# Patent: Canon RF 90mm f/2.8L IS Macro & RF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 27, 2018)

> Hi-Lows-Note via Northlight Images has uncovered a patent for an RF mount macro lens. The optical formula is for an RF 90mm f/2.8L IS Macro. Northlight points out that the image stabilization group (L12) is further forward than the normal positioning for IS groups.
> Japanese Patent Application No. 2017-108266 shows two different optical formulas.
> *Specification and lens arrangement of embodiment 3*
> Focal length...



Continue reading...


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 27, 2018)

Moving the IS forward? What would that help with?


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 27, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> Moving the IS forward? What would that help with?


I don't know, but it might work better with IBIS for macro ;-) ;-)


----------



## Drainpipe (Dec 27, 2018)

I swear if they update the MP-E for the RF mount I’ll jump off EF so fast.


----------



## melgross (Dec 27, 2018)

Just for once, I’d like to see a lens actually meet the published specs in length and speed. It’s always shorter for longer lenses, and longer for shorter lenses, and it’s always slower. So it figures that this 90mm f2.8 is really an 86mm f2.87.


----------



## chik0240 (Dec 27, 2018)

A bit off topic but I don’t get it why am actual 86mm lens will be named 90mm instead of 85?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 27, 2018)

melgross said:


> Just for once, I’d like to see a lens actually meet the published specs in length and speed. It’s always shorter for longer lenses, and longer for shorter lenses, and it’s always slower. So it figures that this 90mm f2.8 is really an 86mm f2.87.


The formulas are demonstrating a possible lens configuration and seldom give a focal length of a actual production lens. All of them have tested to match specifications that I've seen, a few people test them to other specs, such as distance to subject and find different values, but those are invalid tests, even if they sound reasonable. For example, a test at MFD for a Macro sounds reasonable, but lens focal length measurements are always at infinity.


----------



## Ale_F (Dec 27, 2018)

I think it's better to specify that both lens (90mm and 100mm for approximation) were 1:1 Macro lens


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 27, 2018)

chik0240 said:


> A bit off topic but I don’t get it why am actual 86mm lens will be named 90mm instead of 85?



From my experience, they usually round up. Or they choose a focal length that is better for marketing. In my opinion "85mm" is generally marketed as a portrait lens, whereas macro lenses over the years have tended to be 90mm or 100mm.

You could line up 5 different "50mm" lenses, and they'll likely all be a slightly different focal length.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 27, 2018)

I am just glad to see some more RF lenses and ones that again are very useful.


----------



## vdhamer (Dec 27, 2018)

What's with the "back focus" of 16mm while the flange-to-sensor distance is 20mm?
Does one design's last lens stick 4mm deep into the body (unlike the other design)?
Or was the patent filed when the flange distance was not finalised yet?


----------



## melgross (Dec 27, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The formulas are demonstrating a possible lens configuration and seldom give a focal length of a actual production lens. All of them have tested to match specifications that I've seen, a few people test them to other specs, such as distance to subject and find different values, but those are invalid tests, even if they sound reasonable. For example, a test at MFD for a Macro sounds reasonable, but lens focal length measurements are always at infinity.



Please. I’ve seen hundreds of reviews of lenses in 5+ decades, as well as having benched more than a few myself. Perhaps a handful has matched published specs.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 28, 2018)

melgross said:


> Please. I’ve seen hundreds of reviews of lenses in 5+ decades, as well as having benched more than a few myself. Perhaps a handful has matched published specs.



When benching focal length I presume you either measure the distance from the front element to the sensor plane, or measure field of view and back calculate, but how in the world would you bench f number? Somehow gauge the diameter of the aperture as viewed through the front element?


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 28, 2018)

Drainpipe said:


> I swear if they update the MP-E for the RF mount I’ll jump off EF so fast.


Also add 180mm macro to that list, I just need a good aps-c RF based camera with 5x macro and 180mm macro just to jump ship from EF for good.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 28, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Also add 180mm macro to that list, I just need a good aps-c RF based camera with 5x macro and 180mm macro just to jump ship from EF for good.


There are so many different things that specific users want, but so little time to do them all. I expect Canon to try and hit as many specialized uses as they can in the next 2 years, and a true Macro lens should be one of them. The 35mm is not a true 1:1 macro, and 180mm is probably to physically large. 90 - 120 mm might be the sweet spot.


----------



## Drainpipe (Dec 28, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are so many different things that specific users want, but so little time to do them all. I expect Canon to try and hit as many specialized uses as they can in the next 2 years, and a true Macro lens should be one of them. The 35mm is not a true 1:1 macro, and 180mm is probably to physically large. 90 - 120 mm might be the sweet spot.



I love the MP-E, but I think it could definitely use an update. I don’t really think anything should change other than the low end of the magnification range. If it started at .5x I think it would be a huge benefit to field shooters. As far as the top end, you can always add extension tubes. In my experience, 3.5x-4x is usually the upper limit in field use.

I’m constantly presented with the dilemma of using the MP-E or a 100L with extension tubes. If I think I’m going to see anything larger than a paper wasp (and they’re even hard to frame at 1x) I take the 100L. The 100L is great, but is nowhere near as sharp as the MP-E. Autofocus at higher mags is inconsistent and nearly useless, so I use it basically the same way I do the MP-E, moving back and forth until I hit where I want.

This all said, a 90-120mm that went to 2x could be interesting. Add a couple of tubes and you’re into the 3x-4x range. Make a proper white L macro and include a drop-in magnifying element a-la the Raynox 250 and similar. I’m sure this would be a huge lens though... Ok, enough pipe-dreaming


----------



## hne (Dec 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> When benching focal length I presume you either measure the distance from the front element to the sensor plane, or measure field of view and back calculate, but how in the world would you bench f number? Somehow gauge the diameter of the aperture as viewed through the front element?



How about focus at infinity, take a picture of a small light source a known distance from the sensor plane and measure the diameter of the resulting bright circle?

If you cannot get hold of a true point light and don't know the expected size (because you don't know the real focal length), take two identical ones at a known distance from each other and you have a scale reference so you can compensate for the size of the light. Two 3mm LEDs on some perf board would suffice.

If focused at true infinity, the horizontal image angle should be 2*atan(26/(2*f)) for a rectilinear lens and close to image centre, magnification of oof light sources at 50*f distance become small enough (roughly 5% of image height for f/2) that distortion effects on reasonably modern lenses become smaller than the precision you get from counting pixels.


----------



## hne (Dec 28, 2018)

hne said:


> How about focus at infinity, take a picture of a small light source a known distance from the sensor plane and measure the diameter of the resulting bright circle?
> 
> If you cannot get hold of a true point light and don't know the expected size (because you don't know the real focal length), take two identical ones at a known distance from each other and you have a scale reference so you can compensate for the size of the light. Two 3mm LEDs on some perf board would suffice.
> 
> If focused at true infinity, the horizontal image angle should be 2*atan(26/(2*f)) for a rectilinear lens and close to image centre, magnification of oof light sources at 50*f distance become small enough (roughly 5% of image height for f/2) that distortion effects on reasonably modern lenses become smaller than the precision you get from counting pixels.



Ah. This was a macro lens. Then everything gets really tricky. The above is using the assumption that at a reasonable distance, the lens behaves in a way close enough to that of an ideal lens, where 1/f=1/o+1/i

Mea culpa


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 28, 2018)

Drainpipe said:


> I love the MP-E, but I think it could definitely use an update. I don’t really think anything should change other than the low end of the magnification range. If it started at .5x I think it would be a huge benefit to field shooters. As far as the top end, you can always add extension tubes. In my experience, 3.5x-4x is usually the upper limit in field use.



I wonder how many MP-E 65 users actually use it primarily in the field? I don't think it was really designed as a field lens, it really is far more at home clamped to a serious tripod at home. Once you get down to 5x you're pretty much required to stick to f/2.8 because of diffraction which means your depth of field almost doesn't exist, so unless you're shooting perfectly flat things you absolutely need to stack, and that's no fun out in the field


----------



## JoTomOz (Dec 28, 2018)

So I’m guessing there is some reason why it seems all 1:1 macro lenses are no faster than f 2.8? For me if the 90mm was even f2 it would double as a portrait lens, making it far more versatile.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I wonder how many MP-E 65 users actually use it primarily in the field? I don't think it was really designed as a field lens, it really is far more at home clamped to a serious tripod at home. Once you get down to 5x you're pretty much required to stick to f/2.8 because of diffraction which means your depth of field almost doesn't exist, so unless you're shooting perfectly flat things you absolutely need to stack, and that's no fun out in the field



I primarily use it outside, in the 1x-2.5x range, so diffraction isn't an unsurmountable problem. As for tripods, I don't like them for the MP-E when I don't focus stack. When chasing creatures I often have to poke the lens inside a plant or bush, getting such an angle with a tripod would be impossible.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 28, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are so many different things that specific users want, but so little time to do them all. I expect Canon to try and hit as many specialized uses as they can in the next 2 years, and a true Macro lens should be one of them. The 35mm is not a true 1:1 macro, and 180mm is probably to physically large. 90 - 120 mm might be the sweet spot.


True, these two lenses shown in patents will be bread and butter macros for Canon just like the EF 100mm f/2.8 duo have been. For photographing butterflies having that 180mm macro even if its f3.5 or f4 combined with EOS-R sized body(just add IBIS to make lens compact without IS) would be a good combo for butterflying. Pretty sure at this point we won't see replacement to Canon's current EF 180mm L lens.


----------



## Drainpipe (Dec 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I wonder how many MP-E 65 users actually use it primarily in the field? I don't think it was really designed as a field lens, it really is far more at home clamped to a serious tripod at home. Once you get down to 5x you're pretty much required to stick to f/2.8 because of diffraction which means your depth of field almost doesn't exist, so unless you're shooting perfectly flat things you absolutely need to stack, and that's no fun out in the field



I think you would be surprised. While the MP-E is great on a tripod, it’s an excellent field lens if you have some practice with it. With the MT-24EX/MT-26RT it’s one of the most convenient solutions I’ve ever used since the flash heads move with the front of the lens.

While it is a good lens at 5x, I would say that there are much more capable microscope objectives that also cost less. Yes, you lose aperture control, but again diffraction is such an issue you didn’t have it to begin with really. I’ve found that Nikon objectives are reasonably priced, very sharp, and relatively distortion-free. Not saying that the MP-E can’t be used for this, but I think microscope objectives provide a much better result. I’ve stacked quite a few times with both, and much prefer the microscope objectives.

Attached is my microscopy rig, of course without lighting and subject. I use a specimen manipulator to move the subject as opposed to the camera. I’ve also attached one of my best results with it.

This all being said, and trying to stay on topic, this patent definitely isn’t for the MP-E’s successor. It is probably a workhorse lens that Canon could also sell to the masses as a good portrait lens as well. From my original comment, it’s just wishful thinking


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 28, 2018)

hne said:


> How about focus at infinity, take a picture of a small light source a known distance from the sensor plane and measure the diameter of the resulting bright circle?
> 
> If you cannot get hold of a true point light and don't know the expected size (because you don't know the real focal length), take two identical ones at a known distance from each other and you have a scale reference so you can compensate for the size of the light. Two 3mm LEDs on some perf board would suffice.
> 
> If focused at true infinity, the horizontal image angle should be 2*atan(26/(2*f)) for a rectilinear lens and close to image centre, magnification of oof light sources at 50*f distance become small enough (roughly 5% of image height for f/2) that distortion effects on reasonably modern lenses become smaller than the precision you get from counting pixels.


I like the idea, but I imagine there would be quite a bit of uncertainty in the apparatus (given that we are talking about f number to the hundredths place).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2018)

Drainpipe said:


> Attached is my microscopy rig, of course without lighting and subject. I use a specimen manipulator to move the subject as opposed to the camera. I’ve also attached one of my best results with it.


Nice shot! Also, i like your rig..... gotta love bellows and rails


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> True, these two lenses shown in patents will be bread and butter macros for Canon just like the EF 100mm f/2.8 duo have been. For photographing butterflies having that 180mm macro even if its f3.5 or f4 combined with EOS-R sized body(just add IBIS to make lens compact without IS) would be a good combo for butterflying. Pretty sure at this point we won't see replacement to Canon's current EF 180mm L lens.



I have been using my P/S camera lately for “microscope mode” with auto focus stacking it works surprisingly well, but it is no substitute for the 100L. If the new version is even better than the old one, then it will be a fantastic lens.


----------

