the lens. You also don't expect to see it if you shoot quite stopped down, or if the subject is quite a distance away, as the focus point will move but the depth of field in the shot will be large enough to hide it. So, you are most like to see if you stop down a little (say one or perhaps two stops from maximum aperture) and take a photo of a subject which is reasonably close (so the shot has a shallow depth of field).

That's my understanding anyway. The result is an out of focus shot either way, and in that sense either way you get a shot which is front or back focused.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Focus shift is different from front or back focusing, although the result is essentially the same.
> 
> With front or back focusing, the camera thinks it has focused correctly, but it's actually focused a little in front or behind where it should.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation, the plot thickens ! I'm sure Canon will sort it out with firmware


----------



## Bundu (Jul 23, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> Its definitely rear focusing, with DSLR we could Micro focus adjust for each lens, most of my Canon lenses including primes were rear or front focusing , 5 to 10 adjustment fixed the issue on my lenses/cameras. No option but lens firmware update to fix this on R5/R6, you can see the rear focusing on your first image at f2.8


When focused on an object, is there not always more in focus to the rear than to the front?


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

Bundu said:


> When focused on an object, is there not always more in focus to the rear than to the front?


Yes, the rule of thumb is that DoF is 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind the focus point. But I'm not sure of that holds true for macro distances as well.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 23, 2021)

Bundu said:


> When focused on an object, is there not always more in focus to the rear than to the front?


Not unless your lens has rear focusing issue


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> Not unless your lens has rear focusing issue


I remember DOF normally includes 2/3 behind and 1/3 in front but this does not apply for all distances


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Not sure if it matters, but I had the SA ring in the middle position for all 7 shots. The lock switch was off.
> 
> IS was on. The focus range was set to 0.26m-0.5m, though I kept the camera in manual focus mode the whole time and focused just once before taking the 7 pictures.


Hi,
Thank you very much for performing these tests.
Two things that might be affecting your results would be the lack of a sturdy tripod and not re-focusing in between each shot.
If you are touching the camera dials to change the aperture and then pressing the shutter, you could inadvertently be moving the camera imperceptibly, which would affect your results.
One way to reduce any shutter shock effects would be to take the photos with the 2 second timer or a remote, so you know there is no movement or vibration caused by pressing the shutter. This would not, however, guarantee that the camera is not moving ever so slightly when you adjust the aperture.
For this reason, I think you might want to consider re-focusing in between each shot.
Thanks again for setting up the test!


----------



## David_D (Jul 23, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> If you are touching the camera dials to change the aperture and then pressing the shutter, you could inadvertently be moving the camera imperceptibly, which would affect your results.


Not sure if it can do this, but could the Canon phone app be used to change settings and trigger remotely, to avoid touching it at all? (Never had a camera it would work with, so never tried it.)


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

Now having several hours to think about this and second guess myself, I'm wondering if I may have made any errors in the methodology of my little test? In particular, I'm wondering if the magic arm holding the R6 and heavy lens may have slipped ever so slightly during the test. In hindsight, after the F22 shot, I probably should have gone back to F2.8 and made an 8th shot, to verify the camera didn't actually move throughout the entire test. Probably should have also gone back into zoom mode on the screen and taken another photo of the screen too.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 23, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> Now having several hours to think about this and second guess myself, I'm wondering if I may have made any errors in the methodology of my little test? In particular, I'm wondering if the magic arm holding the R6 and heavy lens may have slipped ever so slightly during the test. In hindsight, after the F22 shot, I probably should have gone back to F2.8 and made an 8th shot, to verify the camera didn't actually move throughout the entire test. Probably should have also gone back into zoom mode on the screen and taken another photo of the screen too.


Tests like this are a lot of work! 
Would you be able to rest the camera on a table or something so you can eliminate "arm sag" as a variable?


----------



## PaulStoffregen (Jul 23, 2021)

Yeah, might be able to the test without the arm, if I were to glue those pieces of cardboard and parts together, and mount that and the camera to the table somehow. Or find a different subject? But I wanted to use a subject that is 3 identical objects at known different distance from the lens.

Or maybe this is just the excuse I need to finally experiment with tethered shooting. This test really wants to be done without any physical touching of the camera!

If retry this, I'll use thinner material so they're not a full millimeter apart from each other. Maybe over the weekend...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I don't know how you could "fix it in firmware"


The entire lens is controlled by software


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> That's right, but in manual mode, there will be no "firmware focus correction".


What makes you think that?
There is firmware involved in every aspect of focusing.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 24, 2021)

Bundu said:


> When focused on an object, is there not always more in focus to the rear than to the front?





Charlie_B said:


> Not unless your lens has rear focusing issue


Depth of field is distributed equally in front and behind the plane of focus only in some situations.

As I understand it, longer focal lengths, higher subject magnification, shorter focus distance (which of course is related to higher subject magnification) and smaller apertures are factors which tend towards depth of field being distributed equally in front and behind the plane of focus. 

For example, for typical landscape photography scenarios with a wide angle lens, in broad terms depth of field is distributed about 1/3 in front of the plane of focus and two thirds behind the plane of focus. That is the reason behind the common recommendation that landscape photographers should focus "one third of the way into the scene". In contrast, if you are using a longer focal length and magnifying the subject quite a lot (eg a common wildlife photography situation), depth of field is likely to be distributed about equally in front and behind the plane of focus.

Here are couple of references:






Understanding Depth of Field in Photography







www.cambridgeincolour.com







Depth of Field in Depth! - Bob Atkins Photography


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> What makes you think that?
> There is firmware involved in every aspect of focusing.


Because a firmware correction has its limits, we aren't speaking of IBM's Deep Blue here...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Because a firmware correction has its limits, we aren't speaking of IBM's Deep Blue here...


It’s a really, really simple correction. If the aperture is x, adjust focus distance by y. No abacus or slide rule required, much less supercomputing.

Keep in mind that RF lenses don’t really manually focus – they are ‘focus-by-wire’ where all the focus ring does is signal the AF motor via actuators.


----------



## Dj 7th (Jul 24, 2021)

I got my RF 100mm 2 days ago, my initial quick test does not show a focus shift but I may not have enough experience to deduce accurately. However I want to share a few of my real world tests for the stuff that I will be using the lens for to see how well it performed.

My first test was to focus stack a relatively small subject and this is the result. I will post my second test in a latter post.


----------



## Dj 7th (Jul 24, 2021)

I got my RF 100mm 2 days ago, my initial quick test does not show a focus shift but I may not have enough experience to deduce accurately. However I want to share a few of my real world tests for the stuff that I will be using the lens for to see how well it performed

My second test was to shoot a flower in a normal windy morning handheld to see the difference the SA ring would make to my pictures. I shot these at f/2.8 I used Auto-focus for these pictures. I also took the same pictures with manual focusing and the pretty much looked the same.

Picture 1 with SA at 0
Picture 2 with SA at -1
Picture 3with SA at -2
Picture 4 with SA at 0
Picture 5 with SA at +1
Picture 6 with SA at +2

1 is halfway, 2 is full all the way

_THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST, THIS IS JUST FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EFFECTS OF SA ON NORMAL DAY TO DAY PICTURES._


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 25, 2021)

Thanks @Dj 7th , pretty much matches what we seen already.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any benefit of using SA on close-up subjects. I'll still have to see distance subject before I give me final assessment.

Also, I plan on getting this lens at some point (seeing how I could use the macro)... be it using SA or not.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 25, 2021)

Dj 7th said:


> I got my RF 100mm 2 days ago, my initial quick test does not show a focus shift but I may not have enough experience to deduce accurately. However I want to share a few of my real world tests for the stuff that I will be using the lens for to see how well it performed
> 
> My second test was to shoot a flower in a normal windy morning handheld to see the difference the SA ring would make to my pictures. I shot these at f/2.8 I used Auto-focus for these pictures. I also took the same pictures with manual focusing and the pretty much looked the same.
> 
> ...


Thanks very much for doing these. Can I ask: were you refocusing (to the main subject) AFTER setting the SA?


----------



## Dj 7th (Jul 25, 2021)

Jethro said:


> Thanks very much for doing these. Can I ask: were you refocusing (to the main subject) AFTER setting the SA?


Yes I did. Each time I set the SA, I refocused to the general lower yellow area of the flower. I was also on AutoFocus so I re-acquire focus before I take the picture. I also have a set where I used manual focus, so after I adjust the SA, I refocused using the R5's manual focus guide. The results are pretty much the same but I can post if you want to see them.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 25, 2021)

Dj 7th said:


> Yes I did. Each time I set the SA, I refocused to the general lower yellow area of the flower. I was also on AutoFocus so I re-acquire focus before I take the picture. I also have a set where I used manual focus, so after I adjust the SA, I refocused using the R5's manual focus guide. The results are pretty much the same but I can post if you want to see them.


No, no, that's fine. I asked because I recall there was some discussion earlier about the need to re-acquire focus after applying the SA - and it does seem to be necessary.


----------



## jeanluc (Jul 25, 2021)

So, is Canon aware of this issue?


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 27, 2021)

Got my RF 100 today , focus looks perfect . two images , one at f2.8 and f8 on R5 , no front or rear focusing . Both from about 10 inches, electronic shutter 10 sec delay on tripod, didn't see any focus shift as I changed apertures from 2.8 to f11 and back down again


----------



## lexptr (Jul 27, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> The focus of the F16 & F22 pictures definitely isn't as good as the others, but I'm having a hard time guessing if the focus shifted or the whole images just isn't as sharp?


It is Ok. They should be worse due to diffraction, which kicks in from f/10.6 on R6.
What is strange, is that the back subject appears sharper than the front in all shots. I don't think it is focus shift, because it appears on the f2.8 shot as well. Either manual focusing wasn't perfect or there is something else. May be the heights of cardboard steps aren't equal? But there is another theory, which bothers me. I'm not sure how SA control works but I know it blurs either background or foreground if you move it in one direction or another from neutral position. You say it was in the middle (neutral) but may be it was just slightly off and it affects the result that much in macro? Or could it be a calibration issue and on your lens the neutral SA control position is not in the middle?


----------



## HenryL (Jul 28, 2021)

lexptr said:


> It is Ok. They should be worse due to diffraction, which kicks in from f/10.6 on R6.
> What is strange, is that the back subject appears sharper than the front in all shots. I don't think it is focus shift, because it appears on the f2.8 shot as well. Either manual focusing wasn't perfect or there is something else. May be the heights of cardboard steps aren't equal? But there is another theory, which bothers me. I'm not sure how SA control works but I know it blurs either background or foreground if you move it in one direction or another from neutral position. You say it was in the middle (neutral) but may be it was just slightly off and it affects the result that much in macro? Or could it be a calibration issue and on your lens the neutral SA control position is not in the middle?


I believe that would be normal, DOF range typically extends further behind the plane of focus than in front. I would be concerned if the back subject was as sharp or sharper than the center one...but this demonstration looks ok to me.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 29, 2021)

PaulStoffregen said:


> The focus of the F16 & F22 pictures definitely isn't as good as the others, but I'm having a hard time guessing if the focus shifted or the whole images just isn't as sharp?
> 
> Any opinions? Is this focus shift?


The f/22 shot looks like it has some softening from diffraction, and the f/16 looks like it is creeping in. If it will stop down to f/32, I bet it will soften even more.


----------



## jeanluc (Aug 5, 2021)

I just tried my lens out; if there is any focus shift it is very, very hard to see even at 300%.


----------



## Charlie_B (Aug 6, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> I just tried my lens out; if there is any focus shift it is very, very hard to see even at 300%.


It probably doesn't exist, my lens is perfect, possibly user error by inexperienced Macro photographers


----------



## macrunning (Aug 6, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> It probably doesn't exist, my lens is perfect, possibly user error by inexperienced Macro photographers


Nice shots Charlie_B! What aperture were you using? I don't ever seem to get that much in focus. Maybe I just need to push the aperture further.


----------



## Charlie_B (Aug 6, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Nice shots Charlie_B! What aperture were you using? I don't ever seem to get that much in focus. Maybe I just need to push the aperture further.


Canon EOS R5
RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
ƒ/16.0 100.0 mm 1/60 iso 400 ETTL Canon Speedlight 420 with diffuser, Manual focus hand held about 12 inches from camera sensor, had to remove lens hood as bees were so close , 1X mag , 1.4 is really close, too close for medium sized agile bugs like bees


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 20, 2021)

Just got mine today from Amazon (preordered way back when they were listed). Was pissed as soon as I saw the UPS guy walk up... no outer box. Label was slapped right on the retail box and shipped that way. The box looked like it just came back from a warzone (It was dropped at least 3 times, as that is how many corners were heavily dented. One side rubbed almost raw from rubbing against crap). Opened it up and it 'looks' fine. I did a quick once over and no visible damage... then checked the elements and found a little dust on the rear (no biggie). Blew if off and a few spec's were actually on the inside (I know it's not a big deal, but it still bugs me to no end). I have yet to give it a good testing... but we will see.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 21, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Just got mine today from Amazon (preordered way back when they were listed). Was pissed as soon as I saw the UPS guy walk up... no outer box. Label was slapped right on the retail box and shipped that way. The box looked like it just came back from a warzone (It was dropped at least 3 times, as that is how many corners were heavily dented. One side rubbed almost raw from rubbing against crap). Opened it up and it 'looks' fine. I did a quick once over and no visible damage... then checked the elements and found a little dust on the rear (no biggie). Blew if off and a few spec's were actually on the inside (I know it's not a big deal, but it still bugs me to no end). I have yet to give it a good testing... but we will see.


Something exactly like that happened to me, with an L Canon lens from B&H. Normally they've been remarkable with delivery, but this arrived in a badly damaged box and there was dust (or specks) on the inside of the lens, too. But B&H was very helpful and let me return it immediately and they sent me a new one which arrived quite well and has been my favorite RF lens (my RF 100-500L)! I hope you can do the same with your order.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 21, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Just got mine today from Amazon (preordered way back when they were listed). Was pissed as soon as I saw the UPS guy walk up... no outer box. Label was slapped right on the retail box and shipped that way. The box looked like it just came back from a warzone (It was dropped at least 3 times, as that is how many corners were heavily dented. One side rubbed almost raw from rubbing against crap). Opened it up and it 'looks' fine. I did a quick once over and no visible damage... then checked the elements and found a little dust on the rear (no biggie). Blew if off and a few spec's were actually on the inside (I know it's not a big deal, but it still bugs me to no end). I have yet to give it a good testing... but we will see.


I ordered mine from store.canon.nl and it came in a cardboard coloured box with nothing printed on the outside, only a shipping label slapped on. When opening it I discovered that the inside was printed with pictures and text by Canon. It felt like an inside-out box, the pretty stuff on the inside faces. And in that box was padding and the actual RF100 box.

I would've kept the outer box, but I sold the EF100L and I reused the box to ship that


----------



## canonmike (Aug 21, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Just got mine today from Amazon (preordered way back when they were listed). Was pissed as soon as I saw the UPS guy walk up... no outer box. Label was slapped right on the retail box and shipped that way. The box looked like it just came back from a warzone (It was dropped at least 3 times, as that is how many corners were heavily dented. One side rubbed almost raw from rubbing against crap). Opened it up and it 'looks' fine. I did a quick once over and no visible damage... then checked the elements and found a little dust on the rear (no biggie). Blew if off and a few spec's were actually on the inside (I know it's not a big deal, but it still bugs me to no end). I have yet to give it a good testing... but we will see.


Think I might just consider swapping it out for another copy before any return window closes.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Think I might just consider swapping it out for another copy before any return window closes.


Wow. That is the worst example of shipping through Amazon I have heard of in a while. Many years ago I purchased a Canon 1Dx MkII through Amazon and while it was boxed in an Amazon box, there was no padding or packing material. Moreover, the outside box was severely damaged so I returned it to Amazon without even opening the box.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Think I might just consider swapping it out for another copy before any return window closes.


I am seriously thinking of it. Amazon returns are effortless, so not worried about that. Right now it would be a challenge to get another copy. But I was expanding upon my lens collection... I never had a macro before so it's not too much to wait until they come available again if I decide to return.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 21, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> I am seriously thinking of it. Amazon returns are effortless, so not worried about that. Right now it would be a challenge to get another copy. But I was expanding upon my lens collection... I never had a macro before so it's not too much to wait until they come available again if I decide to return.


Just don't want to see you have buyer's remorse down the road, Bdbtoys, potentially repeating the old adage, couldv'e, shouldv'e. Good luck with it.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 21, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Wow. That is the worst example of shipping through Amazon I have heard of in a while. Many years ago I purchased a Canon 1Dx MkII through Amazon and while it was boxed in an Amazon box, there was no padding or packing material. Moreover, the outside box was severely damaged so I returned it to Amazon without even opening the box.


Back when I ordered a playstation classic (i.e. the vintage gaming plug and plays) it was shipped the same way.. shipping label directly on the retail box. And that was considered a collectable item too.

There are some items where it's not a big deal... shipping label on a box of kitty litter... no problem. But there has to be some common sense on their part when not to do it.

You have to watch for the 'packaging may reveal contents' and choose to send in gift box option... because if you don't that's how you will get it.

I watch very closely to that, and know that wasn't there when I preordered.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 22, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Just don't want to see you have buyer's remorse down the road, Bdbtoys, potentially repeating the old adage, couldv'e, shouldv'e. Good luck with it.



Just wanted to give a quick update. It's going back. Although the speck isn't noticeable in 'normal' pictures... anything with medium to large size bokeh balls and it sticks out like a sore thumb (in every ball).


----------



## Nemorino (Aug 12, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> actually getting some hard evidence when so many were just whining "OMG Canon is staffed by amateurs, I'll never buy this lens."


I made some test shots at mfd and 1:1 mag which I posted here:





RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM


R6 & RF 100L




www.canonrumors.com


----------

