# Get closer, with images larger than life, using the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2021)

> The Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro was announced this week, and judging by the preorder numbers, it’s going to be a huge success. I think partially because of the very competitive pricing for this unique Macro lens.
> The Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro isn’t scheduled to begin shipping until the end of July, so you have some time to save those pennies and wait impatiently for this lens.
> Above is another promotional video from Canon Europe showcasing the features of the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.
> Key Features
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 16, 2021)

It has about same working distance as EF 100mm L, I surely am getting this lens but will be waiting for APS-C RF body before buying into system. Also it is very exciting to see what Canon does with replacement to EF 180mm Macro.


----------



## AJ (Apr 16, 2021)

> fixed f/2.8 Aperture Telephoto Macro RF Lens


Does that mean that it doesn't stop down, like 800mm f/11?


----------



## Robert Marxreiter (Apr 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> Does that mean that it doesn't stop down, like 800mm f/11?


Nope, it stops down to f/32.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 16, 2021)

Just started saving...


----------



## miketcool (Apr 16, 2021)

I love that when they get to SA Control, they go right to portraiture.

Looks like a fantastic update from the EF 100mm Macro. I may pick this up later this year for my macro work. With the R5 focus stacking, it looks like I can ditch using a tripod for some of my macro work. I wonder if a new macro flash ring is coming or if the existing is compatible.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> Does that mean that it doesn't stop down, like 800mm f/11?


Fixed as in does not zoom


----------



## JustMeOregon (Apr 16, 2021)

I've gotta say... I'm a little disappointed in the new RF 100's IS capabilities at macro distances... At 3:04 on Canon's promo video it states "Approx. 2-Stops of stabilization at 1.0x magnification." That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS... Maybe it's just the Laws of Physics limiting the real-world effectiveness of IS at macro-levels... I don't know... But when I first read that this new RF 100 would have 8-Stops of stabilization on my R5, my pre-order trigger-finger started to twitch... Now, I might have to wait for some hands-on reviews... Sure, the additional 0.4x magnification is great. And the new SA adjustment might be fun to play with for portraiture, though I'm not sure if it'll really be applicable to macro work. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling or anything; I would love for someone to tell me what it is I'm not seeing here... BTW according to Bryan at The Digital Picture, the new RF 100 Macro will have the same 64mm filter threads as the EF 100, so the existing ring &/or twin flashes should be compatible.


----------



## reef58 (Apr 16, 2021)

The 1.4x magnification has me saving. I would love it to photograph and video some carnivorous plants.


----------



## David_E (Apr 16, 2021)

JustMeOregon said:


> _That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS_


Then by all means, keep your EF 100 macro. Me? I’m moving onward and, I believe, upward.


----------



## ethanz (Apr 16, 2021)

Sounds like quite the lens for only $1400. Should be a good seller for Canon.


----------



## vjlex (Apr 17, 2021)

I'm on the fence whether this would be a worthwhile lens for me. It looks great; don't get me wrong. But unfortunately my 100L is one of my least used lens. And when I do use it, I like being able to use it on both fullframe and APS-C. What I am more curious about is whether that SA control would be added to an RF85mm mark 2. Would it effectively make a separate DS version unnecessary, or do SA and DS serve two completely different purposes?


----------



## Joules (Apr 17, 2021)

vjlex said:


> Would it effectively make a separate DS version unnecessary, or do SA and DS serve two completely different purposes?


They are different. With the SA, you can soften the background at the cost of losing sharpness in your subject. So in most circumstances, you will only use it to add a hint of softening. 

DS doesn't compromise on sharpness, but light instead. I also think it has a much more pleasant effect. Personally, it looks to me like sharpening the background with SA is actually more appealing, as it creates the sort of bubble bokeh that some poorly corrected vintage lenses give.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> It has about same working distance as EF 100mm L, I surely am getting this lens but will be waiting for APS-C RF body before buying into system. Also it is very exciting to see what Canon does with replacement to EF 180mm Macro.


What is your rational for a crop sensor sized RF camera?


----------



## David_E (Apr 17, 2021)

vjlex said:


> _I'm on the fence whether this would be a worthwhile lens for me. ...my 100L is one of my least used lens._


It seems to me that you pretty much answered your own question. If you don’t use the very similar lens that you have, you don’t need to throw your money away on a newer version.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What is your rational for a crop sensor sized RF camera?


With crop sensor and 1.4x mag ratio I can get 17.1x11.5mm(better coverage than 1x on micro 4/3 cameras) subject to cover crop sensor vs 25.7x17.1mm(Canon APS-C is 24x16mm) at 1.4x for 35mm sensor size. When working with small subjects(in my case small reptiles and amphibians) in order to take photos of their characters that small sensor coupled with higher mag ratio is really useful. Also in case of small lizards(for eg: http://novataxa.blogspot.com/2021/03/cnemaspis-rajgadensis.html) which already are too small for 1x on FF with APS-C I can get away with carrying just single lens vs having to pack MP-E 65mm and 1x Macro lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> With crop sensor and 1.4x mag ratio I can get 17.1x11.5mm(better coverage than 1x on micro 4/3 cameras) subject to cover crop sensor vs 25.7x17.1mm(Canon APS-C is 24x16mm) at 1.4x for 35mm sensor size. When working with small subjects(in my case small reptiles and amphibians) in order to take photos of their characters that small sensor coupled with higher mag ratio is really useful. Also in case of small lizards(for eg: http://novataxa.blogspot.com/2021/03/cnemaspis-rajgadensis.html) which already are too small for 1x on FF with APS-C I can get away with carrying just single lens vs having to pack MP-E 65mm and 1x Macro lens.


I’m sorry I don’t understand, 1.4:1 is the same size on any sensor, what is to stop you simply cropping a larger sensor?


----------



## sanj (Apr 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m sorry I don’t understand, 1:1.4 is the same size on any sensor, what is to stop you simply cropping a larger sensor?


I would like a reply to this as well. Just to understand.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 17, 2021)

I pre-ordered the other day. I think Canon marketing missed the boat by not releasing this sooner. They obviously misjudged demand for a RF macro. I like to shoot handheld when I can and since it works with ibis, 8x of stabilization will be nice. I don't know what level I get with my EF L macro, I've been indoors since my R5 came and I shoot outdoors. Finally, the first day of reasonable weather came today.


----------



## Saitir (Apr 17, 2021)

sanj said:


> I would like a reply to this as well. Just to understand.


I believe the standard argument for a crop sensor is pixel density. Something like the M6 sensor is 32MP vs a cropped R5 sensor being about 17MP.
While the older ones amongst us remember cropped sensors were originally just a compromise because in the early digital days full frame sensors were either impossible (to make or work with) or just far too expensive. Of course, once you give someone a tool, they learn to use it and it's various advantages and disadvantages.
So pixel density (the 'reach') , and to some degree price. Finally there's the speed and storage if the resolution isn't insanely high. Processing 32MP is easier than 45 and more shots per card. This is usually a false argument for most crop users, as price is the primary guiding force, so the lower end cameras are slower and they'll buy smaller storage.
To add a personal note, I moved away from crop sensors primarily because I enjoy wide angle shooting.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m sorry I don’t understand, 1:1.4 is the same size on any sensor, what is to stop you simply cropping a larger sensor?


On this new macro lens mag ratio is 1.4:1 not 1:1.4. For wide angle macros(Venus Laowa 15mm Macro) I wouldnt mind buying a FF camera.
For photos of characters of herps using crop I wont lose resolution cropping from FF camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects) using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.


----------



## Joules (Apr 17, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> On this new macro lens mag ratio is 1.4:1 not 1:1.4. For wide angle macros(Venus Laowa 15mm Macro) I wouldnt mind buying a FF camera.
> For photos of characters of herps using crop I wont lose resolution cropping from FF camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects) using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.


The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.

If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter. 

As of right now, it is of course correct that Canons FF bodies significantly lack behind the pixel density of their crop ones. At 32.5, the 90D and M6 II currently set the record and would require a body with 32.5 x 1.6^2 = 83.2 MP or more to be released. Which, when it does eventually, will likely cost more than either of those bodies and also more than an RF crop body with this pixel density would.

Nonetheless, just accounting for the pixel density being the important bit in the wording might help people be less confused.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2021)

Joules said:


> The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.
> 
> If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter.
> 
> ...


And aside from that, a 32MP APS-C crop from Canon is a *lot* cheaper than their FF counterpart.


----------



## Joules (Apr 17, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And aside from that, a 32MP APS-C crop from Canon is a *lot* cheaper than their FF counterpart.


As I said. It will likely cost more. Currently, there isn't even a counterpart. But the chance of it costing round about 1k when it releases is basically 0.

I personally would prefer one high resolution FF body as an eventuall upgrade to my 80D, just to get an improvement in range and low light performance. How the cost of such a solution will stack up against to different bodies is one of the interesting questions that Canon hopefully will soon address with the expansion of the RF lineup.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 17, 2021)

JustMeOregon said:


> I've gotta say... I'm a little disappointed in the new RF 100's IS capabilities at macro distances... At 3:04 on Canon's promo video it states "Approx. 2-Stops of stabilization at 1.0x magnification." That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS... Maybe it's just the Laws of Physics limiting the real-world effectiveness of IS at macro-levels... I don't know... But when I first read that this new RF 100 would have 8-Stops of stabilization on my R5, my pre-order trigger-finger started to twitch... Now, I might have to wait for some hands-on reviews... Sure, the additional 0.4x magnification is great. And the new SA adjustment might be fun to play with for portraiture, though I'm not sure if it'll really be applicable to macro work. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling or anything; I would love for someone to tell me what it is I'm not seeing here... BTW according to Bryan at The Digital Picture, the new RF 100 Macro will have the same 64mm filter threads as the EF 100, so the existing ring &/or twin flashes should be compatible.


Problem is with macro photographing image stabilation,when camera moves camera angle versus target changes LOT more.
Like if first part of exposure is showing only front side of bug and last part of exposure shows some of its side too. There is no way to getting those two picture aligned as one,without distortion or blur. Someone more clever with words can explain this bettter


----------



## vjlex (Apr 17, 2021)

David_E said:


> It seems to me that you pretty much answered your own question. If you don’t use the very similar lens that you have, you don’t need to throw your money away on a newer version.


Maybe. At this time, I'm not inclined to get it. But there's a big difference between "least used" and never used. If the RF version offers significant advantages, I may trade up eventually. In that case, I wouldn't consider it throwing away money.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 17, 2021)

This lense was not on my list but it looks interesting and tempting. Maybe I'll pick it up somewhere along the road in 2022.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 17, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and *butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects)* using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.


This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.


----------



## TW (Apr 17, 2021)

Also, and perhaps most importantly, smaller sensors give more effective depth of field, which is extremely important in macro work.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 17, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.


Given how Canon design TC and Macro lenses(from 100mm and shorter) very little chance we will see TC compatibility with this lens. Lets wait for 180mm Macro for TC compatibility with Macro lens or 3rd party TCs to appear for RF system. I used to borrow Sigma 180mm OS macro from my friend when working with few snakes(Russell's viper and Hump nosed pit viper both are quite temperamental and in case of Russell's viper its venom is nasty) that really scare me and I really am missing that lens, hopefully Sigma will also introduce 150mm and 180mm Macro lenses for MILC sooner with RF mount version as well.


Joules said:


> The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.
> 
> If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter.
> 
> ...


Thanks for correction. 

Addendum: Not sure where Canon has shot this promotional video but the animals featured in that video raise some questions as there is Amazon Tree boa, Honduran milk snake(not 100% sure about that one) and Great Oto all of which are found in Latin America but for some reason there is also a crested gecko from New Caledonia in there.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 17, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Not sure where Canon has shot this promotional video


At the end a butterfly house is mentioned. You may have a look at the credits.


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 17, 2021)

Pre-ordered on the day 
I will transition all of my remaining EF glass as soon as RF equivalents appear. So my EF 100 L macro will be sold this July. It was a great lens, here's to hoping the new one will be even better. I am confident given how much I like the new 1.2 primes compared to the old ones. Bring on the 35 1.2 already


----------



## pape2 (Apr 17, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.


You can use tc with this lense ,just put extension ring between ,but wont focus very far then.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 17, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Pre-ordered on the day
> I will transition all of my remaining EF glass as soon as RF equivalents appear. So my EF 100 L macro will be sold this July. It was a great lens, here's to hoping the new one will be even better. I am confident given how much I like the new 1.2 primes compared to the old ones. Bring on the 35 1.2 already


 I suggest you hang onto it long enough to make sure the new one works properly!


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 17, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> At the end a butterfly house is mentioned. You may have a look at the credits.



Here is the website for the butterfly garden:



Home



Not sure if/when I will replace my EF version -- I still have the 5D IV -- but I definitely have to visit this place the next time I'm in the UK!


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 18, 2021)

pape2 said:


> You can use tc with this lense ,just put extension ring between ,but wont focus very far then.


There aren’t extension tubes with AF for RF yet?!
And like often: 3rd party has to regulate missing things by main companies... really sad.

lets hope the future of 3rd party AF RF lenses will start very soon!


----------



## dirtyvu (Apr 19, 2021)

canon usa could learn some things from canon europe. the canon europe video makes me want to put money down now because of how good the images look and the videos. the canon usa video is a talking head video with few examples of usage.


----------



## sobrien (Apr 19, 2021)

TW said:


> Also, and perhaps most importantly, smaller sensors give more effective depth of field, which is extremely important in macro work.


 
Stopping down and bumping up ISO on a full frame sensor should get you the same DOF with comparable noise, so not sure this most important benefit exists at all.


----------



## sobrien (Apr 19, 2021)

sobrien said:


> Stopping down and bumping up ISO on a full frame sensor should get you the same DOF with comparable noise, so not sure this most important benefit exists at all.


On reflection, I don’t think what I said above holds true at macro distances when you are comparing 1:1 with 1:1. On the contrary DOF seems to flip in that case. Looking at Bob Atkins piece on that now.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 19, 2021)

Saitir said:


> I believe the standard argument for a crop sensor is pixel density. Something like the M6 sensor is 32MP vs a cropped R5 sensor being about 17MP.


The gain might be not that big. f/2.8 at M=1.4 sounds quite close to being diffraction-limited at R5 pixel density.


----------



## tron (Apr 19, 2021)

Canon should give free frogs with their RF 100mm 2.8L IS. Or tell us how to persuade frogs to wait and pose patiently 

OK probably I should use a lens like 100-400 L IS II but one cannot carry so many lenses with him (I had already a prime telephoto)

I guess for flowers in an non-windy day RF 100 2.8L IS would do well...

I will not upgrade since even my EF100L is rarely used and its quality is very good. But someone who uses it a lot and does macro often or starts now could probably benefit from the RF version.


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I suggest you hang onto it long enough to make sure the new one works properly!


I won't for long... I already have a friend interested in it 
In the end the track record I have with Canon and all the lenses I have bought from them (23 during the years) is such that I am confident the new lens will work out of the box. Whether I will end up liking it or not it's a different matter


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 19, 2021)

tron said:


> Canon should give free frogs with their RF 100mm 2.8L IS.



I once bought a microscope which came with free insects in little resin blocks.


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 20, 2021)

NOBODY TOLD ME ABOUT ABBERRATION CONTROL


----------



## amfoto1 (Apr 21, 2021)

Someone asked about mounting the Canon Macro Ringlite and Twinlite to the RF 100L... Since it uses the same 67mm size filter as the EF 100L, I'm sure it will use the same Macrolite 67 adapter too.

Something that surprised me a little is that the Canon promo materials for the RF 100L completely fail to mention the new Tripod Ring E for the lens. The option to fit a tripod ring to all three of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses is unique and can be a very valuable feature for many users. For example, it will be an ideal accessory to do focus stacking. Might even be more useful on the RF lens than the EF 100mm Macros, since the new lens is a little bit heavier at the same time the R-series cameras tend to be a bit lighter than their DSLR counterparts. No other manufacturer is offering a tripod ring option on shorter than 150mm, 180mm or 200mm macro lens. Canon should note this in their promos!

As best I can tell, the minimum focus distance of the RF 100L and EF 100L are about the same at 1X magnification (remains to be seen if this also means slightly less "working distance" between front of lens and subject, as is the case with EF 100L vs EF 100 non-L/non-IS). Of course, the RF lens can do 1.4X magnification, which no doubt means further reduced minimum focus distance. I've seen conflicting info about that though... Waiting for hands-on reviews by some of the more credible web sites.

MFD correlates to the effectiveness of IS. According to Canon the RF lens is rated similar to the EF 100L in this regard. But, at what magnification? If they're getting the same degree of assistance from IS at 1.4X on the RF lens as at 1X on the EF lens, that would be a definite plus for the new lens. It's another matter entirely if the similar rating is with both lenses at 1X. Another question is what about total stabilization on the cameras that now have in-body IS too? Of course, "your mileage may vary" with IS... and high magnification macro is challenging for IS. It can help, but doesn't obviate the need for a tripod ring and steady support in some situations.

It's interesting someone notes that their 100mm macro is their least used lens. While mine isn't my most used lens by any means (that would be a toss up between some non-macro lenses)... But myy Canon 100mm is easily my most used MACRO lens, out of five different macro lenses in my kit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2021)

TW said:


> Also, and perhaps most importantly, smaller sensors give more effective depth of field, which is extremely important in macro work.


Well no they don’t actually. Once you equalize reproduction ratio at output my tests have shown there is practically no difference in dof across sensor size.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 21, 2021)

amfoto1 said:


> Someone asked about mounting the Canon Macro Ringlite and Twinlite to the RF 100L... Since it uses the same 67mm size filter as the EF 100L, I'm sure it will use the same Macrolite 67 adapter too.
> 
> Something that surprised me a little is that the Canon promo materials for the RF 100L completely fail to mention the new Tripod Ring E for the lens. The option to fit a tripod ring to all three of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses is unique and can be a very valuable feature for many users. For example, it will be an ideal accessory to do focus stacking. Might even be more useful on the RF lens than the EF 100mm Macros, since the new lens is a little bit heavier at the same time the R-series cameras tend to be a bit lighter than their DSLR counterparts. No other manufacturer is offering a tripod ring option on shorter than 150mm, 180mm or 200mm macro lens. Canon should note this in their promos!
> 
> ...



On my 5D I almost only used 16-35, 100mm and 70-200. 
On my R5/R6 its the 15-35, EF 100mm L and 100-500mm


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 21, 2021)

I'm dying to know if the new canon RF 100mm macro version will work with the RF teleconverter / extender, as I currently use my canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens with a 2x teleconverter. Figure if it does work then doubling that 1.4x up to 2.8x would be exactly what I'm looking for, if anyone finds out PLEASE let me know


----------



## Bdbtoys (Apr 21, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> I'm dying to know if the new canon RF 100mm macro version will work with the RF teleconverter / extender, as I currently use my canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens with a 2x teleconverter. Figure if it does work then doubling that 1.4x up to 2.8x would be exactly what I'm looking for, if anyone finds out PLEASE let me know



99% sure it will not work with the current RF TC's.

2 Reasons why...
Canon's product page does not state compatibility (vs the other 2 big white specifically state they are).
On one of the review sites they had a picture showing a partial view of the mount side of the lens. Although it was hard to make out the distance of the 1st glass element clearly (in relation to the mount), it appeared that there wasn't near enough room to fit the TC (the new RF TC's go into the lens a significant amount).


----------



## SteveC (Apr 22, 2021)

My current macro setup is a Rebel T6i with the old 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L version) so it has no image stabilization, nor is one needed.

I use it to take pictures of coins on a copy stand. The rebel's sensor is 6000x4000, so the max diameter of the coin image in pixels is 4000. Let's assume I have a coin the same diameter as the sensor is tall, so that at 1.0x, the camera is as close to the coin as it will focus.

If I were to buy this lens and put it on my RP, I'd be moving from a crop sensor to a full frame. so the same coin, at the same distance, that just filled my crop sensor, now fills 2600 pixels diameter on the RP's 4160 pixel tall sensor (4160/1.6 = 2600). This is a bit of a loss of pixels. BUT, with this lens it goes to 1.4x, so I can get closer, until the coin is 1.4x on the sensor, but that's 2600 x 1.4 = 3640 pixels across on that sensor. So I'm _worse_ off with this lens and the RP, than I am now with an APS-C camera and the old lens.

If I use my R5 instead, I can get an image that has a diameter of 4,770 pixels (5464/1.6 * 1.4). Which is somewhat better than I have now.

But I tend to just leave the macro camera bolted to the copy stand, and I don't want to do THAT with my R5; it's convenient not to have to remove my camera from the copy stand, and use a different one instead.

Ironically, because I need "reach" in a _macro _setup I have to pass on this (or also buy another R5!). Apparently, all of the Canon 100 mm macros (even the really old one without USM) are basically equal in plain old optics, so that's OK.

If my T6i dies and I can't get another one, I can probably use my M50 (with an adapter) in the same role as the T6i. If the _lens_ dies, I'm better off replacing it with another EF lens. Ironic, huh?


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 22, 2021)

SteveC said:


> My current macro setup is a Rebel T6i with the old 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L version) so it has no image stabilization, nor is one needed.
> 
> I use it to take pictures of coins on a copy stand. The rebel's sensor is 6000x4000, so the max diameter of the coin image in pixels is 4000. Let's assume I have a coin the same diameter as the sensor is tall, so that at 1.0x, the camera is as close to the coin as it will focus.
> 
> ...


Or replace it with an MP-E if you get smaller coins


----------



## SteveC (Apr 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Or replace it with an MP-E if you get smaller coins



Of course, with larger coins this whole issue is moot. Some are small enough they won't fill an APSC sensor even as close as my 100mm macro will take me. They certainly _would_ fill it up with this new lens...if it would only work with a Rebel!


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 24, 2021)

JustMeOregon said:


> I've gotta say... I'm a little disappointed in the new RF 100's IS capabilities at macro distances... At 3:04 on Canon's promo video it states "Approx. 2-Stops of stabilization at 1.0x magnification." That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS... Maybe it's just the Laws of Physics limiting the real-world effectiveness of IS at macro-levels... I don't know... But when I first read that this new RF 100 would have 8-Stops of stabilization on my R5, my pre-order trigger-finger started to twitch... Now, I might have to wait for some hands-on reviews... Sure, the additional 0.4x magnification is great. And the new SA adjustment might be fun to play with for portraiture, though I'm not sure if it'll really be applicable to macro work. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling or anything; I would love for someone to tell me what it is I'm not seeing here... BTW according to Bryan at The Digital Picture, the new RF 100 Macro will have the same 64mm filter threads as the EF 100, so the existing ring &/or twin flashes should be compatible.


For the 'net' IS affect one must take into consideration the Canon body this RF lens will be mounted on. On an R6 or R5 effective IS stops will be much greater than on an R or RP. I believe Canon's ~2 stops of correction at 1.0X mag is the lens only and not factoring in if shooting on a body with IBIS. I could be wrong - haven't researched this. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What is your rational for a crop sensor sized RF camera?


Well 1.6x more magnification would be helpful


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well 1.6x more magnification would be helpful


You don’t get 1.6 times magnification with a crop camera that isn’t how it works. You never get more magnification with a crop camera, just less field of view.


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You don’t get 1.6 times magnification with a crop camera that isn’t How it works. You never get more magnification with a crop camera, just less field of view.


Same thing , my 7D ii with 100-400 ii lens at 400mm gives me 12.8 x magnification whereas on a FF it would only be 8x magnification


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Same thing , my 7D ii with 100-400 ii lens at 400mm gives me 12.8 x magnification whereas on a FF it would only be 8x magnification


No it really isn’t the same thing! Do we have to go through all this again? Crop cameras crop, nothing else, you don’t get more magnification with a crop camera you get less field of view. For telephoto use that can be an advantage especially if you are focal length limited because you’d crop anyway and crop cameras often have higher pixel densities. But you are not getting ‘more’ anything.

But the maths for macro is completely different anyway, you are not focal length limited for macro and magnification is much more literal.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No it really isn’t the same thing! Do we have to go through all this again? Crop cameras crop, nothing else, you don’t get more magnification with a crop camera you get less field of view. For telephoto use that can be an advantage especially if you are focal length limited because you’d crop anyway and crop cameras often have higher pixel densities. But you are not getting ‘more’ anything.
> 
> But the maths for macro is completely different anyway, you are not focal length limited for macro and magnification is much more literal.


You don't get more magnification, but you _do _usually get a higher pixel pitch, so you can print a larger image of the same thing at some given dpi. And I'm pretty sure that's what was actually meant here. I see it termed "reach," the _apparent_ magnification that's actually caused by a higher pixel pitch combined with a crop.

Obviously a full frame camera with the same pixel pitch would A) have a monstrous megapixel count and B) have to be cropped to get the same result as the cropped camera, but you actually _would _get the same result when you did that, rather than something that looks like it was blown up.

(PBD, I'm sure you understand all of this. But I am trying for the benefit of others to shed light on the disconnect here.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

SteveC said:


> You don't get more magnification, but you _do _usually get a higher pixel pitch, so you can print a larger image of the same thing at some given dpi. And I'm pretty sure that's what was actually meant here. I see it termed "reach," the _apparent_ magnification that's actually caused by a higher pixel pitch combined with a crop.
> 
> Obviously a full frame camera with the same pixel pitch would A) have a monstrous megapixel count and B) have to be cropped to get the same result as the cropped camera, but you actually _would _get the same result when you did that, rather than something that looks like it was blown up.
> 
> (PBD, I'm sure you understand all of this. But I am trying for the benefit of others to shed light on the disconnect here.)


But as I said that singular ‘advantage’ of a crop camera doesn’t factor into macro use at all. A crop camera does not get you more magnification (ever) but that is especially relevant in macro shooting.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 24, 2021)

FramerMCB said:


> For the 'net' IS affect one must take into consideration the Canon body this RF lens will be mounted on. On an R6 or R5 effective IS stops will be much greater than on an R or RP. I believe Canon's ~2 stops of correction at 1.0X mag is the lens only and not factoring in if shooting on a body with IBIS. I could be wrong - haven't researched this. Just thinking out loud.


2 stop could be absolute max what can be achieved with 1:1 . To better stabilation needs intelligent distortion correction and ability to push some details from underexposed sub images to places where is hole from distortion correction on another layer.
I can explain this better too if wasnt understandable ?


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 24, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> 99% sure it will not work with the current RF TC's.
> 
> 2 Reasons why...
> Canon's product page does not state compatibility (vs the other 2 big white specifically state they are).
> On one of the review sites they had a picture showing a partial view of the mount side of the lens. Although it was hard to make out the distance of the 1st glass element clearly (in relation to the mount), it appeared that there wasn't near enough room to fit the TC (the new RF TC's go into the lens a significant amount).


That totally sucks I was so hoping it would be compatible and able to push up to 2.8:1 with the teleconverter / extender, as I love using my 2x teleconverter with the EF 100mm f/2.8L is usm macro lens I've got atm to push up to 2:1
I spent over an hour on the phone with one of Canons tech support people who was helping me with an issue with the new R6 I just got, and she tried to see what she could find for me looking through the information she had just received on the new RF version. But she couldn't find anything on if it would or would not be compatible


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No it really isn’t the same thing! Do we have to go through all this again? Crop cameras crop, nothing else, you don’t get more magnification with a crop camera you get less field of view. For telephoto use that can be an advantage especially if you are focal length limited because you’d crop anyway and crop cameras often have higher pixel densities. But you are not getting ‘more’ anything.
> 
> But the maths for macro is completely different anyway, you are not focal length limited for macro and magnification is much more literal.


OK the magnification doesn't change for a lens - 1:1 is still 1:1 but the 1.6x crop is still helpful , for example an object 22mm long will fill the frame at 1:1 on a Canon aps-c whereas the same object on FF at 1:1 will only fill 61% of the frame so you're getting an image that is bigger without cropping (the cropped sensor has already cropped it 1.6x).
Whether the cropped sensor produces the same image quality is another issue but effectively you're still getting the cropped pixel density advantage as with telephoto shooting.
If the R7 turns out to have a high quality stacked CMOS sensor of say 30-35 mp then it should pair well with this Macro lens


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 24, 2021)

SteveC said:


> My current macro setup is a Rebel T6i with the old 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L version) so it has no image stabilization, nor is one needed.
> 
> I use it to take pictures of coins on a copy stand. The rebel's sensor is 6000x4000, so the max diameter of the coin image in pixels is 4000. Let's assume I have a coin the same diameter as the sensor is tall, so that at 1.0x, the camera is as close to the coin as it will focus.
> 
> ...


You could use a 2x EF Teleconverter with your current EF 100mm f/2.8 canon macro lens to achiev up to 2:1 macro with only a tiny loss of working distance, I'm using this setup currently with the new image stabilized version of the canon 100mm macro lens and have approx 5.25 inches from the front of the lens glass to the depth of field focus area on the subject I'm shooting. If you shoot in 1.6 crop mode with this setup you will get up to 3.6x


----------



## pape2 (Apr 24, 2021)

I think it was stated on official video. 1.4x magnification is possible becouse taking advantage from short flange distance , so no room for normal tc use without extension.


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> That totally sucks I was so hoping it would be compatible and able to push up to 2.8:1 with the teleconverter / extender, as I love using my 2x teleconverter with the EF 100mm f/2.8L is usm macro lens I've got atm to push up to 2:1
> I spent over an hour on the phone with one of Canons tech support people who was helping me with an issue with the new R6 I just got, and she tried to see what she could find for me looking through the information she had just received on the new RF version. But she couldn't find anything on if it would or would not be compatible


I don't think Canon has made any yet but the T.Cs should fit with a suitable extension tube but you'll lose infinity focus of course.
I think it's crazy that Canon has made it's T.Cs so limited in compatibility though - they can't even be stacked or used at the wide end of the RF100-500 zoom


----------



## pape2 (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> I don't think Canon has made any yet but the T.Cs should fit with a suitable extension tube but you'll lose infinity focus of course.
> I think it's crazy that Canon has made it's T.Cs so limited in compatibility though - they can't even be stacked or used at the wide end of the RF100-500 zoom


They should make ring what got lense to correct pic so that you can use tc s with short flange lenses


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> OK the magnification doesn't change for a lens - 1:1 is still 1:1 but the 1.6x crop is still helpful , for example an object 22mm long will fill the frame at 1:1 on a Canon aps-c whereas the same object on FF at 1:1 will only fill 61% of the frame so you're getting an image that is bigger without cropping (the cropped sensor has already cropped it 1.6x).
> Whether the cropped sensor produces the same image quality is another issue but effectively you're still getting the cropped pixel density advantage as with telephoto shooting.
> If the R7 turns out to have a high quality stacked CMOS sensor of say 30-35 mp then it should pair well with this Macro lens


Yea this here is what had my head spinning back when I was going to first upgrade to a decent camera from the old bridge camera I'd been using for years, as I wasn't sure which would be the better route to go as I wanted to focus more on macro photography. In the end I opted for the full frame as I would then have the option to crop of course, it's this though thats had many other people who are new to photography confused also when trying to compare what they are shooting against others with the same lens but different body type. Still trying to decide atm between the R6 and the R6 and trying to find more info from others actually using both cameras for macro


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> I don't think Canon has made any yet but the T.Cs should fit with a suitable extension tube but you'll lose infinity focus of course.
> I think it's crazy that Canon has made it's T.Cs so limited in compatibility though - they can't even be stacked or used at the wide end of the RF100-500 zoom


I've got a set of RF extension tubes 13mm & 18mm wonder if using one or both with the RF 2x teleconverter / extender would allow the new Rf 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to work and increase it's magnification ??? Though not sure how adding in the extension tube or tubes would also come into play or if they would do nothing because of how the RF teleconverter extends into the lens


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> OK the magnification doesn't change for a lens - 1:1 is still 1:1 but the 1.6x crop is still helpful , for example an object 22mm long will fill the frame at 1:1 on a Canon aps-c whereas the same object on FF at 1:1 will only fill 61% of the frame so you're getting an image that is bigger without cropping (the cropped sensor has already cropped it 1.6x).
> Whether the cropped sensor produces the same image quality is another issue but effectively you're still getting the cropped pixel density advantage as with telephoto shooting.
> If the R7 turns out to have a high quality stacked CMOS sensor of say 30-35 mp then it should pair well with this Macro lens


And what about the times you want to photograph anything between 22mm and 36mm at 1:1? Your scenario of a world full of 22mm and smaller subjects that need to be photographed at 1:1 is entirely fallacious to anybody but three people in the world. 

Besides, the RF 100 goes to 1.4:1 so your hypothetical 22mm subject can be shot at 31mm on a ff.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But as I said that singular ‘advantage’ of a crop camera doesn’t factor into macro use at all. A crop camera does not get you more magnification (ever) but that is especially relevant in macro shooting.


You're right...I forgot what the title of the topic was.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And what about the times you want to photograph anything between 22mm and 36mm at 1:1? Your scenario of a world full of 22mm and smaller subjects that need to be photographed at 1:1 is entirely fallacious to anybody but three people in the world.
> 
> Besides, the RF 100 goes to 1.4:1 so your hypothetical 22mm subject can be shot at 31mm on a ff.


I was extremely happy with the 7D and later the M series for macro work till I started getting European paper wasps in my garden. Those will only fit in the frame diagonally when using the MP-E. The RP allowed me to fit those horizontally in the frame and as a bonus: the lower pixel density would hide lens flaws a bit better for better apparent sharpness in the result.
For 'reach' I still turn to the M6II, the 180L on that is great for bugs on water, although that lens is showing its age on that pixel density. The R5 + RF100-500 is rapidly replacing that setup for larger bugs like bumblebees and later this spring, dragonflies.


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> Yea this here is what had my head spinning back when I was going to first upgrade to a decent camera from the old bridge camera I'd been using for years, as I wasn't sure which would be the better route to go as I wanted to focus more on macro photography. In the end I opted for the full frame as I would then have the option to crop of course, it's this though thats had many other people who are new to photography confused also when trying to compare what they are shooting against others with the same lens but different body type. Still trying to decide atm between the R6 and the R6 and trying to find more info from others actually using both cameras for macro


If you can afford it I'd suggest the R5 as the extra megapixels should help with macro , I'm waiting to see what the crop sensor R7 is like as this should be ideal for my main interest of bird photography as well as macro and hopefully the price is similar to the R6 or maybe even a bit less


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> I've got a set of RF extension tubes 13mm & 18mm wonder if using one or both with the RF 2x teleconverter / extender would allow the new Rf 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to work and increase it's magnification ??? Though not sure how adding in the extension tube or tubes would also come into play or if they would do nothing because of how the RF teleconverter extends into the lens


I would expect to get double the magnification plus a bit more from the extension tube so should be like a 200 f5.6 lens


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And what about the times you want to photograph anything between 22mm and 36mm at 1:1? Your scenario of a world full of 22mm and smaller subjects that need to be photographed at 1:1 is entirely fallacious to anybody but three people in the world.
> 
> Besides, the RF 100 goes to 1.4:1 so your hypothetical 22mm subject can be shot at 31mm on a ff.


Um, the 22mm object is just an example I choose to show that the smaller cropped field of view gives you a bigger image just as it does for long telephoto shooting .


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> You could use a 2x EF Teleconverter with your current EF 100mm f/2.8 canon macro lens to achiev up to 2:1 macro with only a tiny loss of working distance, I'm using this setup currently with the new image stabilized version of the canon 100mm macro lens and have approx 5.25 inches from the front of the lens glass to the depth of field focus area on the subject I'm shooting. If you shoot in 1.6 crop mode with this setup you will get up to 3.6x


Working distance should be exactly the same with teleconverter wouldn't it ?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I was extremely happy with the 7D and later the M series for macro work till I started getting European paper wasps in my garden. Those will only fit in the frame diagonally when using the MP-E. The RP allowed me to fit those horizontally in the frame and as a bonus: the lower pixel density would hide lens flaws a bit better for better apparent sharpness in the result.
> For 'reach' I still turn to the M6II, the 180L on that is great for bugs on water, although that lens is showing its age on that pixel density. The R5 + RF100-500 is rapidly replacing that setup for larger bugs like bumblebees and later this spring, dragonflies.


Regarding reach, I found that the EF100 macro has so much focal length change at macro distances there was only 50mm advantage in working distance with a crop camera for same framing at 1:1 whilst also, obviously, reducing the actual magnification ratio. I don’t believe the EF 100 macro is particularly ‘bad’ for that.

Of course working distance is the entire reason for the EF 180 macro that for years was considered a superb optic but has fallen out of favor due to the very modest AF speeds. It used to be if you shot bugs you had the EF 180 L, I think the 100 L spoilt us a bit


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Um, the 22mm object is just an example I choose to show that the smaller cropped field of view gives you a bigger image just as it does for long telephoto shooting .


That is a ridiculous way of looking at it. 

That is like saying you and I both have a cup however mine is more than twice as big as yours, we pour ourselves a drink with the same amount of water for both of us. You are saying because your cup is full you have more water!

Now carrying a smaller cup makes sense on rare and specific occasions, but 99% of the time it doesn’t, besides, your smaller cup never holds more water than my cup, you never get ‘more’.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That is a ridiculous way of looking at it.
> 
> That is like saying you and I both have a cup however mine is more than twice as big as yours, we pour ourselves a drink with the same amount of water for both of us. You are saying because your cup is full you have more water!
> 
> Now carrying a smaller cup makes sense on rare and specific occasions, but 99% of the time it doesn’t, besides, your smaller cup never holds more water than my cup, you never get ‘more’.


Many times, people who are new to digital photography don’t understand how the crop factor actually affects images, or the relationship between pixel density and final image magnification.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many times, people who are new to digital photography don’t understand how the crop factor actually affects images, or the relationship between pixel density and final image magnification.


Indeed, but in your absence somebody has had to keep the flag of common sense flying! Can I take a break now I’m tired?


----------



## SteveC (Apr 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many times, people who are new to digital photography don’t understand how the crop factor actually affects images, or the relationship between pixel density and final image magnification.


Point and shoots actually advertise their "digital zoom" (i.e., in-camera cropping). Sometimes they even bother to separately list their optical zoom, so you have some meaningful information.


----------



## Chig (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That is a ridiculous way of looking at it.
> 
> That is like saying you and I both have a cup however mine is more than twice as big as yours, we pour ourselves a drink with the same amount of water for both of us. You are saying because your cup is full you have more water!
> 
> Now carrying a smaller cup makes sense on rare and specific occasions, but 99% of the time it doesn’t, besides, your smaller cup never holds more water than my cup, you never get ‘more’.


You've got awfully excited about this haven't you ?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 25, 2021)

Chig said:


> You've got awfully excited about this haven't you ?



Er, no....


----------



## neurorx (Apr 25, 2021)

How is this photographer about to get such sharp images at ISO 3200? It doesnt look like there is any noise reduction in the images...they are so sharp.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 25, 2021)

neurorx said:


> How is this photographer about to get such sharp images at ISO 3200? It doesnt look like there is any noise reduction in the images...they are so sharp.



Om my R5 and R6 the ISO 3200 is very sharp and clear. It's not like the 5D mk II where it was almost unusable.


----------



## neurorx (Apr 26, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Om my R5 and R6 the ISO 3200 is very sharp and clear. It's not like the 5D mk II where it was almost unusable.


my raw files tend to need noise reduction.


----------



## pape2 (Apr 26, 2021)

Exposuring right and shooting with less contrast light scenes and exposing them bright reduces noise too.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 28, 2021)

tron said:


> Or tell us how to persuade frogs to wait and pose patiently


If you are patient enough and know behaviour of frogs and toads you can easily get close to them even with wide angle lenses.


__
https://flic.kr/p/eAq6f3


__
https://flic.kr/p/eAq6f3


__
https://flic.kr/p/JRfouq


__
https://flic.kr/p/KHvHeY


__
https://flic.kr/p/MbbQ5Y



IMG_9132 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Western Burrowing Frog(Sphaerotheca pashchima) by Chaitanya shukla by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

None of these were setup or handled in anyway.


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 29, 2021)

LostToFollowUp said:


> Yea this here is what had my head spinning back when I was going to first upgrade to a decent camera from the old bridge camera I'd been using for years, as I wasn't sure which would be the better route to go as I wanted to focus more on macro photography. In the end I opted for the full frame as I would then have the option to crop of course, it's this though thats had many other people who are new to photography confused also when trying to compare what they are shooting against others with the same lens but different body type. Still trying to decide atm between the R6 and the R6 and trying to find more info from others actually using both cameras for macro


I mainly shoot Macro Photography and have been using the RP for a while now, I decided to upgrade recently and bought the R6 since I really couldn't justify to myself spending the extra $1,400 for the R5. Well that is until I actually got the R6 and started using it, as after about 2 weeks I decided to return the R6 and spend the extra $$$ for the R5. I liked the R6 in all honesty except for the image quality when shooting in crop mode, I do not often shoot in crop mode just every once in a while depending on the subject I'm photographing. That said I just got the R5 in tonight and so far am loving it, also the image quality in crop mode is so much better at high magnification in comparison to the R6, not to mention the image quality in full frame is by far leaps and bounds ahead. Now I can't wait until the new / used EF Tamron Teleconverter I just found for $79 bucks (Paid $69 for the first one used in excellent condition) can't wait to be able to double the teleconverters up for my canon 100mm f/2.8L is usm macro lens. 
Any chance on a off topic subject that you can suggest / recommend a low weight long range lens ??? I tried the Sigma 150mm - 600mm Contemporary my friend has and that thing is a tank at approx 6lbs, I need to find something at 400mm or potentially higher that is also in the 3lb weight range. I'm disabled so need something I can manage easier in comparison to that Sigma, which did a number on my shoulder just using it briefly 
One great thing I figure with the R5 (and R6 by that measure) having IBIS is that it opens up so many lens I avoided before as they didn't have image stabilization


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 29, 2021)

Chig said:


> If you can afford it I'd suggest the R5 as the extra megapixels should help with macro , I'm waiting to see what the crop sensor R7 is like as this should be ideal for my main interest of bird photography as well as macro and hopefully the price is similar to the R6 or maybe even a bit less


Yea the R5 was just delivered tonight and the R6 was sent back, one thing I love about Amazon is being able to return things no hassle. It's so hard around where I live to actually find stores with cameras in stock that you can check out / look over before buying


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 29, 2021)

Chig said:


> Working distance should be exactly the same with teleconverter wouldn't it ?


It is extremely close when using the teleconverter but just a tiny amount less, I had tested it out when I was playing with the Laowa 2x 100mm macro lens. As it was the drastic loss of working distance using the laowa in either 1:1 or 2:1 versus my using the canon ef 100mm with the teleconverter. The laowa had like 2 inches approx less working distance vrs the canon macro lens, while I think the canon only lost maybe cm or less by using the teleconverter


----------



## pape2 (Apr 29, 2021)

Wouldnt it be same to put one 1,4x converter more to R6 and stop one F down than use R5 with cropmode ?


----------



## LostToFollowUp (Apr 29, 2021)

pape2 said:


> Wouldnt it be same to put one 1,4x converter more to R6 and stop one F down than use R5 with cropmode ?


I don't generally shoot in crop mode as was never really happy with the quality of the results using the RP let alone the R6 at higher magnification 2x - 4x + ect. That said I've got another 2x teleconverter that I just got the tracking code for on it's way, you can find some great deals out there when it comes to used stuff too, will likely snap up a 1.4x teleconverter too when I can find one for a decent price


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Point and shoots actually advertise their "digital zoom" (i.e., in-camera cropping). Sometimes they even bother to separately list their optical zoom, so you have some meaningful information.


In the menu, you can disable the "digital zoom" on the Canons, at least.

My S and G cameras have had a macro mode, but I haven't messed with them enough to know what is going on with them. I think I can focus just as close in the regular mode. If I am home, I can just use my DSLR and 100mm lens anyway. And when traveling with the G cameras, I rarely need macro distances. This exhibit of coins in the Tower of London was the closest I can recall wanting to get:


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Om my R5 and R6 the ISO 3200 is very sharp and clear. It's not like the 5D mk II where it was almost unusable.


On my 6D2 I find ISO 3200 quite acceptable almost all the time. I usually have to pixel peep to tell the difference.


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2021)

From looking at the RAW file from the G7X II, I conclude that the coin picture above was taken at 30% magnification (more or less), so not really macro, which is to my point.


----------



## becceric (May 3, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> If you are patient enough and know behaviour of frogs and toads you can easily get close to them even with wide angle lenses.
> 
> 
> __
> ...


Nice job!


----------

