# A Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro gets a mention [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 1, 2020)

> I have been told by an anonymous source that a Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro lens is in the hands of select photographers with an announcement coming this year.
> No further details about the lens have been given. It’s pretty obvious we’re going to get a native macro lens for the RF mount, and an f/2 lens would be a great addition to the RF lineup.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jun 1, 2020)

Fabulous I was hoping they would bring something like this out .


----------



## ozwineguy (Jun 1, 2020)

Bring it on! I love macro, but especially now I have more time at home. The RF35mm macro is ok, but this would be with me all the time, especially if it also has a focus limiter so I can use it on the street from a distance too.


----------



## padam (Jun 1, 2020)

If a lens like that comes out, my guess would be 2000$


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 1, 2020)

F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


----------



## padam (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


It's called progress. If you only need f/2.8 just buy the EF lens for way cheaper.
Olympus did make a Zuiko 90mm f2 macro lens for the OM-system and it is fabulous for portraits as well.
It becomes more versatile, focuses better in dim conditions, etc.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 1, 2020)

I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).

I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.


----------



## Jstnelson (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


I have seen so many people use the EF 2.8L as their primary portrait lens. It's stabilized, super sharp, great focal length for portraits, and it's affordable. It's an amazing all around lens and people buy it that wouldn't otherwise spend that much on a dedicated macro lens. If Canon makes a 100mm F/2 macro that takes amazing portraits for much less than the 85mm f/1.2 and it happens to also be an amazing macro lens, its going to appeal to so many more buyers than just macro photographers.


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).
> 
> I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.


Makes sense, but for venomous snakes I like the bit of extra reach. However, more than 100mm is too much because the DOF becomes thinner.
I prefer a Canon RF version of the Laowa 100mm 2:1 macro. That means with Canon weather sealing, autofocus, auto-aperture, IS, coatings and sharpness. For macro photographers having a 2x magnification is way more useful than a F2 aperture. Besides that I don’t want the extra weight that comes with F2. 
Additionally a RF 50mm/60mm macro L would be perfect for situations where more work room and DOF is needed.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


For macro yes, for a 100mm lens...no


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 1, 2020)

That's the lens I've been waiting for !


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 1, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Enough with the IS, enough with the macro. Just announce a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2.2, and 24/2.8 that prioritize compactness over everything else, with image quality second, and then we can start carrying our R's around 24/7 in our backpacks. The jokey 35/1.8IS Macro is too big to have with you constantly. Leica's made 35/1.4's half that size.


I have and use the Summilux 35 asph a lot.
But its size cannot be compared to a 35 mm with AF, IS and other electronics inside (diaphragm, control ring etc...).
Yet, I'm also hoping for compact, lightweight high quality RF lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


Because macro is not the sole purpose of the lens. Easy to stop down. I’d imagine there are people who’d appreciate being able to also use it for portraits. The wide aperture capability makes it more versatile.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jun 1, 2020)

Now we just need a Helicon extension tube type attachment that does automatic focus stacking. If there are EOS R options out there let me know. This lens and the R5 will definitely expedite my move to the R system. I have been doing more macro work lately and as mentioned the EF is a great lens already. I also use it for walking around when that focal length works. It is light, snappy and very sharp. A f2 version would be welcome and would be great for portraits as well. 

Bob


----------



## tcphoto (Jun 1, 2020)

Finally, a lens that I would use on a daily basis but I'm sure that it'd be twice the price of the EF version. The F2 would make for a brighter viewfinder and also produce beautiful closeup and portrait images.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 1, 2020)

Imagine a world where f/2 becomes the standard


----------



## IcyBergs (Jun 1, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Imagine a world where f/2 becomes the standard



2 is the new 2.8


----------



## padam (Jun 1, 2020)

tcphoto said:


> Finally, a lens that I would use on a daily basis but I'm sure that it'd be twice the price of the EF version. The F2 would make for a brighter viewfinder and also produce beautiful closeup and portrait images.


It's an electronic viewfinder, it won't become any brighter as long as there is enough gain on the sensor to sustain it (but it will be less noisy in dim light).


----------



## padam (Jun 1, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> And how big is the FF sensor compared to FT/mFT?
> This would mean a different behaviour in crop factor and light gathering.
> So a Zuiko 90mm f2 macro would be better to compare with a 180mm f/3.5L Macro, wouldn't it?


It was a full-frame lens for the film cameras, maybe you could have looked it up...


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 1, 2020)

padam said:


> It was a full-frame lens for the film cameras, maybe you could have looked it up...


Yeah, missed that. My post already deleted. I thought it was a FT lens.


----------



## David_E (Jun 1, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> _I have been told by an anonymous source that a Canon RF 100mm f/2L IS USM Macro lens is in the hands of select photographers..._


First RF lens to grab my attention. I use the EF 100mm macro via an adapter, but would likely buy this lens for the R5.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


Why lug two lenses around (100 macro and 100 f/2) if one lens can work in both categories?
I like the 100mm focal length (close shots of nature, landscape) and I like at least 1:2 close up capabilities.
I am waiting for such a lens for a very long time and IS will help a lot e.g. for my RP and surely in conjunction with IBIS.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 1, 2020)

padam said:


> If a lens like that comes out, my guess would be 2000$


Was my first guess too in the moment I read the headline - hopefully they put some
of these dollars into keeping it at reasonable size and weight.
High probability that I will pay 2k and have the allround lens for my shooting needs
(landscape, townscapes, close-up of nature and things, low light settings).
IS + IBIS + f/2 + great high ISO quality + DPAF = "a pure dream"

Off topic: the last two or three days I used the EOS RP and the non-IS USM macro
and I was blown away how good AF acquisition is. Now I can make the photos
I ever wanted, e.g. crop plants waving in the wind - servo AF helps a lot in these
situations.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 1, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> 2 is the new 2.8


LOL True - but there is a certain irony in the Bodies getting a little smaller and lighter, and the lenses getting much bigger and heavier.


----------



## DrToast (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?



Just because a lens has macro capability, you're not required to only use it as a macro lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 1, 2020)

Now bring that APS-C sized RF camera and we are golden.


----------



## shawn (Jun 1, 2020)

This is a super smart move on Canon's part. Would love to have this lens to carry around on my next trip. It's also a great wedding photography lens as it can do portraits and detail shots with equal aplomb. Looking forward to this one for sure!


----------



## richperson (Jun 1, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> 2 is the new 2.8



If you shoot Canon. It sure looks to me like Canon is smartly providing the same lenses as everyone else, but at 1/2 to 1 stop faster. Once all the RF lenses come out that is going to be hard to compete with. A lot of pros will want that extra speed and/or shallow DOF.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 1, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Now bring that APS-C sized RF camera and we are golden.



I'll take "Things that are never gonna happen" for $1,000


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


Some may use it for other shots besides macro. Like portraits.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?



but it can also double as a portrait lens. Especially if it can focus quickly. I would rather than a f2 macro than an f2.8 macro and 85 F1.8.

But of course I ain’t everyone.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 1, 2020)

This will be a wonderful lens for portrait use, as well as high magnification work. However, the "RF 35mm f1.8 IS macro" has only 1:2 maximum magnification  and is thus *not* a true macro lens. Therefore it is very possible that the 100mm version also has a 1:2 maximum magnification. But whether it turns out to be 1:2 or 1:1 it will still be a wonderful lens to own for portrait and high magnification use. 

So thank you Canon for coming out with such wonderful lenses! Now just get your R5 and R6 into all our hands, please!


----------



## IcyBergs (Jun 1, 2020)

richperson said:


> If you shoot Canon. It sure looks to me like Canon is smartly providing the same lenses as everyone else, but at 1/2 to 1 stop faster. Once all the RF lenses come out that is going to be hard to compete with. A lot of pros will want that extra speed and/or shallow DOF.


Yeah its really a smart move to position themselves against the competition and gives R shooters a range of options EF shooters never had, from f2 zoom perspective. 

Would be nice if eventually f2.8 moved down market and became the new f4 in terms of budget L zooms but thats *very* wishful thinking


----------



## SteveC (Jun 1, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> 2 is the new 2.8



Or 7.1 becomes the new 5.6.

Depends on which end of the market, I suppose.

More seriously I'm happy to see this come to the RF, but of course it will be too much for some people (as in, "Wow!!! but I can't afford that!"), luckily both the 2.8L and the 2.8 no-L will work fine on an RF body with extension-tube style adapter. (But now cue the kvetching from people who won't use an adapter.)


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Jun 1, 2020)

f/2 on a macro lens is also useful for avoiding diffraction blurring at extreme magnifications when using focus stacking. Although you really need to get to 3-4x before that would be an issue at f/2.8, at which point a 1:1 macro lens is already probably not your best choice...

But yeah, my 100mm macro is my portrait lens on the odd occasion that I need one. I got some pretty nice result's at my buddy's wedding (_not_ the primary photographer). I've also heard them recommend specifically for portraits of babies, and babies are pretty ugly, so the shallow depth of field must be great to pretty them up.


----------



## tcphoto (Jun 1, 2020)

padam said:


> It's an electronic viewfinder, it won't become any brighter as long as there is enough gain on the sensor to sustain it (but it will be less noisy in dim light).


Thanks, I do not care for an electronic viewfinder.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 1, 2020)

tcphoto said:


> Thanks, I do not care for an electronic viewfinder.



Then why are you commenting in an RF lens thread!?!?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).


How does 90mm give you _more_ room?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 1, 2020)

Kit. said:


> How does 90mm give you _more_ room?



I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


Doubles up as an awesome portrait lens.

(Sorry if you’ve already got this reply. Haven’t read all comments yet!)


----------



## SteveC (Jun 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.



Aren't you assuming that the 90mm won't have the same amount of focus breathing? (And yes, as a user of the 100 mm non-L I agree, it's an annoying amount of focus breathing.)


----------



## tcphoto (Jun 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Then why are you commenting in an RF lens thread!?!?


Because I knew that it'd annoy someone.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?



A lot more desirable for portraits as a second use, at least, IMO  I never feel specially atracted by macro lenses, but if it is an f2, it changes a lot.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> A lot more derisable for portraits as a second use, at least, IMO  I never feel specially atracted by macro lenses, but if it is an f2, it changes a lot.


I'm the same way. The reason I would consider it would be for portraits because of f/2. The fact that it is also macro (if it does 1:1) just gives more bang for the buck. f/4 macro would be an instant no from me.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.

With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]




The main difficulty with such a lens design is weight. Most people who don't do macro seriously won't lift weights, something I generally recommend to folks who want to use a 180mm+ macro lenses as holding one steadily enough on a pro body in awkward cantilevered body positions for ten hours straight is close to impossible without the proper power ratios. My guess is that the redesigned big whites might have led to designs with elements pushed rearward on the lens to improve handheld shooting. If so, this lens will not be much harder to hold and position despite the added weight and it is a design I would be interested in if I were moving to the R series cameras, which I don't currently plan on. If I used it more, perhaps I would consider that but the 180mm L Macro is my most-used lens these days by an order of magnitude.

I suspect Canon has held off on development of a few "goodies" of interest to advanced amateurs in order to dangle carrots to migrate them to the new base, and the percentage sold to advanced amateurs is the majority of sales of macro lenses. Hence why Canon thinks of macro lenses as amateur lenses: it's not that pros don't buy them, it's that since pros aren't the primary market they can't do "sky's the limit" designs because the costs would exceed most buyers' means. If you've wondered why the 100mm f/2.8 L is not all much better than the 100mm f/2.8 USM, well, there ya go. So don't expect this lens to be massively sharper, or have over-the-top bokeh, or be too much more expensive, it likely isn't in the cards. I would guess ~$1400 upon release, similar to a 180mm Macro, and for largely the same reasons (size and number of glass elements)--the 100mm f/2.8 L started around $800 before coming down a bit over time, while the previous two versions were $400-500 to start, ignoring inflation calculations.

In any case, I am all for value-added lens designs like this. It's why I am sticking with Canon. They may not always make the very best of X, where X is a particular desirable, but they're a smartly-run company that produces high value, well-integrated products and plans strategically to stay in the photography business for the long haul. That's worth considering in a post-COVID world where travel and tourism drop and the camera business is likely to take another big hit.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 1, 2020)

USM gets a thumbs up from me!


----------



## lglass12189 (Jun 1, 2020)

WOW Thanks Canon for the chance to sell my perfectly good 100 Macro L that I paid 900 for and works with an adapter just to replace it with a ~$2,000. 100 Macro 2.0. NOT IN MY LIFETIME


----------



## Bonich (Jun 1, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


The EF 100 2.8 IS Macro is the most used lens on my EOS R, mostly used wide open.
I would appreciate 2.0!


----------



## Bonich (Jun 1, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> Makes sense, but for venomous snakes I like the bit of extra reach. However, more than 100mm is too much because the DOF becomes thinner.
> I prefer a Canon RF version of the Laowa 100mm 2:1 macro. That means with Canon weather sealing, autofocus, auto-aperture, IS, coatings and sharpness. For macro photographers having a 2x magnification is way more useful than a F2 aperture. Besides that I don’t want the extra weight that comes with F2.
> Additionally a RF 50mm/60mm macro L would be perfect for situations where more work room and DOF is needed.


Sorry, DOF in Macro is not influenced by focal length at all! DOF is only defined by aperture and magnification.


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 1, 2020)

lglass12189 said:


> WOW Thanks Canon for the chance to sell my perfectly good 100 Macro L that I paid 900 for and works with an adapter just to replace it with a ~$2,000. 100 Macro 2.0. NOT IN MY LIFETIME



I appreciate that Canon is trying to differentiate themselves from pumping out the same cookie cutter, bread and butter lenses that everyone else is introducing.

That's the great thing about the R system in general - it works great with EF glass without any perceivable drawbacks. A 100 F/2 is a lust worthy lens that appeals to a broader user base. It will be expensive, but it would be awesome for those who can it afford it (if it comes to fruition).For those who can't, just buy the old 2.8


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 1, 2020)

This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L _plus 2:1 magnification_, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.


----------



## Canfan (Jun 1, 2020)

scottburgess said:


> I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.
> 
> With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]
> 
> ...





Agreed!
RF mount means that this lens could possibly be shorter as well. I really think this will sell very well.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.


The EF 100 Macro IS version has f=77mm @1:1, the EF 180 Macro has f=119mm @ 1:1.
I am sure you do not want a "true macro" extending 100mm and loosing two stops aperture.
The relevant features are sharpness and smooth rendering, big aperture, lens collar !!!, (sometimes) fast AF, (sometimes) IS, possibly some sealing


----------



## melgross (Jun 1, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> I have seen so many people use the EF 2.8L as their primary portrait lens. It's stabilized, super sharp, great focal length for portraits, and it's affordable. It's an amazing all around lens and people buy it that wouldn't otherwise spend that much on a dedicated macro lens. If Canon makes a 100mm F/2 macro that takes amazing portraits for much less than the 85mm f/1.2 and it happens to also be an amazing macro lens, its going to appeal to so many more buyers than just macro photographers.


This would be particularly good for those who take portraits of nose hair.


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 1, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L _plus 2:1 magnification_, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.



I don't think this release means they won't also release other cheaper macro lenses.

I like to do handheld focus bracketing, and F/2 would allow me to halve the shutter speed without bumping ISO, which means a cleaner image with less motion blur. It will also make for a more interesting lens for all of those other times that I'm not shooting strict 1:1 macros. I say bring it on...


----------



## Bonich (Jun 1, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> This is disappointing for me. F/2 means that the potentially most useful and versatile macro lens - a spiritual successor to the EF 100L for the RF mount - will now be *much* more expensive, for little if any actual benefit. An f/2.8 lens with all the attributes of the EF 100L _plus 2:1 magnification_, now that would have me a lot more interested. A longer RF macro lens, 150 mm or 180 mm, would also be difficult to resist. But f/2? Wrong feature on the wrong lens.





Canfan said:


> Agreed!
> RF mount means that this lens could possibly be shorter as well. I really think this will sell very well.


I do not expect a 100 Macro to be shorter on an R mount at all.
My experience with macro is to use as often as any possible some kind of support to boost technical quality and composition. The very most important feature is a lens collar to get maximum variety in landscape and portrait orientation even very low over ground (body touching the ground/ water)!
Many great shots are taken wide open, so I would appreciate 2.0 (for this I love the EF 100 IS more than the EF180).


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).
> 
> I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.



How does a shorter lens give more room to work with?


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 1, 2020)

[="Architect1776, post: 834701, member: 379741"]
How does a shorter lens give more room to work with?
[/QUOTE]
I think he means wider field of view at the same distance. Very useful if you prefer “macro shots with context”.



scottburgess said:


> I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.
> 
> With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. [See attached example, 1/250s @ f/6.3 w/ 180mm L Macro handheld while near the ground cantilevered over mud. This won't work at 1/125s.]
> 
> ...


The only advantage of F2 for serious macro photographers is focus stacking at extreme magnifications.
In all other scenarios you don’t need F2. Especially not to maintain good shutterspeeds for handheld shooting. For macro photography F2 gives paperthin DOF. Unless out of focus blur is your subject it is not useful.
Flash and/or tripod against motion blur will give you much better results. For most macro photography situations you want ISO 100 and F8 to F16 to achieve the best results.

From a financial perspective I get why Canon would go for a more versatile option and please a bigger audience. However, as a macro photographer I don’t want trade offs for macro. There are enough options for portrait photography.
F2.8 is more than enough. A F2.8 lens optimised for F8-F16 is more useful.
I prefer a RF 100mm F2.8 Macro IS USM Macro L. If Canon wants to offer something better than the EF version I want them to add 2:1, the balance more towards the rear element, less weight and sharpest between F8 and F16. A tripod collar is nice, but the third party one for the EF version is good enough.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Jun 1, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> I prefer a RF 100mm F2.8 Macro IS USM Macro L. If Canon wants to offer something better than the EF version I want them to add 2:1, the balance more towards the rear element, less weight and sharpest between F8 and F16. A tripod collar is nice, but the third party one for the EF version is good enough.


If you're going to 2:1, you can't get additional sharpness between F8 and F16, as you are diffraction-limited. Even at 0.5x magnification, diffraction is going to start becoming an issue (depending on sensor).


----------



## stevelee (Jun 2, 2020)

When I first got my 6D2, my first full-frame DSLR, I used my 100mm non-L macro lens for portraits as a temporary measure (since I already owned the lens). I didn't care much for the results, which somehow to me look a bit too "clinical" (as I grope for a word to express my subjective reaction). At f/2.8 the background was plenty blurry and had a decently natural look. I just didn't care what it did for the subject. I really like the lens as a macro, and it doubles OK for a short telephoto. When Canon had a nice discount on refurbs, I got the 85mm f/1.8, so I have no need to use the macro for portraits any more, and I prefer the results with the 85mm.

I don't plan to get an R series camera anyway. But given my EF experiences, I would be unlikely to spring for an expensive and heavy 100mm macro that doubles for portraits. So f/2 seems more like something for bragging rights than anything. No offense to anybody lusting after one, certainly.


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 2, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> If you're going to 2:1, you can't get additional sharpness between F8 and F16, as you are diffraction-limited. Even at 0.5x magnification, diffraction is going to start becoming an issue (depending on sensor).


The F8 to F16 (F11 is my favourite) is for the normal macro and close-up photography using 1:1/1:1,5/1:2 to achieve a nice DOF on full frame. On APS-C that would be more towards F8.
Beyond 1:1 is hard. The struggle/balance between DOF and diffraction. The extra magnification between 1:1 and 2:1 is nice to have without diopter/rings. I usually don’t go beyond 1,5:1.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 2, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> The F8 to F16 (F11 is my favourite) is for the normal macro and close-up photography using 1:1/1:1,5/1:2 to achieve a nice DOF on full frame. On APS-C that would be more towards F8.
> Beyond 1:1 is hard. The struggle/balance between DOF and diffraction. The extra magnification between 1:1 and 2:1 is nice to have without diopter/rings. I usually don’t go beyond 1,5:1.


I find the slight softness from diffraction often worth the tradeoff. When in doubt (and with a stationary subject), I will run tests at different apertures and see what I like best. Then I'll sometimes use a rail and do focus stacking. At macro range, moving the focus changes the magnification, so stacking has limited range if you do that.

But, hey, I just thought of a possible way to get a better look for portraits with a macro lens: shoot at f/22 or f/32 and get a flattering softness from diffraction. Of course you'll want everything in the background to be 100 feet away or more.


----------



## jdavidse (Jun 2, 2020)

wockawocka said:


> USM gets a thumbs up from me!



Wouldn't it be better if it were the new Nano USM tech?


----------



## Etienne (Jun 2, 2020)

I'd rather they made a lighter, cheaper 100 f/2L IS and a 100 f/4L IS macro.
These two together would probably be cheaper and lighter than one 100 f/2L IS macro.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 2, 2020)

I would like to have 200mm for a macro lens, working distance is very important when shooting butterflies and insects outdoor, something like Nikon 200mm F4 macro


----------



## brad-man (Jun 2, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I'd rather they made a lighter, cheaper 100 f/2L IS and a 100 f/4L IS macro.
> These two together would probably be cheaper and lighter than one 100 f/2L IS macro.


Yup. It seems my RF collection is not going to grow quite as quickly as I supposed. I'm a bit skeptical that this lens will be released, as it will be prohibitively expensive for many. I'm glad there's not a damn thing wrong with my 100L.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 2, 2020)

If this CR1 rumour ends up being true, one has to applaud Canon for their innovation. A Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS USM would fill a huge range of purposes for certain photographers (myself included). As several posters have already pointed out, it could make a great portrait lens.

I owned the Canon EF 100mm USM (non L / non-IS) for some years … I was particularly glad with the macro images I got from this lens. However sometime after its release, I upgraded to the newer Canon EF 100mm macro. The main reasons were:

Improved AF – for non macro work in particular (the non L AF is often not accurate at longer working distances, so it made it much less useful as a portrait / candid event lens)
IS helps for certain handheld photos (at around 2:1 in particular.. the closer one gets to 1:1 – the more stability of subject and absolutely no camera movement is important)
Better build quality


A RF 100mm f/2 macro would indeed be larger and likely cost notably more than the EF 100mm IS L. (I bought my EF 100mm IS L second hand but in as new condition, and I tested it prior to purchase).

The EF 100mm L IS macro’s AF is far superior to the non L’s AF – particularly in the non-macro working range. AF is superior in terms of accuracy, consistency and speed. I expect any RF 100mm to continue or even be better still (due to being optimised for DPAF, etc).

While nature photography is my primary photographic passion, I regularly get asked to take photos at events (celebrations and/or parties, church events, camps, occasions).

When I do ‘event’ photography, I use a combination of the EF 100mm IS L on one body, and another lens on another body (whether that be a zoom lens, the 24mm f/2.8 or a 50mm) to cover multiple perspectives / composition possibilities.

A RF 100mm f/2 would be ideal for this purpose (provided its AF and rendering are good). The EF 100mm f/2.8 L lens’s rendering is really great. I also find I am able to hand-hold it all day.

Having said that, I was thinking / expecting that the one lens I might NOT upgrade to is the EF 100mm IS L, but to use that with the RF-EF mount adapter. I have even used my 100mm f/2.8 IS L on my M5 with the EF-M/EF adapter quite well (though it is not comfortable hand-holding for me over extended periods).

So, would I buy the RF 100mm f/2?

It depends what other RF lenses Canon will be announcing and releasing. If the rumoured 70-135mm f/2 becomes reality, that would be a dream portrait zoom.. especially if bokeh, rendering and AF are great (which I expect they would be).

I own the EF 70-300mm L – but could see myself upgrading to the RF 100-500mm in time. I don’t need large apertures at focal lengths longer than around 100mm for my photography.

The difference in bokeh / background blur from f/2.8 to f/2 (at 100mm, as well as some other focal lengths close to it) is significant. Having said that, if the RF 100mm f/2 is unjustifiably expensive, I imagine that I will stick with the EF 100mm L macro and an adapter, as it is a great lens.

These are great and exciting times to be a photographer (from a technical / gear perspective). Somewhat limited by the current COVID-19 pandemic and associated isolation factors. But that too will pass.

I look forward to seeing what the future will be… a R5 is currently in my sights.

Regards

PJ


----------



## deleteme (Jun 2, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?


Not unique but adds versatility.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 2, 2020)

Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate all the different perspectives.

I agree 100 f2 would be an awesome portrait lens and perhaps that’s the primary intended duty rather than macro?

And/or the thinking for f2 design is to differentiate from the excellent existing 100mm f2.8 L IS, to get us all to buy a new lens instead of adapting the existing, as alluded to above.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 2, 2020)

shawn said:


> This is a super smart move on Canon's part. Would love to have this lens to carry around on my next trip. It's also a great wedding photography lens as it can do portraits and detail shots with equal aplomb. Looking forward to this one for sure!


Keen to understand how this lens would render out of focus areas, transitions, contrast, etc.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 2, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I'm a bit skeptical that this lens will be released, as it will be prohibitively expensive for many. I'm glad there's not a damn thing wrong with my 100L.



Canon makes both an RF 28-70mm f/2L and an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. I wouldn't rule out Canon doing something similar here. As I noted in another thread, taking a lens like the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro and porting it to RF (add 24mm to the barrel, upgrade mount electronics, and voila) would be easy & profitable.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 2, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon makes both an RF 28-70mm f/2L and an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. I wouldn't rule out Canon doing something similar here. As I noted in another thread, taking a lens like the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro and porting it to RF (add 24mm to the barrel, upgrade mount electronics, and voila) would be easy & profitable.



So far every RF lens (apart from the f/1.2s) have had something extra compared to they EF counterparts. The 15-35 has a mm extra on the wide end and IS, the 24-70 has IS, the 70-200 collapses, the 35mm has 'macro' and f/1.8 instead of f/2. And finally the 100-500 gets 100mm extra on the long end. The 24-105L is the lens closest to its EF sibling.

So the straight forward update you're talking about isn't what I would expect from an RF 100mm L macro. Personally, I would have preferred 2:1 like the Laowa over f/2.0.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 2, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So far every RF lens (apart from the f/1.2s) have had something extra compared to they EF counterparts.



At this stage Canon has two goals: convince photographers to switch over to RF, and drain their EF stock. Making RF lenses offer something extra at a premium helps both goals. When the switch is over, Canon could bring in the equivalent lenses.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 2, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> At this stage Canon has two goals: convince photographers to switch over to RF, and drain their EF stock. Making RF lenses offer something extra at a premium helps both goals. When the switch is over, Canon could bring in the equivalent lenses.



To your general point: I think Canon will only introduce equivalent lenses that don't overlap with existing RF lenses. So no RF16-35 non-IS, no non-collapsing RF70-200 f/2.8. Doing an RF85 f/1.8, but not an RF85 f/1.4L, etc.

For my macro lenses (100L, MP-E65) there would need to be a big improvement for me to replace them with RF variants. But an updated 85mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 I would buy pretty much a microsecond after pre-orders open.

The RF100-500mm would need to be cheaper than the EF100-400mm + 1.4xIII, preferably the same price as just the 100-400.

I could see a RF100mm non-L f/2.8 USM at $600-$700 make sense next to the RF100mm L f/2.0 IS USM, but not 100mm L IS USM at $900-$1000. That would require the existing stock of the EF 100mm L being nearly depleted to force new buyers to get the RF variant.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 2, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?



You are not alone. Many people, and even robots, are asking what's the point of ANYTHING these days. It's normal after lockdown!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 2, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> To your general point: I think Canon will only introduce equivalent lenses that don't overlap with existing RF lenses. So no RF16-35 non-IS, no non-collapsing RF70-200 f/2.8. Doing an RF85 f/1.8, but not an RF85 f/1.4L, etc.



Canon makes four EF 16-35mm lenses, two EF 24-70mm lenses, four EF 70-200mm lenses, and five EF 70/5-300mm lenses. In the last group, there are two lenses overlapping in everything except one is an L and the other is not. Apparently this strategy is working well for Canon, so I see no reason Canon will not carry it over to the RF mount.

Regarding the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, it does not accept tele extenders. This is important for some photographers, e.g. I don't shoot >200mm enough to spend two grand on a zoom that ends at 400mm. I did buy an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM & a 2x extender. Not having this option in RF is one of the reasons I'm not quick to switch mounts.



koenkooi said:


> I could see a RF100mm non-L f/2.8 USM at $600-$700 make sense next to the RF100mm L f/2.0 IS USM, but not 100mm L IS USM at $900-$1000. *That would require the existing stock of the EF 100mm L being nearly depleted to force new buyers to get the RF variant.*



Exactly!


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 2, 2020)

stevelee said:


> When I first got my 6D2, my first full-frame DSLR, I used my 100mm non-L macro lens for portraits as a temporary measure (since I already owned the lens). I didn't care much for the results, which somehow to me look a bit too "clinical" (as I grope for a word to express my subjective reaction). At f/2.8 the background was plenty blurry and had a decently natural look. I just didn't care what it did for the subject. I really like the lens as a macro, and it doubles OK for a short telephoto. When Canon had a nice discount on refurbs, I got the 85mm f/1.8, so I have no need to use the macro for portraits any more, and I prefer the results with the 85mm.


Macro lenses tend to be very strongly corrected for spherical aberration. It's not sharper exactly, it's harsher - your word "clinical" is good. So your subjective impression is supported by the science.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 2, 2020)

jdavidse said:


> Wouldn't it be better if it were the new Nano USM tech?



I'm not fussed tbh, they're all super fast. So long as it's not STM.


----------



## hmatthes (Jun 2, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Macro lenses tend to be very strongly corrected for spherical aberration. It's not sharper exactly, it's harsher - your word "clinical" is good. So your subjective impression is supported by the science.


Very good description. I love my 100/2.8 macro sometimes for portraits but the 85/1.8 typically is better for my tastes. But my favorite is my 1963 Leica Summicron 90/2.0 for its amazing portrait qualities (lack of clinical harshness, insanely good micro-contrast and bokeh, and slight softness wide open 2.0). With my adapters I use all three on both the R and the Leica SL. I'm loving mirrorless!


----------



## sanj (Jun 2, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon makes both an RF 28-70mm f/2L and an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. I wouldn't rule out Canon doing something similar here. As I noted in another thread, taking a lens like the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro and porting it to RF (add 24mm to the barrel, upgrade mount electronics, and voila) would be easy & profitable.


It will certainly be released


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 2, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



This is absolutely great.
A macro f2 100mm lens.
Precision in focus and allowing for a fast 100mm prime at the same time.
Brilliant, Canon is showing what can be done with the RF mount.
Again smoking the Sony system as so lacking in innovation and so 20th century.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 2, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.


I dont have focus breathing with my EF100mm 2.8L IS USM? I did with the non-L version. The EF100 f2.8L IS USM is actually a very underrated lens that others have said is a good portrait lens (not as good as the EF85 f1.4L IS USM) as well as a reasonable macro lens. 
I am surprised this is taking priority over f4L versions of the holy trinity not everyone has a mega bank balance or need 2.8 (Landscape).


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 2, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> This is absolutely great.
> A macro f2 100mm lens.
> Precision in focus and *allowing for a fast 100mm prime at the same time.*
> Brilliant, Canon is showing what can be done with the RF mount.
> Again smoking the Sony system as so lacking in innovation and so 20th century.


Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4
not sure this is RF mount specific. I guess, no one bothered with 100/2.0 macro on Sony mount Before.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Jun 2, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Enough with the IS, enough with the macro. Just announce a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2.2, and 24/2.8 that prioritize compactness over everything else, with image quality second, and then we can start carrying our R's around 24/7 in our backpacks. The jokey 35/1.8IS Macro is too big to have with you constantly. Leica's made 35/1.4's half that size.



I would definitely like to see that. Although the mirrorless bodies have shrunk relative to the full featured DSLRs, the larger diameter of the RF mount has increased the girth of the lenses which while beneficial for the high spec lenses has sort of upset the balance of things somewhat. Although this may seem like a minor complaint one thing it has done is upset the utility of my existing camera bags and the mix of lenses I can reasonably put in one. At present I'm happy to throw in a few of my existing EF glass like the 28/2.8 IS or 100/2 which take up relatively little space but would like some RS primes as well.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Jun 2, 2020)

This is taken surprisingly seriously for a CR1. Although predicting a RF 100mm macro is hardly going out on a limb...


----------



## Valdormar_Hauslendale (Jun 2, 2020)

I can't wait! The *f/2 *would be a great bonus over the current EF *f/2.8.* 
I have used my EF 100 f/2.8L Macro many times for portraits.


_EF 100 f/2.8L Macro_


----------



## deleteme (Jun 3, 2020)

Perfect! When looking for a 100mm lens from Canon many years ago I agonized between the 100mm 2.8 macro or the charming 100mm f2.0. 
This is cake!


----------



## stevelee (Jun 3, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4
> not sure this is RF mount specific. I guess, no one bothered with 100/2.0 macro on Sony mount Before.


Unless you are trying to blur out a background or the like, f/2 is fast, especially in this age of IS and low noise at higher ISO. I don't think even that extra stop is worth the size, weight, and cost on 100mm lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Unless you are trying to blur out a background or the like, f/2 is fast, especially in this age of IS and low noise at higher ISO. I don't think even that extra stop is worth the size, weight, and cost on 100mm lens.


You think it incorrect. Quality of the “blur out background” as you put it is a complex issue. Multiple factors are at play here. 
Extra stop can go a long way in portraiture. 
Look at what RF 85/1.2 is able to deliver. Not even full stop vs F1.4. Anyway... this is more of a “look” issue rather than Extra stop weight and cost. 
I totally understand that portraiture is likely not your thing. But man...that RF 85/1.2 look is marvellous. 
I hope you can appreciate


----------



## stevelee (Jun 3, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You think it incorrect. Quality of the “blur out background” as you put it is a complex issue. Multiple factors are at play here.
> Extra stop can go a long way in portraiture.
> Look at what RF 85/1.2 is able to deliver. Not even full stop vs F1.4. Anyway... this is more of a “look” issue rather than Extra stop weight and cost.
> I totally understand that portraiture is likely not your thing. But man...that RF 85/1.2 look is marvellous.
> I hope you can appreciate


I realize it is a matter of taste. I don't like background blur that looks unnatural and/or calls attention to itself. For me, the point should be to emphasize the subject. Selective focus can do that to a point. We likely disagree as to where that point is.

I've obviously never used or even seen the f/2 100mm macro and don't know how it will be priced. I don't even own a camera it will fit on. I'm just extrapolating a bit from my experience with my f/2.8 macro lens to what I think are reasonable conclusions. I would expect f/2 to be rather useless for macro shooting, so it must be intended for portrait and short telephoto usage. It is possible that the lens is being designed to act differently outside the macro range from the EF versions. If not, I don't think faster, heavier, or more expensive would ameliorate what I don't like about the EF for portraits.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 3, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Not exactly fast at F2.0... Compare to 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or a 105/1.4



I'm not that familiar with other manufacturers' lines of lenses, does any of them make both an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 and a 105mm f/1.4?

In digital era, one could shoot with a fast 85mm lens, and crop a little to get the equivalent of 100mm or 105mm.


----------



## Daan Stam (Jun 3, 2020)

i hope it stays relatively cheap.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not that familiar with other manufacturers' lines of lenses, does any of them make both an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 and a 105mm f/1.4?
> 
> In digital era, one could shoot with a fast 85mm lens, and crop a little to get the equivalent of 100mm or 105mm.


Yeah... my point though is that 100/2 is not that fast for a prime. And macro lenses are generally not so great for portraiture due to being over corrected and produce somewhat clinical look. Even stopped down. All subjective.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 3, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> The only advantage of F2 for serious macro photographers is focus stacking at extreme magnifications.
> In all other scenarios you don’t need F2. Especially not to maintain good shutterspeeds for handheld shooting. For macro photography F2 gives paperthin DOF. Unless out of focus blur is your subject it is not useful.
> Flash and/or tripod against motion blur will give you much better results. For most macro photography situations you want ISO 100 and F8 to F16 to achieve the best results.


Serious photographers know how to write f/2.

You obviously don't shoot live butterflies in the field, or anything else that moves significantly. Tripods are impossible for rapidly moving subjects like these, and to blur the background shallower DOF is often required. Flash often scares the subject off when one is a few inches away, so this is unacceptable for capturing complex behavior. What is required is some skill and experience: f/2 is quite manageable if one places the subject in the plane of focus, and if one knows the behavior of the subject this is straightforward. I manage this quite fine with the shallower DOF that comes from higher magnification, so f/2 at 1x seems generous to me. Maybe you should gain some experience in this area. When you get to the point you can shoot hundreds of different live Lepidoptera razor sharp from eye to wing tip with scales visible in an afternoon, you'll learn that what works for big, still things doesn't for small, fast-moving, skittish things.

Attached is an image captured today as this female is laying an egg on Eriogonum, f/4.5 handheld, natural light, 1x magnification. Subject is less than an inch tall. This skittish species has excellent vision and can easily see an approaching person from 20 feet away. Show us you can do likewise.


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 3, 2020)

scottburgess said:


> Serious photographers know how to write f/2.
> 
> You obviously don't shoot live butterflies in the field, or anything else that moves significantly. Tripods are impossible for rapidly moving subjects like these, and to blur the background shallower DOF is often required. Flash often scares the subject off when one is a few inches away, so this is unacceptable for capturing complex behavior. What is required is some skill and experience: f/2 is quite manageable if one places the subject in the plane of focus, and if one knows the behavior of the subject this is straightforward. I manage this quite fine with the shallower DOF that comes from higher magnification, so f/2 at 1x seems generous to me. Maybe you should gain some experience in this area. When you get to the point you can shoot hundreds of different live Lepidoptera razor sharp from eye to wing tip with scales visible in an afternoon, you'll learn that what works for big, still things doesn't for small, fast-moving, skittish things.
> 
> ...


That is probably because Canon cameras do not show the /, and that’s where I look more often than on forums. It is always great to see someone who thinks he is extremely skilled. Good for you!
You seem to be the expert and I am only someone who observes butterflies while photographing different subjects. What you do is only a small niche in macro photography. 
The example photo is not at F2, so how does it support your claim? I understand that you photograph them in the afternoon for behaviour. That makes sense. For portraits it is the worst time. In the afternoon you don’t need the bigger opening because there is enough available light. And butterflies are indeed “flatter” than most other subjects and having the eye and part of the wing in focus is possible with a shallower DOF. However, the “essence” of the example photo is out of focus (also at F4.5). Stopping down slightly would have been better. 
butterflies are indeed small and fast in flight. Why do you need the very fast shutterspeeds when they are stationary? And why do you need F2 in flight? And approaching skittish species is a different skill than needing F2. 
The only scenario where I can imagine F2 would be nice is when you are further away from the subject and want a blurred background. But still, F2.8 is more than enough, but I prefer photos with more context.

About tripods, yes for macro they are only useful for stationary subjects. Flash can be for both. Most species don’t get scared by flashes. It’s usually the movement or shadow (sometimes created by flashes) that scares them. 
Flash looks better in almost every situation and beyond 1:1 there is no other option. Almost every pro macro photographer uses a tripod/flash/both.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2020)

I keep reading that f/2 isn't fast. On a 35mm lens? Probably not fast. On a 100mm lens? Fast. That's just my opinion. It seems to me that a longer focal length is more forgiving, bokeh wise, than a shorter focal length. Canon's 135mm f/2L is a great example. f/2, at that focal length, is wonderful. While I would not myself select a Macro lens for portraits, a lot of people are very happy with such a selection. I prefer a little pincushion for portraits. Will canon produce an RF 100mm or 105mm non-macro? Who knows. If so, I would absolutely be a buyer of such a slow f/2 leans.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> That is probably because Canon cameras do not show the /, and that’s where I look more often than on forums. It is always great to see someone who thinks he is extremely skilled. Good for you!
> You seem to be the expert and I am only someone who observes butterflies while photographing different subjects. What you do is only a small niche in macro photography.
> The example photo is not at F2, so how does it support your claim? I understand that you photograph them in the afternoon for behaviour. That makes sense. For portraits it is the worst time. In the afternoon you don’t need the bigger opening because there is enough available light. And butterflies are indeed “flatter” than most other subjects and having the eye and part of the wing in focus is possible with a shallower DOF. However, the “essence” of the example photo is out of focus (also at F4.5). Stopping down slightly would have been better.
> butterflies are indeed small and fast in flight. Why do you need the very fast shutterspeeds when they are stationary? And why do you need F2 in flight? And approaching skittish species is a different skill than needing F2.
> ...


Just asking... his photo is not at f/2, but isn't a lens generally sharper as one stops down? Not always, but generally? So if his max aperture started at f/4, wouldn't the photo be less sharp? Hense, isn't it better to have f/2 as a starting point?


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just asking... his photo is not at f/2, but isn't a lens generally sharper as one stops down? Not always, but generally? So if his max aperture started at f/4, wouldn't the photo be less sharp? Hense, isn't it better to have f/2 as a starting point?


I don’t think it will make a lot of difference stopping down a F2.8 or F2 lens to F4.5. F4 as maximum opening is something different indeed. 
The size and weight of a lens is something that matters to me. I don’t want anything that’s bigger and heavier than the EF version. Especially if you have carry it for many hours in a backpack. Besides that, sometimes you have to manoeuvre to the subject in weird poses or hold the camera single handed. So practical usability is also something to consider in the field. Lab-tests are something different.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> I don’t think it will make a lot of difference stopping down a F2.8 or F2 lens to F4.5. F4 as maximum opening is something different indeed.
> The size and weight of a lens is something that matters to me. I don’t want anything that’s bigger and heavier than the EF version. Especially if you have carry it for many hours in a backpack. Besides that, sometimes you have to manoeuvre to the subject in weird poses or hold the camera single handed. So practical usability is also something to consider in the field. Lab-tests are something different.


Well, the EF 135mm f/2L is not a big heavy lens. I doubt a RF 100mm f/2L will be either.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 3, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> And macro lenses are generally not so great for portraiture due to being over corrected and produce somewhat clinical look. Even stopped down. All subjective.



From reading here & there on the Internet, I got the impression the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM is popular with / favored by portrait photographers as well. Then again, it might be subjective, or peculiar to this lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Keep apologizing for Sony lack of innovation and failures.
> Funny how everyone praises f2.8 at 70mm as so fast for low light sports etc. and now all of a sudden f2 is not fast.


who is everyone and what prime are you talking about being F2.8 @70mm?

fast not as In fast focusing. Fast as in larger aperture lens. wider aperture lenses called “fast”
it is a relative term. a 100/1.4 prime lens is “ a fast prime”. 
and the last question: what Sony has to do with all the above?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> From reading here & there on the Internet, I got the impression the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM is popular with / favored by portrait photographers as well. Then again, it might be subjective, or peculiar to this lens.


Yeah.. there is one portrait taken with the EF 100/2.8 Macro L posted on previous page. thats the look I am referring to. 
typical..


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 3, 2020)

Two points to add:

A - Some of my favorite portraits I’ve taken were with the EF 100mm L. But I don’t find myself carrying around the lens outside of macro trips because the aperture is limiting for a prime. This would give me better justification to actually use it more. Oddly, the increased size would make me carry it more.

2 - I’ve been having a hayday with the Laowa macro lenses coming out in EF. Really innovative stuff. But the thing I always miss is Canon’s macro AF capabilities. Nothing has beaten that 100mm L. I had high hopes for the Sigma 70mm, but it’s not even close (and I consider myself a card-carrying Sigma fanboy). Macro AF is hard, and Canon really figured it out. This lens will be welcome.

-tig

PS: Bonus third point… C - The 100m L came out just prior to some of Canon’s advances in lens coatings. While it may sounds dubious, we could see some interesting image quality improvements.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just asking... his photo is not at f/2, but isn't a lens generally sharper as one stops down? Not always, but generally? So if his max aperture started at f/4, wouldn't the photo be less sharp? Hense, isn't it better to have f/2 as a starting point?


That's a useful rule of thumb, but it is not a law of optics. It depends upon the lens design. Tests comparing similar lenses of different speeds will often note that they behave similarly when stopped down to the same opening. I don't know, but I suspect that EF-S and M lenses would be optimized for wider openings than EF and R lenses. Crop cameras take into account diffraction when making automatic settings, or at least they should. (I'm going just by experience, not real tests.) It is quite possible than an f/4 lens would perform better at f/4.5 than an f/2 lens might. Of course a highly corrected, expensive L macro lens might perform better at f/2 than some f/4 lens might perform at any aperture.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 3, 2020)

Focus control accuracy will make or kill this lens, especially with RF focus-by-wire.

When doing stacked macro shots at f/2.0 you need to guarantee that stacking by adjusting focus control will be able to adjust in accurate and small enough steps to be able to deal with the depth of field at f/2.0 (hardly any).

Of course, stackshot owners won't have to worry about this, but for everyone else it's a big deal.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 3, 2020)

Kit. said:


> How does 90mm give you _more_ room?



What I meant (but explained badly) was that for the same set-up (camera on tripod aimed at a lit background for macro photography) it allows slightly larger objects to be photographed and fit within the frame than at 100mm without needing to move the camera back.

I don't do much 'in-field' macro where having more room between you and the small thing is good. I prefer less room.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Where did I say prime?
> You seem horribly lost.


We discuss 100mm f2.0 lens rumour on this thread. it is a Prime lens. You are the one that lost the plot here. It is obvious that you unaware that a “fast zoom” at F2.8 is a “slow-ish” for a prime at around 100mm. Not so fast. It has nothing to do with AF speed as you thought what it was about. 
Suggest you take some photography courses for starters. Keep laughing


----------



## Phil (Jun 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So far every RF lens (apart from the f/1.2s) have had something extra compared to they EF counterparts. The 15-35 has a mm extra on the wide end and IS, the 24-70 has IS, the 70-200 collapses, the 35mm has 'macro' and f/1.8 instead of f/2. And finally the 100-500 gets 100mm extra on the long end. The 24-105L is the lens closest to its EF sibling.
> 
> So the straight forward update you're talking about isn't what I would expect from an RF 100mm L macro. Personally, I would have preferred 2:1 like the Laowa over f/2.0.


To be fare the RF 1.2s did have something extra Over the ef versions, they are sharp as hell at 1.2


----------



## Jing G (Jun 4, 2020)

we need at least 2:1 magnify range, plssssss!


----------



## Joel C (Jun 4, 2020)

If this is a 1:1 aspect I will be able to make a lot of great use out of this. I am very interested in seeing the pricing though...


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 4, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> We discuss 100mm f2.0 lens rumour on this thread. it is a Prime lens. You are the one that lost the plot here. It is obvious that you unaware that a “fast zoom” at F2.8 is a “slow-ish” for a prime at around 100mm. Not so fast. It has nothing to do with AF speed as you thought what it was about.
> Suggest you take some photography courses for starters. Keep laughing



We are talking fast.
Take a class then we can discuss.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> We are talking fast.
> Take a class then we can discuss.


What class would you suggest? Photography or bullshit mastery workshop?
I admit you are pretty good at the latter.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 5, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> *We are talking fast*.
> Take a class then we can discuss.



fast in photography means not what you think it means:

A *lens* with a larger maximum aperture (that is, a smaller minimum f-number) is called a "*fast lens*" because it can achieve the same exposure with a *faster* shutter *speed*. ... *Lenses* may also be referred to as being "*faster*" or "slower" than one another; so an f/3.5 *lens* can be described as *faster* than an f/5.6.

hence my statement : F2.0 is not so fast a lens.


----------



## Valdormar_Hauslendale (Jun 8, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> *SecureGSM , *You sound like a troll.


The more I read, the more I would agree to that. This forum is full of them!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 9, 2020)

Valdormar_Hauslendale said:


> The more I read, the more I would agree to that. This forum is full of them!


I beg your pardon. We do not call people names or encourage such a behaviour around here. Please take your time understanding what the disagreement was about.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd actually prefer a 90mm rather than a 100mm. It may seem a small difference, but 90mm would give me slightly more room to work with than 100mm does, but not too much (60mm or less).
> 
> I also don't see the need to replicate existing EF lenses which work well [edit - I managed to miss the f/2.0 part!]. There's nothing wrong with the current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS , so why not complement it with an RF 90mm macro.



A 90mm lens would actually give you slightly less working distance, and both focal lengths are not optimal no matter what light source you use (unless you're shooting in a studio).


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> ...However, more than 100mm is too much because the DOF becomes thinner.
> I prefer a Canon RF version of the Laowa 100mm 2:1 macro. That means with Canon weather sealing, autofocus, auto-aperture, IS, coatings and sharpness. For macro photographers having a 2x magnification is way more useful than a F2 aperture. Besides that I don’t want the extra weight that comes with F2.
> Additionally a RF 50mm/60mm macro L would be perfect for situations where more work room and DOF is needed.



Depth is a function of magnification and Fstop only -the focal length of a macro lens does not change the depth of field in any significant way.

I do agree that a lens that can reach 2x natively is better than one that has a maximum aperture of F2. The Fstop makes me think that this specific rumor is just that -a rumor. Someone's wishful thinking who already owns the EF version.

Better still would be an MP-E 65mm RF mount lens...


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> I have seen so many people use the EF 2.8L as their primary portrait lens. It's stabilized, super sharp, great focal length for portraits, and it's affordable. It's an amazing all around lens and people buy it that wouldn't otherwise spend that much on a dedicated macro lens. If Canon makes a 100mm F/2 macro that takes amazing portraits for much less than the 85mm f/1.2 and it happens to also be an amazing macro lens, its going to appeal to so many more buyers than just macro photographers.



You just listed all the reasons why I think macro lenses in the 100mm range are useless -cause no one really uses them to shoot at 1x or higher mag...


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> f/2 on a macro lens is also useful for avoiding diffraction blurring at extreme magnifications when using focus stacking. Although you really need to get to 3-4x before that would be an issue at f/2.8, at which point a 1:1 macro lens is already probably not your best choice...



Honestly diffraction isn't much of an issue until you get above 4x mag. Way too many people putting way too much emphases on absolute image sharpness, and most of them lose more detail to poor light quality than I do to diffraction.

Single frame, F11 @ over 3x, uncropped.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I have no experience with that 90mm, but both the 100mm non-L and 100mm L have severe focus breathing and are more like 70-80mm at MFD. So a true 90mm macro would indeed give more room.



The 90mm lens will also lose focal length at minimum focus...


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 11, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> A 90mm lens would actually give you slightly less working distance, and both focal lengths are not optimal no matter what light source you use (unless you're shooting in a studio).



Replied to this previously, and yes, for studio work giving more room around the item at 90mm than 100mm


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 11, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> You just listed all the reasons why I think macro lenses in the 100mm range are useless -cause no one really uses them to shoot at 1x or higher mag...



I do, frequently. 

If they were useless they wouldn't sell so many.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

scottburgess said:


> I do a lot of macro with small critters, particularly insects, and I've been pushing this on the forum for years. Others who do critter macro work have suggested similar things. So apparently Canon continues to listen to their customer base.
> 
> With insects, more light is a huge help as I typically work handheld. The difference in DOF from f/2.8 is less of a problem than one might think, and you still have the option of stopping down. But the chief difficulty is that magnification makes motion and vibration much, much worse. *Obtaining twice the light means halving the shutter speed, and that is often the difference between a keeper and a tosser in this work. *



That's where you lost me, cause no one is gonna shoot at F2 with that lens unless they focus stack, and even then they're gonna have their rig on a tripod so shutter speeds aren't going to be an issue. The only benefit going from F2.8 to F2 is a brighter view finder, something that's almost a non-issue for a camera that has an EVF. Either this rumor is someone's wishful thinking, or Canon is trying to appeal to the large number of people who buy the 100mm L macro lens cause they can use it for portraits. Most people who shoot with a 100mm lens don't use it at minimum focus anyway, since it's a poor focal length for any light source. Not really enough working distance for natural light, and actually too much working distance when using a flash.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> If you're going to 2:1, you can't get additional sharpness between F8 and F16, as you are diffraction-limited. Even at 0.5x magnification, diffraction is going to start becoming an issue (depending on sensor).



That's incorrect. I shoot single frame macro at F11 all the way to 5x and there is a noticeable difference in fine details between F8 and F16. It's not enough to force me to focus stack though. This is roughly 2.5x @ F11 uncrpped, single frame:


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I do, frequently.
> 
> If they were useless they wouldn't sell so many.



They sell because everyone who shoots closeups with them will recommend a 100mm macro lens when someone is seeking advice on what macro lens to buy. I even owned the USM version, and I have a 180mm L that collects dust in my closet. 99.9% of the time the MP-E 65mm is on my camera. Just received my second copy of that lens cause my 13 year old one broke again for a third time (the cable between the electrical contracts and the aperture assembly eventually wears out). Now I gotta send my old one to Canon service for repair.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> I would like to have 200mm for a macro lens, working distance is very important when shooting butterflies and insects outdoor, something like Nikon 200mm F4 macro



This is a live, semi-active butterfly shot above 3x with an MP-E 65mm macro lens. 1 frame, hand held, and un-cropped in post:





Know your subject and you don't have to keep your distance...


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> If this CR1 rumour ends up being true, one has to applaud Canon for their innovation. A Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS USM would fill a huge range of purposes for certain photographers (myself included). As several posters have already pointed out, it could make a great portrait lens.
> 
> I owned the Canon EF 100mm USM (non L / non-IS) for some years … I was particularly glad with the macro images I got from this lens. However sometime after its release, I upgraded to the newer Canon EF 100mm macro. The main reasons were:
> 
> ...



I think you meant 1:2 (1/2 life size) and not 2:1 (2x). I agree that IS doesn't help much, if any, at 1x. Certainly doesn't help if a flash is the primary light source.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> For my macro lenses (100L, *MP-E65*) there would need to be a big improvement for me to replace them with RF variants.



MPE-65 with an RF mount?! Stop it, I can only get so hard...


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> 2 - ...But the thing I always miss is Canon’s macro AF capabilities. Nothing has beaten that 100mm L. I had high hopes for the Sigma 70mm, but it’s not even close (and I consider myself a card-carrying Sigma fanboy). Macro AF is hard, and Canon really figured it out. This lens will be welcome.


When you say "macro AF capabilities" are you actually shooting at 1x or higher mag, or are you just shooting closeups? At minimum focus I wouldn't trust the camera to place the area of acceptable focus where it needs to be.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> What I meant (but explained badly) was that for the same set-up (camera on tripod aimed at a lit background for macro photography) it allows slightly larger objects to be photographed and fit within the frame than at 100mm without needing to move the camera back.


Nope. Macro is defined as projecting a 1:1 scale (life size) image of the subject onto the image plane (sensor or film). At a macro lense's minimum focusing distance (1x mag) an object that is 22mm square will cover an area 22mm square on the sensor no matter what macro lens you use...

P.S. Even when not shooting at 1x there is very little difference in the field of view between a 90mm and a 100mm lens. So little that I doubt you'd ever find yourself shooting with a 100mm lens and wishing it was only 90mm


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 11, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> When you say "macro AF capabilities" are you actually shooting at 1x or higher mag, or are you just shooting closeups? At minimum focus I wouldn't trust the camera to place the area of acceptable focus where it needs to be.



Actually both. I use the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS for both close-up photography (which is really where the 90mm would work better than 100mm) and for true stacked macro photography, using a Stackshot Pro. I also use the MPE-65 and various other combinations of lenses and adapted microscope objectives.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 11, 2020)

I bought the EF 100 f2.8 L macro on launch, my biggest disappointment with it is the fact that it is no faster than my 70-200 f2.8 zoom.

I use it as a general purpose lens in a two lens kit (the 35 f2 IS is the other) and I’d have been much happier with it if it had been an f2 because while I do a little casual macro shooting with it I primarily use it for portraits and product images. And whilst I have zero interest in moving to RF it would have more interest as an f2 than an f2.8.


----------



## Dalantech (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Actually both. I use the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS for both close-up photography (which is really where the 90mm would work better than 100mm) and for true stacked macro photography, using a Stackshot Pro. I also use the MPE-65 and various other combinations of lenses and adapted microscope objectives.



For closeups I carry a 100 to 400 F4 - F5.6 L. I really don't view macro lenses as a viable option for natural light closeup work until the focal length hits 150mm or greater. No idea why you'd consider a 90mm macro lens better for closeup photography over a 100mm lens -the working distances will almost be the same.

The MP-E 65mm and a microscope objective are both manual focusing options. So when are you actually using AF at 1x and higher mag?


----------



## LightCaptured (Aug 17, 2020)

Long time lurker, posting here for the first time because I was wondering if there have been any updates about this lens. 

I have been deciding about whether or not to get the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens or after reading this, it is worth waiting (and likely paying a lot more) for a true RF macro lens. 

If anyone has used their EF 100mm lens on an EOS R or an R5 and still has a lot of good things to say about it, then perhaps I will look into it. 

Thanks!


----------



## Joel C (Aug 17, 2020)

LightCaptured said:


> Long time lurker, posting here for the first time because I was wondering if there have been any updates about this lens.
> 
> I have been deciding about whether or not to get the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens or after reading this, it is worth waiting (and likely paying a lot more) for a true RF macro lens.
> 
> ...


Looks like they put all their eggs in the RF 85mm f2 macro lens that is coming out on Halloween. I did pre order one. I currently use a 100mm ef on the EOS R and it does work fine for portraits, products and things not moving a lot.


----------



## LightCaptured (Aug 17, 2020)

I do plan to get that RF 85mm f2 macro. It looks like a great lens, and is far more affordable than the RF 85mm f1.2 (and I already have the RF 50mm f1.2).

I wanted a good macro lens for my R and R5 (whenever I finally get my preorder). I like the RF 35mm, but, it only magnifies so close. The EF 100mm has so many good reviews, I was curious about how it performs on the R (or R5). Especially if the wait for a similar RF lens might be a long time.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 17, 2020)

LightCaptured said:


> Long time lurker, posting here for the first time because I was wondering if there have been any updates about this lens.
> 
> I have been deciding about whether or not to get the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens or after reading this, it is worth waiting (and likely paying a lot more) for a true RF macro lens.
> 
> ...


The Laowa f/2.8 100mm 2x is an option in native RF mount. I've had mine for only a few weeks, and the lack of electronic coupling is still vexing (although the focus guide on my EOS R is actually pretty good), but image quality is absolutely stellar. It's also quite a bit cheaper than Canon lenses - recommended!


----------



## LightCaptured (Aug 18, 2020)

Thanks for the suggestion! I will look into that one too.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 18, 2020)

LightCaptured said:


> Thanks for the suggestion! I will look into that one too.


From previous discussions on other threads, the consensus from those who already have the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM (or the non-L non-IS version) is that it works seamlessly on the EOS R and RP with the adaptor. The view also seems to be that it works _so_ well that Canon may not prioritise an RF version any time soon. Given the new IBIS on the R5, even allowing for the limited advantage of IS on a macro lens, the EF lenses are likely to be fabulous additions to the R5. I like the 2x aspect of the Laowa, but query how 'up close' you actually want to get.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 18, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> BTW I found that appealing when I heard of it, though I've also used macros with closeup lenses, extension tubes, and teleconverters. You can get closer than 1:1 when you need to.


Keeping the f/2.8 at closer than 1:1 is ... fun.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 18, 2020)

I wonder if this lens rumor was ultimately just a mistaken reference to the 85mm F/2 IS Macro? Only off by 15mm and otherwise identical description.

Hoping Canon will soon release a true 1:1 macro for the R series though. Definitely would have a place in my kit, I love even the 0.5x of the R5.


----------



## Joel C (Aug 18, 2020)

LightCaptured said:


> I do plan to get that RF 85mm f2 macro. It looks like a great lens, and is far more affordable than the RF 85mm f1.2 (and I already have the RF 50mm f1.2).
> 
> I wanted a good macro lens for my R and R5 (whenever I finally get my preorder). I like the RF 35mm, but, it only magnifies so close. The EF 100mm has so many good reviews, I was curious about how it performs on the R (or R5). Especially if the wait for a similar RF lens might be a long time.


That Laowa is a good option that might work as a stop gap, I did not find a personal advantage over the 35mm RF macro for still objects. I am looking forward to the 85mm macro for moving macros (I shoot a lot of underwater subjects that are alive) That's just me though


----------



## LightCaptured (Aug 18, 2020)

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I will have to think on this. Especially because I am sure Canon will eventually release an RF true macro down the road. Especially if they are planning to eventually ease out of EF production and into all RF production. But hearing that the EF 100mm works really well with R cameras is a plus, and something I will keep in mind. I may end-up with that one to hold me over for the eventual true RF macro lens. But I am curious to see how well the RF 85mm f2 performs on flowers and such (the main reason I might use, aside from the occasional portrait).


----------



## Bonich (Aug 19, 2020)

LightCaptured said:


> I do plan to get that RF 85mm f2 macro. It looks like a great lens, and is far more affordable than the RF 85mm f1.2 (and I already have the RF 50mm f1.2).
> 
> I wanted a good macro lens for my R and R5 (whenever I finally get my preorder). I like the RF 35mm, but, it only magnifies so close. The EF 100mm has so many good reviews, I was curious about how it performs on the R (or R5). Especially if the wait for a similar RF lens might be a long time.


I am working with the EOS R adapted to the 2.8 100mm Macro IS for over one year now: It is a great combo! And it will be with the R5 as well (this lens is sharp, you know). All is doing great, AF, IS (if needed). I often use the collar, easy changing landscape vs portrait orientation, ultra low perspectives, ...
This macro lens is the most used from all EF lenses adapted to the EOS R.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 20, 2020)

I very much look forward to purchasing (and then obviously receiving) the Canon R5. I love my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens.. it's been a workhorse for me, both in terms of macro photography, as well as portraits, and events on my DSLRs.

Over the past few years I have even used the 100mm L on a few occasions on my M5 (with the EF-EFM adapter) - and it works extremely well from a functionality perspective, though the ergonomics are not great (as the M5 grip isn't as comfortable for me with larger EF lenses adapted and mounted.

It's great to hear others positive experiences using the 100mm L with the R (and RP) - and indeed even some initial reports of people using it on the R5. I expect the 100mm f/2.8 L lens will continue to serve me well for years to come, as I plan to use it adapted on my R5.

Having written that, though, if there is some amazing feature on a new RF mount macro lens, that might tempt me to upgrade. These features might be 2:1 macro capability and/or a significantly brighter aperture.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 20, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Enough with the IS, enough with the macro. Just announce a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2.2, and 24/2.8 that prioritize compactness over everything else, with image quality second, and then we can start carrying our R's around 24/7 in our backpacks. The jokey 35/1.8IS Macro is too big to have with you constantly. Leica's made 35/1.4's half that size.


With the flagship RF camera now at 45 megapixels, I don't think you're going to see many new RF lenses that have a lot of compromise on image quality. What would be the point of making a lens that doesn't have the resolving capability to perform well on the flagship camera?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 20, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> I very much look forward to purchasing (and then obviously receiving) the Canon R5. I love my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens.. it's been a workhorse for me, both in terms of macro photography, as well as portraits, and events on my DSLRs.
> 
> Over the past few years I have even used the 100mm L on a few occasions on my M5 (with the EF-EFM adapter) - and it works extremely well from a functionality perspective, though the ergonomics are not great (as the M5 grip isn't as comfortable for me with larger EF lenses adapted and mounted.
> 
> ...


On the face of it, there would seem to be no real advantage in having a faster macro lens other than for non-macro use. The depth of field at 1:1 is so tiny that usually you are wanting to risk diffraction with your f-stop instead of wishing you could open up to f/2. Maybe if you are chasing around small animals in the woods using lower magnification, the extra stop and eye auto focus could be handy. If you plan to use your 100mm macro for portraits, then f/2 could blur your backgrounds a little better than f/2.8. When I first got a full frame camera, I tried that with my non-L version. I and some others here have noted this may be less than satisfactory. I used the term “too clinical” for the look. But otherwise it is a great general purpose short telephoto. Using it as a macro lens, I get great results near 2:1 with extension tubes.

So barring some reliable comparison tests showing the RF blowing away the EF L as a macro, you’d need to have some use case, as I suggested above, where the RF would have some advantage for the upgrade to be worth some money.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 20, 2020)

stevelee said:


> On the face of it, there would seem to be no real advantage in having a faster macro lens other than for non-macro use. The depth of field at 1:1 is so tiny that usually you are wanting to risk diffraction with your f-stop instead of wishing you could open up to f/2. Maybe if you are chasing around small animals in the woods using lower magnification, the extra stop and eye auto focus could be handy. If you plan to use your 100mm macro for portraits, then f/2 could blur your backgrounds a little better than f/2.8. When I first got a full frame camera, I tried that with my non-L version. I and some others here have noted this may be less than satisfactory. I used the term “too clinical” for the look. But otherwise it is a great general purpose short telephoto. Using it as a macro lens, I get great results near 2:1 with extension tubes.
> 
> So barring some reliable comparison tests showing the RF blowing away the EF L as a macro, you’d need to have some use case, as I suggested above, where the RF would have some advantage for the upgrade to be worth some money.



I concur, I've seen little benefit using my (non L) 100mm macro for portraits. I actually would prefer a 135 for that anyway, but I don't believe there is a non-L 135.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 20, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I concur, I've seen little benefit using my (non L) 100mm macro for portraits. I actually would prefer a 135 for that anyway, but I don't believe there is a non-L 135.


I have taken nice portraits with my 24-105mm kit lens when I didn’t need a shallow dof. Canon had a nice sale on refurbs, so I bought an 85mm f/1.8 that is surprisingly good. I used it as a walkaround lens when I was trying it out to decide whether to keep it. I liked the results. And I like the look for portraits much better than the macro. For some reason (or no good reason) I’ve never felt much affinity for 135mm. In the film era when I shot only primes, I found that if I took just a 28, an 85, and a 200, that covered everything I wanted to shoot quite well. I could see how shooting farther away with more telephoto flattening could help the looks of people with big noses.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 20, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I have taken nice portraits with my 24-105mm kit lens when I didn’t need a shallow dof. Canon had a nice sale on refurbs, so I bought an 85mm f/1.8 that is surprisingly good. I used it as a walkaround lens when I was trying it out to decide whether to keep it. I liked the results. And I like the look for portraits much better than the macro. For some reason (or no good reason) I’ve never felt much affinity for 135mm. In the film era when I shot only primes, I found that if I took just a 28, an 85, and a 200, that covered everything I wanted to shoot quite well. I could see how shooting farther away with more telephoto flattening could help the looks of people with big noses.



That 85mm is one of the primes I'm having to use for the 35-100mm range with the R5 while I await my 24-105 refurb. (I simply don't own any full frame zooms in that range.) It's probably my favorite prime at the moment.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 20, 2020)

I compared my non-L 100mm macro to my EF 85/1.8 for portraits. The 85mm at f/2 produces substantially better OOF background than does the 100mm at f/2.8. As a result I never use the 100mm as a portrait lens.
A 100/2 macro could change that.
I am considering a RF 85/2 to replace my 100/2.8, 85/1.8 and 50/2.5 macro. That will depend on how sharp the new lens is at macro magnifications. I could live with extension tubes to go beyond 1:2 if it is sharp.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 20, 2020)

Frodo said:


> I compared my non-L 100mm macro to my EF 85/1.8 for portraits. The 85mm at f/2 produces substantially better OOF background than does the 100mm at f/2.8. As a result I never use the 100mm as a portrait lens.
> A 100/2 macro could change that.
> I am considering a RF 85/2 to replace my 100/2.8, 85/1.8 and 50/2.5 macro. That will depend on how sharp the new lens is at macro magnifications. I could live with extension tubes to go beyond 1:2 if it is sharp.



There is (or was?) a 100 mm f/2 non L, non macro; I wonder how it would compare to the 85 f/1.8. When I was buying primes, I went with the 85 instead of the 100 because I already had the 100 (non L) macro.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 21, 2020)

stevelee said:


> On the face of it, there would seem to be no real advantage in having a faster macro lens other than for non-macro use. The depth of field at 1:1 is so tiny that usually you are wanting to risk diffraction with your f-stop instead of wishing you could open up to f/2. Maybe if you are chasing around small animals in the woods using lower magnification, the extra stop and eye auto focus could be handy. If you plan to use your 100mm macro for portraits, then f/2 could blur your backgrounds a little better than f/2.8. When I first got a full frame camera, I tried that with my non-L version. I and some others here have noted this may be less than satisfactory. I used the term “too clinical” for the look. But otherwise it is a great general purpose short telephoto. Using it as a macro lens, I get great results near 2:1 with extension tubes.
> 
> So barring some reliable comparison tests showing the RF blowing away the EF L as a macro, you’d need to have some use case, as I suggested above, where the RF would have some advantage for the upgrade to be worth some money.



Indeed, I generally do NOT need a faster than f/2.8 aperture at 1:1 magnification.
My *usual *use of the macro lens at 1:1 magnification is b/w f/5.6 and f/16. Though some times (e.g. to highlight certain small details in flowers, e.g. *parts *of stamen, or a specific part of an insect, e.g. the tip of a foot, antenna, etc) - I do shoot wide open and creatively use the very shallow depth of field. There are a number of times I would want and use closer than 1:1 functionality in a macro lens.

However, I do regularly use my 100mm L at f/2.8 at non-macro distances. I will also add here, that the L is vastly superior to the non-L in terms of AF accuracy at non macro distances (and I have confirmed this with multiple copies of both the nonL and L 100mm macro lenses). Also, the rendering of the L is slightly better than the non-L, but both lenses are very similar in terms of absolute sharpness.

I have used the 85mm f/1.8mm USM, and it's a very good lens (particularly for the 'budget price'). And yes, it covers that useful 'short-ish' portrait length, and it does have slightly more potential for portrait subject isolation (blur). But I find with a creative mind, one can use the 100mm f/2.8 very effectively (and I'm far from the only one). I have also used the 100mm f/2 USM, which is very similar feel to the 85mm f/1.8 in practical use.

However I find using my 50mm f/1.8 STM and my 100mm f/2.8 L macro are a great two-lens / two-focal-length combination, giving a lot of flexibility for event photography, along with a standard (or wider) zoom in the bag. for events. (I have shot many many events with this 3 body/lens combination). Hence why a RF 100mm f/2 2:1 would help me cover even more ground!

But as I wrote above, I expect to be using my EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens on a R5 for a long time to come!

Regards

PJ


----------



## stevelee (Aug 21, 2020)

I use manual focus almost exclusively in macro range. I’ve never noticed an autofocus problem when I’ve used the non-L for more general use.

My 50mm f/1.4 lens was used for portraits on my Rebel, but I have’t occasion to use it on my 6D2.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 21, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I use manual focus almost exclusively in macro range. I’ve never noticed an autofocus problem when I’ve used the non-L for more general use.
> 
> My 50mm f/1.4 lens was used for portraits on my Rebel, but I have’t occasion to use it on my 6D2.



Yes, I almost exclusively use manual focus in macro range. (Live view and 10x zooming is great for this!) 

What I wrote in my previous post was:
"I will also add here, that the L is vastly superior to the non-L in terms of AF accuracy at non macro distances (and I have confirmed this with multiple copies of both the nonL and L 100mm macro lenses)"
In summary:
- the non-L 100mm auto focus (AF) is not very accurate, reliable or consistent.
- the 100mm L has AF that is much more accurate, reliable and consistent.

For environmental portraits, 50mm can work.. 

PJ


----------



## Frodo (Aug 21, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> In summary:
> - the non-L 100mm auto focus (AF) is not very accurate, reliable or consistent.
> - the 100mm L has AF that is much more accurate, reliable and consistent.


What camera is this with? 
My EOS R focuses quickly and accurately with all my lenses, better than my dslrs. I've never had any AF issues with non-L 100/2.8 on the R.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 21, 2020)

Frodo said:


> What camera is this with?
> My EOS R focuses quickly and accurately with all my lenses, better than my dslrs. I've never had any AF issues with non-L 100/2.8 on the R.


Nor have I on the 6D2.


----------



## StevenA (Aug 21, 2020)

I will buy an RF 100mm f2 L macro lens in a heartbeat.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 21, 2020)

Frodo said:


> What camera is this with?
> My EOS R focuses quickly and accurately with all my lenses, better than my dslrs. I've never had any AF issues with non-L 100/2.8 on the R.



On my 7D, 700D and 350D. 
I bought my 100mm f/2.8L and then sold my 100mm f/2.8 non-L (which was before I bought my 80D and M5).

So I can't vouch for the 100mm f/2.8 nonL's AF accuracy at non-macro ranges, using DPAF, or on the newer DSLRs.
However, I had repeatable experiences of 2 x copies of the 100mm non-L macro on multiple DSLRs, at non-macro ranges... it wasn't always accurate or reliable.
Whereas 2 copies of the 100mm L were much better to AF at non-macro ranges on all my DSLRs (i.e. accurate and reliable, as well as a bit faster too).

I expect the 100mm f/2.8 L will be superb on the EOS R5 (which is my plan for the future).


----------



## Vivid Color (Oct 27, 2020)

I would like an RF update to Canon's 180mm macro.


----------



## Bonich (Oct 29, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Depth is a function of magnification and Fstop only -the focal length of a macro lens does not change the depth of field in any significant way.
> 
> I do agree that a lens that can reach 2x natively is better than one that has a maximum aperture of F2. The Fstop makes me think that this specific rumor is just that -a rumor. Someone's wishful thinking who already owns the EF version.
> 
> Better still would be an MP-E 65mm RF mount lens...


... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...


----------



## Dalantech (Nov 2, 2020)

Bonich said:


> ... an MP-E AF version to focus stack ...



Due to the way that the MP-E is constructed, basically a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube, I doubt we'll ever see an AF version of it.

If you can learn how to control were the depth of field is going to fall in a scene then focus stacking, for the most part, isn't necessary. I took this shot in the heat of the day and although I didn't get close every time I tried I only need to get close once.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (set to roughly 2.5x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT (E-TTL metering, -2/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Denoise AI, and Clarity in that order.



Violet Darter VII by John Kimbler, on Flickr


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 2, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Due to the way that the MP-E is constructed, basically a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube, I doubt we'll ever see an AF version of it.
> 
> If you can learn how to control were the depth of field is going to fall in a scene then focus stacking, for the most part, isn't necessary. I took this shot in the heat of the day and although I didn't get close every time I tried I only need to get close once.
> 
> ...


Beautiful shot, John!  Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?


----------



## RickD (Nov 2, 2020)

Flamingtree said:


> F2 for a macro lens seems a bit over the top. What’s the point?



Could be because they want to appeal to current EF 100mm 2.8 holders to upgrade if they need / want the extra stop. if it was the same as the current 100 macro L, there's no reason for anyone who owns the current EF version to updgrade


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 2, 2020)

RickD said:


> Could be because they want to appeal to current EF 100mm 2.8 holders to upgrade if they need / want the extra stop. if it was the same as the current 100 macro L, there's no reason for anyone who owns the current EF version to updgrade



I wouldn't mind this at all, I know the 100mm F/2.8 has already been a great portrait lens, but making it F/2 would be an even bigger incentive to pick one up as a faster portrait lens alongside an excellent macro lens. 

One of the big audiences for the 100mm macro has always been wedding photographers, I could see them using F/2 to appeal to them as a slightly wider 135mm f/2, which could replace two lenses in their bag with one in a pinch.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 2, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I wouldn't mind this at all, I know the 100mm F/2.8 has already been a great portrait lens, but making it F/2 would be an even bigger incentive to pick one up as a faster portrait lens alongside an excellent macro lens.
> 
> One of the big audiences for the 100mm macro has always been wedding photographers, I could see them using F/2 to appeal to them as a slightly wider 135mm f/2, which could replace two lenses in their bag with one in a pinch.



Of course, there was already a 100 mm f/2.0, though I don't recall whether they ever made an L version of it.

I know in my signature it says they can pry my 100 mm f/2.8 out of my cold dead hands, but I won't be getting this one, at least not as a replacement for that. Because it lives on a Rebel T6i. Besides I typically run mine at f/5.6. (If I need portraits done I use my 85mm f/1.8, another lens they're talking about not quite replacing with a f/2.0.)


----------



## Dalantech (Nov 2, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Beautiful shot, John!  Was this with your home-made diffuser, or has Canon come out with something new in diffusers?



Thanks! It was with a home made set.


----------

