# Chris Frost's review of RF 100mm Macro.



## Chaitanya (Nov 13, 2021)

Interesting focus shifting was present with the sample of 100mm L Macro Chris Frost got for review.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2021)

Focus shift is a ‘feature’ of the lens design. Canon acknowledged it and basically said live with it.

From Bryan/TDP (link):

_“The response from Canon's optical engineers was to confirm that, due to its 1.4x magnification (1.4:1 reproduction ratio) capability, a magnification far exceeding 1.0x, the RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS Lens's optical design exhibits some focus shift.

The focus shift is not sample dependent and is not related to the SA control ring. As focus shift is characteristic of this lens, no production changes to the lens or lens/camera firmware updates are anticipated. Correction, when necessary, is accomplished by focusing slightly in front of the subject.”_

It’s a big part of the reason I’m going to stick with my EF 100mm Macro.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Focus shift is a ‘feature’ of the lens design. Canon acknowledged it and basically said live with it.
> 
> From Bryan/TDP (link):
> 
> ...


Me too!


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2021)

I wonder if there could be a formula depending on focusing distance and f-stop that Canon could implement in firmware to get around the issue.


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2021)

By the way I am sticking to my 100L too.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 14, 2021)

Thanks all. This saves me a lot of money. I don't use the 100mm f2.8 L much and this convinces me to hang on to the EF version. I'm inclined to just mount an RF converter to it permanently and leave it at that. Interestingly, the EF lens was selling for under $700 two years ago and now retailers are selling it for $1,300, just $100 under the RF version. The RF version is one of the few RF lenses that is available pretty much everywhere. I guess eventually Canon will quit shipping the EF lens and people will have to buy the RF version.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 14, 2021)

It's disappointing, because this was one of the lenses I was most waiting for. Looks like I'll stick with my Laowa RF 100mm 2x f2.8 - which involves compromises (manual focus and very limited electronic coupling) but I'm getting good results with it.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Focus shift is a ‘feature’ of the lens design. Canon acknowledged it and basically said live with it.
> 
> From Bryan/TDP (link):
> 
> ...


So there is no alternative to carrying EF 100mm Macro and MP-E 65mm Macro(Or Venus Laowa 100mm Ultra macro) even on RF mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 14, 2021)

This is the lens I would have bought instantly, without hesitating...
Thanks to TDP's Brian, without his review, I would have wasted Euro 1549 on this lens.
My macro being mostly hand-held, focusing on the "sides" of a flower is just impossible.
So, I keep hoping either for a firmware, or for an RF macro 180mm !


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 14, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> This is the lens I would have bought instantly, without hesitating...
> Thanks to TDP's Brian, without his review, I would have wasted Euro 1549 on this lens.
> My macro being mostly hand-held, focusing on the "sides" of a flower is just impossible.
> So, I keep hoping either for a firmware, or for an RF macro 180mm !


For me its mostly reptiles and amphibians(and on side butterflies and wild flowers) for which I use Macros, if Canon releases RF 180mm Macro(even 1x would be fine) without the same "feature" as RF 100mm Macro then it would certainly be on consideration list for my use(while keeping my EF Macros).


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 14, 2021)

I'd gladly pay the same price for a "downgraded" version which doesn't include the bonus focus shift, the 1.4x, and removes the innovative feature which allows enhancing the image with chromatic aberration. Or whatever that blur doo-hickey does.

In other words, just a straight, great, and simple macro lens.

In the meantime, as already mentioned by Neuro, the ef 100mm f/2.8L works very well. Mine has an RF adapter welded on. How long the EF will remain available is another question.


----------



## Nemorino (Nov 14, 2021)

I will buy one soon or later. I need the higher mag and like the SA control. Chris Frost mentioned the shift would be small at macro distance (5:40) and it won't be "terrible an issue" ( free quoted @7:20).

At the moment I use a Sigma 105 macro and the RF100 will be probably better.
If I would own a EF 100, I maybe won't buy one.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Nov 15, 2021)

This focus shift issue is just not acceptable for a modern lens on a mirrorless camera. If Canon insists that focus shift has to be a part of the lens design then they should make sure all of their cameras have the option to auto-focus with the aperture stopped down.

Focus shift was strong with my copy of the RF35mm 1.8 so I returned it. I put that down to the lens being ‘cheap’ (it was still around $600 here in Australia!). I really hope this design ‘feature’ doesn’t find its way into other expensive L lenses.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 15, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> I will buy one soon or later. I need the higher mag and like the SA control. Chris Frost mentioned the shift would be small at macro distance (5:40) and it won't be "terrible an issue" ( free quoted @7:20).
> 
> At the moment I use a Sigma 105 macro and the RF100 will be probably better.
> If I would own a EF 100, I maybe won't buy one.


Before you buy, please check the TDP review: the focus shift is far from being small at macro distances, and unsharp macros are no fun at all.
You could miss THE orchid, butterfly, mushroom, insect of a lifetime...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 15, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Before you buy, please check the TDP review: the focus shift is far from being small at macro distances, and unsharp macros are no fun at all.
> You could miss THE orchid, butterfly, mushroom, insect of a lifetime...


It hasn't really impacted my natural light shooting, but I (ab)use the combination of 20fps electronic shutter and my general unsteady camera grip to get a wider range of focus. When using flash, I still prefer the MP-E65, but that might change with I build a better diffuser to use the RF100 with a V860IIC.
I don't have less keepers due to mis-focussing compared to the EF100, I do have more keepers due to the better IS and faster AF. I bet I would get even more keepers if the focus issue where fixed, but the RF100 is, for me, still a net improvement. I do feel the improvement isn't worth the price difference, but the EF100 interaction with IBIS on the R5 annoyed me so much that I avoided using that lens, opting for the EF180L or MP-E65 instead. So I don't regret selling the EF100L, but I do wonder if I should've sold the EF100 non-L 2 years ago to get the EF100L.



Chris.Chapterten said:


> This focus shift issue is just not acceptable for a modern lens on a mirrorless camera. If Canon insists that focus shift has to be a part of the lens design then they should make sure all of their cameras have the option to auto-focus with the aperture stopped down.[..]


I agree that it's unacceptable and I also wonder why Canon doesn't solve it in software. The R cameras can lessen diffraction in nearly realtime, but not adjust focus when stopping down? You'd think that having a lookup table that maps focus distance + desired aperture to a focus error would be straightforward to do. It's pretty much a per-aperture AFMA setting.

The RF70-200 f/2.8 had similar issue, and that was fixed with a new lens firmware. I guess the bad PR Isn't bad enough for Canon to take action.

And all these issue could be solved if Canon would use contract based focus to fine tune things after stopping down, but before taking the picture.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It hasn't really impacted my natural light shooting, but I (ab)use the combination of 20fps electronic shutter and my general unsteady camera grip to get a wider range of focus. When using flash, I still prefer the MP-E65, but that might change with I build a better diffuser to use the RF100 with a V860IIC.
> I don't have less keepers due to mis-focussing compared to the EF100, I do have more keepers due to the better IS and faster AF. I bet I would get even more keepers if the focus issue where fixed, but the RF100 is, for me, still a net improvement. I do feel the improvement isn't worth the price difference, but the EF100 interaction with IBIS on the R5 annoyed me so much that I avoided using that lens, opting for the EF180L or MP-E65 instead. So I don't regret selling the EF100L, but I do wonder if I should've sold the EF100 non-L 2 years ago to get the EF100L.
> 
> 
> ...


I understand this can be a way to achieve good results.
But I cannot accept having to shoot 20 fps in order:
- to get sharp macros
- to compensate for a less than perfect optical design
Additionally: having to import into LR, and choosing between a multitude of 20 fps series is time consuming. When photographing orchids or alpine flora, I usually take between 20 and 400 pictures, imagine at 20 fps...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 15, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I understand this can be a way to achieve good results.
> But I cannot accept having to shoot 20 fps in order:
> - to get sharp macros
> - to compensate for a less than perfect optical design
> Additionally: having to import into LR, and choosing between a multitude of 20 fps series is time consuming. When photographing orchids or alpine flora, I usually take between 20 and 400 pictures, imagine at 20 fps...


Right, doing it to only to work around things I assume are easily fixed in software isn't acceptable to me for this price range either. But I was doing it already to work around my bad camera holding technique. I'd like to think I would've returned the lens if I had better technique, but I'm a sucker for the sunk cost fallacy :/

The 20fps burst I do are usually 3-10 shots, so it's just about manageable to delete the obviously wrong ones in the field and sort out the rest later at home. I do still have a bunch of unprocessed focus stacks, since I don't have to motivation to deal with all the bad tooling. It turns out that DPP4 will vary the exported TIFFs with one pixel, so sometime I get 8216 pixels wide images, other times 8127 pixel wide images. 
Zerene refuses to deal with that single-pixel difference and I still can't figure out how to get Helicon do stacking without crashing. The DPP4 builtin stacker requires too much manual cleanup. Now that LR has non-stupid colour profiles for the R5 I could give the zerene integration a try.

I wish I could take a properly exposed, framed and focussed picture in a single try, each time


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Right, doing it to only to work around things I assume are easily fixed in software isn't acceptable to me for this price range either. But I was doing it already to work around my bad camera holding technique. I'd like to think I would've returned the lens if I had better technique, but I'm a sucker for the sunk cost fallacy :/
> 
> The 20fps burst I do are usually 3-10 shots, so it's just about manageable to delete the obviously wrong ones in the field and sort out the rest later at home. I do still have a bunch of unprocessed focus stacks, since I don't have to motivation to deal with all the bad tooling. It turns out that DPP4 will vary the exported TIFFs with one pixel, so sometime I get 8216 pixels wide images, other times 8127 pixel wide images.
> Zerene refuses to deal with that single-pixel difference and I still can't figure out how to get Helicon do stacking without crashing. The DPP4 builtin stacker requires too much manual cleanup. Now that LR has non-stupid colour profiles for the R5 I could give the zerene integration a try.
> ...


But, If you shoot like that accepting that you have to compensate for errors you don't need this expensive faulty lens.
You can get the Lawova RF 100mm that has 2X maginification. The manual focus is not a drawback compared to a faulty AF.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 15, 2021)

tron said:


> But, If you shoot like that accepting that you have to compensate for errors you don't need this expensive faulty lens.
> You can get the Lawova RF 100mm that has 2X maginification. The manual focus is not a drawback compared to a faulty AF.


It actually is, manual focus is pain in the field when needing to track things. The Laowa also has 2 things against it:

It has a huge gaping hole in the front, needing an extra piece of glass to keep nature out
The RF version lacks electronic apterture control, the EF version *does* have it


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2021)

Thanks for the info. So if I ever got it I would prefer the EF version (anyway I have both types of cameras).


----------



## Nemorino (Nov 15, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Before you buy, please check the TDP review


Thanks for the advise!  
But I'm not realy afraid this lens is unusable. I hope to give You first hand impressions soon but the lens is still not avaible here.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 16, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The RF70-200 f/2.8 had similar issue, and that was fixed with a new lens firmware. I guess the bad PR Isn't bad enough for Canon to take action.
> 
> And all these issue could be solved if Canon would use contract based focus to fine tune things after stopping down, but before taking the picture.


Unfortunately for us market for RF 100mm Macro is much smaller and most pro users dont really care about 100mm Macros. I saw a review of RF 100mm from wedding photographer and for them it was just a meh lens unlike the trinity 2.8 zooms or other L lenses in Canon lineup. So there won't be much of outrage about this lens which means very small chance Canon will address focus shift with firmware upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Unfortunately for us market for RF 100mm Macro is much smaller and most pro users dont really care about 100mm Macros. I saw a review of RF 100mm from wedding photographer and for them it was just a meh lens…


Any evidence for the ‘small market’ and the desires of ‘most pro users’? Other than that one review you saw, I mean…


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Any evidence for the ‘small market’ and the desires of ‘most pro users’? Other than that one review you saw, I mean…


No camera seller is providing breakdown of sales of their lenses but looking at bestseller list on Amazon, EF 100mm L is no 54 and RF 100mm L no 93 with Tele Zooms much higher up on the list(surprisingly RF24-70mm f/2.8 is lower than EF 100mm L). Granted Amazon list is skewed towards consumer market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Granted Amazon list is skewed towards consumer market.


From a site that's not skewed toward the consumer market, where it's a 'top wish' (I'm not really sure what that means, but it implies the opposite of small market and most pro users not caring about it).




Sadly common on this forum for people to assume their opinions represent those of the majority with no real evidence to support that belief.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> From a site that's not skewed toward the consumer market, where it's a 'top wish' (I'm not really sure what that means, but it implies the opposite of small market and most pro users not caring about it).
> 
> View attachment 201216
> 
> ...


Top Wish certainly doesnt mean anything as these entry level products are also tagged with same on B&H website. 







Sports, Wedding and portrait photographers certainly dont care much about a macro lens as much as they do with 70-200mm lens and they certainly are more vocal than macro users. Also on Amazon among telezoom which are ranked above you will find 70-200mm lenses as well, so it seems consumers are also buying them over 100(or 105mm & 90mm) Macro lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Top Wish certainly doesnt mean anything as these entry level products are also tagged with same on B&H website.


On the contrary, since B&H allows customers to maintain a ‘wish list’ I’d say it means lots of people want the lens. Entry level products are often very popular, as well.



Chaitanya said:


> Sports, Wedding and portrait photographers certainly dont care much about a macro lens as much as they do with 70-200mm lens


I suspect you’ll find many wedding photographers have a macro lens of some sort, for ring pictures if nothing else (new/less successful ones may only be able to manage an extension tube). But since you’re certain about it, and you apparently speak for all of them, you must be right.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 19, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> So there is no alternative to carrying EF 100mm Macro and MP-E 65mm Macro(Or Venus Laowa 100mm Ultra macro) even on RF mount.


Of course there is, an EF 100mm macro coupled with a Raynox DCR-250 super macro conversion lens works very nicely!


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm amazed that Canon released a lens with a flaw like this, and on an expensive L lens. And jacked up the price on the EF lens by a large amount so buying that as an alternative no longer makes much sense either. Glad I bought a refurb EF a year and a half ago. It would be different if Canon dealt with this somehow in firmware or provided an easy way to stop down the lens for focusing, but without that what Canon did here is ridiculous. I think this is much worse than the distortion correction "controversy" with the 14-35 and the 16mm.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 19, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> I'm amazed that Canon released a lens with a flaw like this, and on an expensive L lens. And jacked up the price on the EF lens by a large amount so buying that as an alternative no longer makes much sense either. Glad I bought a refurb EF a year and a half ago. It would be different if Canon dealt with this somehow in firmware or provided an easy way to stop down the lens for focusing, but without that what Canon did here is ridiculous. I think this is much worse than the distortion correction "controversy" with the 14-35 and the 16mm.


Both the RF 14-35 F/4 L with its soft corners due to reliance on software correction to fix extreme optical distortion (in an L-series lens!) and the RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro with its focus shift issue and spherical aberration control feature (that nobody asked for) are the questionable lenses of the Canon RF lineup right now, and their value for money is an issue for many buyers, considering their steep prices. 

By comparison, the RF 16mm and RF 100-400mm have received praise and are considered to offer great value for money. Ironically, both these lenses utilise a single PMo (plastic moulded) aspherical lens element, but both give decent image quality for the price. The RF 16mm has similar extreme optical distortion that relies on software correction as the RF 14-35L, but is more acceptable in a much cheaper budget lens, which more of less matches the expensive zoom in IQ. 

Some of the lenses that Canon releases are hits, offering excellent value for money and good images, while others are misses, with significant compromises, and being overpriced for what they are...


----------



## SteveC (Nov 21, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Both the RF 14-35 F/4 L with its soft corners due to reliance on software correction to fix extreme optical distortion (in an L-series lens!) and the RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro with its focus shift issue and spherical aberration control feature (that nobody asked for) are the questionable lenses of the Canon RF lineup right now, and their value for money is an issue for many buyers, considering their steep prices.
> 
> By comparison, the RF 16mm and RF 100-400mm have received praise and are considered to offer great value for money. Ironically, both these lenses utilise a single PMo (plastic moulded) aspherical lens element, but both give decent image quality for the price. The RF 16mm has similar extreme optical distortion that relies on software correction as the RF 14-35L, but is more acceptable in a much cheaper budget lens, which more of less matches the expensive zoom in IQ.
> 
> Some of the lenses that Canon releases are hits, offering excellent value for money and good images, while others are misses, with significant compromises, and being overpriced for what they are...



It used to be that I could shrug and say the extreme software correction was limited to the 'cheap' lenses but I got bit by that not realizing that the 14-35 was an L.

Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It used to be that I could shrug and say the extreme software correction was limited to the 'cheap' lenses but I got bit by that not realizing that the 14-35 was an L.
> 
> Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more.


I must confess, I don't really understand.
I just took a look at the TDP review, the corners of the RF 14-35 f4 don't look bad at all, confirmed by Brian's comment.
So, who is right? I'm in doubt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more.


Because the corners of the EF 17-40/4 are known for their optical quality?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because the corners of the EF 17-40/4 are known for their optical quality?


So far as I know (and I do _not_ know that lens by any means), it at least gets what it gets without software correction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> So far as I know (and I do _not_ know that lens by any means), it at least gets what it gets without software correction.


Personally, I’ll take the software-corrected corners of the RF 14-35 over the optically-‘corrected’ corners of the EF 17-40. What do you think?









Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because the corners of the EF 17-40/4 are known for their optical quality?


Wasn't the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens one of the "lesser" L lenses? From memory it was much cheaper, but the quality wasn't quite up there with the rest of the wide zooms. I remember reading the reviews, and thinking I'll buy the EF 16-35mm F/4 L instead, which was more expensive but had superior performance. On the whole the L series lenses were damn good, but there were probably a few exceptions here and there, and I suspect most people knew of their limitations from reviews and chose accordingly.

Looks like that lens made those sacrifices for price, weight and size according to TDP (emphasis in extract below is theirs, not mine)- https://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-17-40mm-f-4.0-l-usm-lens-review.aspx

_"Because it is a *very high quality but moderately-priced* ultra wide angle zoom lens, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens is one of Canon's *best selling* lenses.

The 17-40 f/4L fills out the bottom focal length range of Canon's f/4L zoom lens series. It is the *lightest L lens* currently made (1.1 lbs / 475g) and is the *smallest L zoom lens* currently produced (3.3" x 3.8" / 83.5mm x 96.8mm - DxL)."_

It's also an old design released in 2003, so yes it has its shortcomings, and as Neuro has alluded, the RF 14-35mm f/4 with its software corrected corners is probably a better lens all round. I'm sure that at 17mm the RF lens would be way better for starters!

Comparing the EF 17-40 and RF 14-35 using the TDP lens comparison tools, considering its limitations, the newer lens looks better in midframe and outstandingly better at the edges!









Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 22, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Wasn't the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens one of the "lesser" L lenses?[..]


The response was to a blanket "_Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more._" statement. You've been here long enough to know that such statements make the spidey sense of @neuroanatomist tingle 

And yes, the EF17-40L is a cheap, mediocre L lens. It was cheap enough for me to buy when I was a student, along with the EF70-200 F/4L non-IS. I've taken great pictures with it, I only noticed how bad the corners were about 2 years ago when I wanted to take a photo of a flat thing with interesting bits at the edges and corners of the frame. Apparently I never put interesting things in the corners in the previous decade of using it


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The response was to a blanket "_Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more._" statement. You've been here long enough that such statements make the spidey sense of @neuroanatomist tingle
> 
> And yes, the EF17-40L is a cheap, mediocre L lens. It was cheap enough for me to buy when I was a student, along with the EF70-200 F/4L non-IS. I've taken great pictures with it, I only noticed how bad the corners were about 2 years ago when I wanted to take a photo of a flat thing with interesting bits at the edges and corners of the frame. Apparently I never put interesting things in the corners in the previous decade of using it


Yes, agreed, there were exceptions in the L-series lenses in the past too, so it probably would be more accurate to say that "_some RF 'L' lenses, like some of the EF lenses that came before them, don't have the optical quality expected at that tier_". 

I do get what koenkooi was implying. The most common complaints I've heard online are that the RF 14-35 is quite expensive for an f/4 L-series lens, and that it's disappointing that an expensive L-series lens has such optical compromises. Dustin Abbott on YouTube is of the opinion that Canon decided to try something more 'interesting' than the optically excellent but 'boring' 16-35mm UWA lenses, and made compromises to get the wider 14mm focal length on the 14-35mm, which to him is a good thing. I guess others may prefer the previous compromise of higher optical quality over longer focal length range, a choice which isn't available in RF at f/4 currently.

True, for some genres of photography, corner sharpness is critical, while, in others, it might not matter. Then it also becomes a question of how much money for the required amount of corner sharpness!


----------



## kaihp (Nov 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> And yes, the EF17-40L is a cheap, mediocre L lens. It was cheap enough for me to buy when I was a student, along with the EF70-200 F/4L non-IS. I've taken great pictures with it, I only noticed how bad the corners were about 2 years ago when I wanted to take a photo of a flat thing with interesting bits at the edges and corners of the frame. Apparently I never put interesting things in the corners in the previous decade of using it


The 17-40L was the first lens I bought, using it on a 10D and later a 50D. Since they were both APS-C the bad corners were a non-issue. It was only when I got a FF camera that I started noticing the bad corners.

Oh, and my first tele-zoom was a 70-200 f/4L non-IS USM as well. The f/4L IS USM didn't exist and the f/2.8L USM and IS USM were significantly more expensive. It was only when I was able to get second-hand f/2.8L I USM that I changed.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 22, 2021)

kaihp said:


> The 17-40L was the first lens I bought, using it on a 10D and later a 50D. Since they were both APS-C the bad corners were a non-issue. It was only when I got a FF camera that I started noticing the bad corners.[..]


I feel a bit stupid now for not realizing that, I used the 17-40L on a 20D, 7D and M. I only got into full frame 2 years ago, which coincides with my 'discovery' of bad corner resolution!


----------



## kaihp (Nov 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I feel a bit stupid now for not realizing that, I used the 17-40L on a 20D, 7D and M. I only got into full frame 2 years ago, which coincides with my 'discovery' of bad corner resolution!


Making mistakes is mandatory. Learning from them is optional (but recommended) 

We've all been there. I made a mistake that cost the company 3-6 months on launch time, and at least a couple of M USD in direct costs (let's not talk about the cost of lost sales).
Owning up to your mistake is what sets people apart.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The response was to a blanket "_Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more._" statement. You've been here long enough that such statements make the spidey sense of @neuroanatomist tingle
> 
> And yes, the EF17-40L is a cheap, mediocre L lens. It was cheap enough for me to buy when I was a student, along with the EF70-200 F/4L non-IS. I've taken great pictures with it, I only noticed how bad the corners were about 2 years ago when I wanted to take a photo of a flat thing with interesting bits at the edges and corners of the frame. Apparently I never put interesting things in the corners in the previous decade of using it


Cheap and outstanding must not exclude each other, as you certainly experienced with your EF70-200 F4, in my opinion the very best value among Canon lenses. I really loved mine, until the EF70-200 F4 IS II came, but at a different price...
PS: The EF 70-200 F4 IS II is still available on the European Canon "Black Friday" list. Highly recommended!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> The most common complaints I've heard online are that the RF 14-35 is quite expensive for an f/4 L-series lens, and that it's disappointing that an expensive L-series lens has such optical compromises.


Have the complainers looked at the price of the EF 11-24/4? At the wide end, the RF 14-35 sits at the halfway point between that and the EF 16-35/4 (at least, based on my DxO processed images giving an FoV of ~13.5mm), and it’s much closer to the latter in price.

The L-series RF lenses are more expensive than their EF counterparts, sometimes substantially so. But they generally offer meaningful improvements for that extra money. An extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500, IS on the 24-70/2.8, an extra 2mm on the wide end of the 14-35/4 IS, a lighter and much more compact 70-200/2.8, etc. The 24-105/4 didn’t seem to offer any significant improvements, but it launched at the same price as it’s EF predecessor.

At the other end of the cost spectrum, the RF system offers some excellent budget lenses (as long as you’re willing to give up a stop or two of light, which if you’re upgrading from an older DSLR can be compensated by the significant ISO noise improvements in newer cameras). The 600/11 and 800/11 give unprecedented reach in an OEM lens at that cost, the new RF 100-400 is small, light, and delivers great optical performance at low cost, then there’s the 16/2.8 as an inexpensive ultrawide option. I think it’s truly impressive that you can get a three-lens RF kit spanning 16-400mm (16/2.8, 24-105 non-L, 100-400) for $1300.


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 22, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It used to be that I could shrug and say the extreme software correction was limited to the 'cheap' lenses but I got bit by that not realizing that the 14-35 was an L.
> 
> Can't trust 'L' to mean optical quality any more.


The thing that matters to me is the final result. If using distortion correction in software allows a lens to be built smaller, lighter, less expensive, faster, with a larger focal length range, or some combination of those things, while keeping the final image quality good, I'll gladly take that. I have no desire to spend more, or carry a larger, heavier lens, or give up a few mm on the wide end just so I can say that I didn't need to use distortion correction. I was hoping the 14-35 f/4 would be less expensive than it is, but I guess going all the way to 14mm raised the price as Neuro pointed out.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 22, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> The thing that matters to me is the final result. If using distortion correction in software allows a lens to be built smaller, lighter, less expensive, faster, with a larger focal length range, or some combination of those things, while keeping the final image quality good, I'll gladly take that. I have no desire to spend more, or carry a larger, heavier lens, or give up a few mm on the wide end just so I can say that I didn't need to use distortion correction. I was hoping the 14-35 f/4 would be less expensive than it is, but I guess going all the way to 14mm raised the price as Neuro pointed out.


As I've been thinking about what I said yesterday, I think a large part of my gut-reaction to what's happening here is that to me it seems "sneaky." The lens has severe optical distortion and it's being papered over with software (which is FINE if you know about it up front and decide it's a good tradeoff for other things), but I have gotten the impression Canon tries to hide this from its users, e.g., by making it impossible to shut off even if someone might want a bit of "fisheye" effect for some reason. "As long as they don't do that with an L lens..." was my thought bubble, but then this lens came out.

So here's my next thought, based on something someone else wrote upthread: This could be a case analogous to the 100-500. There was a hue and cry about it being "only" 7.1 at 500mm but the point was made that it was essentially just a 100-400 with the ability to extend another 100mm albeit without increasing the _absolute _mm diameter of the entrance pupil. Obviously, looked at _that_ way it's a freebie, and it's a more capable lens than the EF 100-400 (assuming optical quality is as good, and from what I hear, it absolutely is). Similarly, I saw an implication this was a 16-35 with 2mm added to the low end--distorted and software corrected--but within the 16-35 range, basically as good as the old lens. If so, well all to the good. (FWIW I own one of the RF 15-35 2.8s. Was trying to decide between a used EF 16-35 2.8 and a new 4.0, either to be used with adapter, and the salesman upsold me into the RF. No regrets!)

But I'd like to see some more openness as to what's going on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Similarly, I saw an implication this was a 16-35 with 2mm added to the low end--distorted and software corrected--but within the 16-35 range, basically as good as the old lens. If so, well all to the good.


That's basically how I viewed it, and was pleasantly surprised that I actually get an extra 2.5mm at the wide end. I swapped my EF 16-35/4L IS for the RF 14-35, mainly as a smaller/lighter option when I'm not packing the EF 11-24/4L. Admittedly, I was a bit miffed upon first learning of the forced distortion correction but I got over it, helped in part by knowing that I don't shoot JPG and I don't use DPP for RAW conversions (except when forced to by a camera too new for DxO support), so the correction won't be forced for me.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2021)

well, 

comparing the cost of RF100-500 vs EF100-400 II and the cost of RF14-35 vs EF16-35 4L IS 

shows that these "freebies" cost a lot!


----------



## SteveC (Nov 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's basically how I viewed it, and was pleasantly surprised that I actually get an extra 2.5mm at the wide end. I swapped my EF 16-35/4L IS for the RF 14-35, mainly as a smaller/lighter option when I'm not packing the EF 11-24/4L. Admittedly, I was a bit miffed upon first learning of the forced distortion correction but I got over it, helped in part by knowing that I don't shoot JPG and I don't use DPP for RAW conversions (except when forced to by a camera too new for DxO support), so the correction won't be forced for me.


I'm one of those oddballs who shoots L+RAW. 99% of the time the jpeg is satisfactory. The RAW is there in case I feel the need to tweak.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 22, 2021)

tron said:


> well,
> 
> comparing the cost of RF100-500 vs EF100-400 II and the cost of RF14-35 vs EF16-35 4L IS
> 
> shows that these "freebies" cost a lot!


Fair enough! My choice of words was quite poor.

They're added capabilities that don't take away other _capabilities_, though, so griping about them as if they "ruin" the lens (like many did with the 100-500) is off base.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2021)

tron said:


> well,
> 
> comparing the cost of RF100-500 vs EF100-400 II and the cost of RF14-35 vs EF16-35 4L IS
> 
> shows that these "freebies" cost a lot!


It’s not what it costs, it’s what it’s _worth_.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Fair enough! My choice of words was quite poor.
> 
> They're added capabilities that don't take away other _capabilities_, though, so griping about them as if they "ruin" the lens (like many did with the 100-500) is off base.


I have myself RF 100-500 so I hope you have no hard feelings about my comment  (I could not resist!)


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s not what it costs, it’s what it’s _worth_.


Maybe but I could not resist commenting about the freebies  as explained above. And you have to admit that Canon added about 50% to the cost of the EF lens...

EDIT: Also I do have the RF100-500 so I do not disagree about the usefulness of these lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 23, 2021)

tron said:


> I have myself RF 100-500 so I hope you have no hard feelings about my comment  (I could not resist!)


I think we're on the same page here.

Yeah, they're taking the opportunity to jump their prices during this transition!

I actually bought a 100-400 II right before they announced the RF 100-500. And am still happy about it. Because it has one feature the RF 100-500 will never have: The ability to use it on my M series cameras. Which I have done.

People have said that there's likely no _compelling_ reason to switch if you have the EF lens; in this case I have a compelling reason _not_ to switch and it's nothing to do with any of the considerations discussed here.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have the complainers looked at the price of the EF 11-24/4? At the wide end, the RF 14-35 sits at the halfway point between that and the EF 16-35/4 (at least, based on my DxO processed images giving an FoV of ~13.5mm), and it’s much closer to the latter in price.
> 
> The L-series RF lenses are more expensive than their EF counterparts, sometimes substantially so. But they generally offer meaningful improvements for that extra money. An extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500, IS on the 24-70/2.8, an extra 2mm on the wide end of the 14-35/4 IS, a lighter and much more compact 70-200/2.8, etc. The 24-105/4 didn’t seem to offer any significant improvements, but it launched at the same price as it’s EF predecessor.
> 
> At the other end of the cost spectrum, the RF system offers some excellent budget lenses (as long as you’re willing to give up a stop or two of light, which if you’re upgrading from an older DSLR can be compensated by the significant ISO noise improvements in newer cameras). The 600/11 and 800/11 give unprecedented reach in an OEM lens at that cost, the new RF 100-400 is small, light, and delivers great optical performance at low cost, then there’s the 16/2.8 as an inexpensive ultrawide option. I think it’s truly impressive that you can get a three-lens RF kit spanning 16-400mm (16/2.8, 24-105 non-L, 100-400) for $1300.


The EF 11-24mm f/4 lens is in the 'dream lens' category, an awesome lens with a price to match! Would love one of those! 

Looking at what you've written about the new RF lens range, and thinking about Dustin Abbot's comment about Canon being 'more adventurous', I think we're seeing a pattern here. It looks like Canon is trying to innovate more, to differentiate its new lens range from the previous EF range and possibly from the offerings of other brands. The pattern of 'adding that bit extra' in functionality and performance seems to almost be a theme, but that's also leaked into the pricing department too!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> It looks like Canon is trying to innovate more, to differentiate its new lens range from the previous EF range…


Of course. Canon has led the ILC market for nearly 20 years, with 45-50% market share each year for over a decade. By far the largest ‘installed base’ in the ILC market today comprises Canon DSLR owners. Canon wants to entice those folks to buy MILCs, and differentiated lenses for the new system are part of that strategy.

The RF 28-70/2, launched with the R system, is a good example. A ‘world’s first’ lens, essentially replacing a bag of primes, to appeal to event/wedding photographers. The more prosaic 24-70/2.8 came later, and added IS. The newer, relatively inexpensive RF lenses or a different sort of differentiation. I do believe Canon is teeing up a low cost, entry level FF MILC.


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 23, 2021)

SteveC said:


> As I've been thinking about what I said yesterday, I think a large part of my gut-reaction to what's happening here is that to me it seems "sneaky." The lens has severe optical distortion and it's being papered over with software (which is FINE if you know about it up front and decide it's a good tradeoff for other things), but I have gotten the impression Canon tries to hide this from its users, e.g., by making it impossible to shut off even if someone might want a bit of "fisheye" effect for some reason. "As long as they don't do that with an L lens..." was my thought bubble, but then this lens came out.
> 
> So here's my next thought, based on something someone else wrote upthread: This could be a case analogous to the 100-500. There was a hue and cry about it being "only" 7.1 at 500mm but the point was made that it was essentially just a 100-400 with the ability to extend another 100mm albeit without increasing the _absolute _mm diameter of the entrance pupil. Obviously, looked at _that_ way it's a freebie, and it's a more capable lens than the EF 100-400 (assuming optical quality is as good, and from what I hear, it absolutely is). Similarly, I saw an implication this was a 16-35 with 2mm added to the low end--distorted and software corrected--but within the 16-35 range, basically as good as the old lens. If so, well all to the good. (FWIW I own one of the RF 15-35 2.8s. Was trying to decide between a used EF 16-35 2.8 and a new 4.0, either to be used with adapter, and the salesman upsold me into the RF. No regrets!)
> 
> But I'd like to see some more openness as to what's going on.


I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it, a 16-35 with 2 mm more corrected through software. I'm not sure if Canon were trying to be sneaky, or if they just didn't want to have people who don't really know what they are doing turn off the distortion correction and then wonder why their images were distorted. I do agree, though, that it would be nice to be able to turn it off. Apparently Fuji and others have been doing a similar thing for a few years; I'm not sure whether or not they provide any way to turn off the distortion correction or not. 

The RF 15-35 f/2.8 sounds like an awesome lens in every way.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course. Canon has led the ILC market for nearly 20 years, with 45-50% market share each year for over a decade. By far the largest ‘installed base’ in the ILC market today comprises Canon DSLR owners. Canon wants to entice those folks to buy MILCs, and differentiated lenses for the new system are part of that strategy.
> 
> The RF 28-70/2, launched with the R system, is a good example. A ‘world’s first’ lens, essentially replacing a bag of primes, to appeal to event/wedding photographers. The more prosaic 24-70/2.8 came later, and added IS. The newer, relatively inexpensive RF lenses or a different sort of differentiation. I do believe Canon is teeing up a low cost, entry level FF MILC.


It most certainly looks like Canon is planning a low cost, entry level FF MILC, judging by the focus on lenses in this tier. If that comes, that would place even more doubt on the release of an APSC RF camera.


----------



## MerlinX38 (Jan 12, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> I will buy one soon or later. I need the higher mag and like the SA control. Chris Frost mentioned the shift would be small at macro distance (5:40) and it won't be "terrible an issue" ( free quoted @7:20).
> 
> At the moment I use a Sigma 105 macro and the RF100 will be probably better.
> If I would own a EF 100, I maybe won't buy one.


Do yourself a favor and buy the EF lens! The focus shift is more severe than you think. I own both lenses and can assure you that it is a bad lens...


----------

