# New Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro features revealed



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 12, 2021)

> As you know, Canon will introduce the first RF macro lens, the Canon RF 100mmf/2.8L IS USM Macro alongside the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM.
> The Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro will feature a new ring called “SA Control” which means you’ll be able to control spherical aberrations in the lens.
> Spherical aberration is present when the outer parts of a lens do not bring light rays into the same focus as the central part. Images formed by the lens at large apertures are therefore unsharp but get sharper at smaller apertures.
> This new lens will also feature 1.4x magnification, which you can see in this patent. The current EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is a 1:1 macro...



Continue reading...


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 12, 2021)

Wow, that looks interesting indeed... and yes!! I was right... as I guessed in the previous post about this lens that the "SA Control" refers to the ability to control / adjust spherical aberration. 
I do hope that this lens will be at least as successful as the amazing EF 100mm f/2.8 (1:1) macro lens, which I have and just love!
Thank you Canon!


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 12, 2021)

Ha, called it. Very interesting innovation. I wonder how it works, optically.


----------



## csibra (Apr 12, 2021)

This will be a more dedicated macro lens than EF version.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 12, 2021)

I would have liked to see some sort of stacking assistance using linear bellow(motorised).


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Apr 12, 2021)

Sounds expensive — I'll wager over twice the price of the RF 85 Macro


----------



## GMAX (Apr 12, 2021)

Shit. So far, I was not interested in to replace my excellent EF100/2.8L.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2021)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Sounds expensive — I'll wager over twice the price of the RF 85 Macro


Way more than that! The RF 85 f2 is $599, the EF 100 L Macro just had a price rise (indeed this is probably why) to $1,299. This new RF macro is going to cost a lot more than the EF version not least of which because it is a much better lens.

I’d put this new lens at $1,995 launch price.


----------



## BPhoto06 (Apr 12, 2021)

First macro lens for the RF system? What about the RF 35mm F/1.8 Macro?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> First macro lens for the RF system? What about the RF 35mm F/1.8 Macro?


Well it is the first dedicated macro lens that actually works at 1:1 or greater, I don’t see how a basic lens with a modest close focusing ability is considered a ‘macro’ lens.


----------



## schaudi (Apr 12, 2021)

Cause the 35mm isn't an actuall Macro - it's just named that way


----------



## BPhoto06 (Apr 12, 2021)

schaudi said:


> Cause the 35mm isn't an actuall Macro - it's just named that way


It is a macro. I have used it before and got great close ups.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 12, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I don't take this spherical aberrations thing. Why should anyone want to have less control than the lens is capable to offer?
I guess this control will give us quick access to focus stacking step control, in short Step Adjustment SA.


----------



## amorse (Apr 12, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> It is a macro. I have used it before and got great close ups.


The 35 is listed as a macro lens and can produce great close ups with great image quality, but its image magnification is 0.5x which is actually less than some lenses not even branded as macro lenses. As an example, I believe the EF 24-70 f/4 has a max magnification of 0.7x. For comparison, this new lens is being rumoured to have 1.4x magnification. So while all of these lenses will give great close ups with great image quality, this 100mm lens is going to be able to get more magnification, meaning those tiny subjects are going to be reproduced a fair bit bigger on the sensor than many other macro lenses. 

It's not that the 35 isn't a good lens, it is, this rumoured lens just gets a lot closer to the subject. How important that is for your photography is an entirely different subject though!


----------



## pape2 (Apr 12, 2021)

Bonich said:


> I don't take this spherical aberrations thing. Why should anyone want to have less control than the lens is capable to offer?
> I guess this control will give us quick access to focus stacking step control, in short Step Adjustment SA.


I guess some portrait photographers wont like how sharp lense is and wants more soft pic 
And some of them dont know how move their target more far from backround,so need more bokeh


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Apr 12, 2021)

pape2 said:


> I guess some portrait photographers wont like how sharp lense is and wants more soft pic
> And some of them dont know how move their target more far from backround,so need more bokeh


The RF 85 ƒ2 macro checks all these boxes, is crazy lightweight and only 600USD. We've been shooting weddings with one and are getting ready to pick up a second one and dump our two 100L's


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Apr 12, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> First macro lens for the RF system? What about the RF 35mm F/1.8 Macro?


Most macro photographers consider a macro lens to 1x magnification or higher. I'd really prefer if they marketed 0.5x as "close focus" and not macro. They'll slap "macro" on anything, including crappy cheap kit zooms.

The 35mm is cool, I really like the lens, the close-focus feature is cool, but it's not really macro.


----------



## schaudi (Apr 12, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> It is a macro. I have used it before and got great close ups.


Nope. I know it is marketed as but per definition isn't one. A lot of manufactures use this word for marketing if the lens gets "pretty" close or at least a lot closer than similar lenses. The rumored 100mm is, as its EF counterpart, a real one.

And by the way: Close Up ≠ Makro


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Apr 12, 2021)

I hope this "spherical aberrations" feature is meant to reduce longitudinal CA. Most modern macro lenses (including the EF 100L macro) do pretty poorly in this regard, and it's important for macro. There are actually some exotic lenses with controls for this that optimize CA correction for different magnifications. Maybe something like that?


----------



## bks54 (Apr 12, 2021)

It is worth reading the following article (specifically the section on spherical aberration) to get a sense of the kinds of adjustments to the appearance of out-of-focus specular highlights that the new RF macro will provide. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh


----------



## melgross (Apr 12, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> I would have liked to see some sort of stacking assistance using linear bellow(motorised).


We have that in some of the cameras. I forget what Canon calls it.


----------



## melgross (Apr 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well it is the first dedicated macro lens that actually works at 1:1 or greater, I don’t see how a basic lens with a modest close focusing ability is considered a ‘macro’ lens.


Most macro lenses used to be 50%, and with an included (most of the time) tube, got to 1:1.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 12, 2021)

I'm not big into optics, but doesn't this sentence sound like SA control could possibly affect diffraction at small apertures? If Canon found a way to combat diffraction for macro photography which is often stopped down, that could be huge. 

"Images formed by the lens at large apertures are therefore unsharp but get sharper at smaller apertures."


----------



## SteveC (Apr 12, 2021)

Wasn't the 85mm 2.0 touted as a macro too?

(Now whether it's a _legit_ macro is another question entirely.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2021)

melgross said:


> Most macro lenses used to be 50%, and with an included (most of the time) tube, got to 1:1.


Or...








Macro photography - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 12, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> ... Very interesting innovation. I wonder how it works, optically.


Very interesting, indeed.
Same curiosity here.
Bring it on, Canon.
Wanna see examples


----------



## DaveGrice (Apr 12, 2021)

Ooooooh, 1.4x macro. Welp, there goes another paycheck.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 12, 2021)

Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from, is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it? It wasn't clear to me whether the quote about spherical aberration in the post came from Canon or was just a definition copied from somewhere.


----------



## AJ (Apr 12, 2021)

Sounds expensive! I'm thinking 1599 USD at launch.


----------



## st jack photography (Apr 12, 2021)

LeeBabySimms said:


> The RF 85 ƒ2 macro checks all these boxes, is crazy lightweight and only 600USD. We've been shooting weddings with one and are getting ready to pick up a second one and dump our two 100L's


I own the new 85mm f2 macro, love it, and I have had the 100L EF L Macro for years. I am a product shooter and I also do portraits and hobby street photos. For me, a real macro lens is generally shooting life size or better. I own several lenses that say "macro" on the barrel, but only one I consider real macro (100 L.) Most professionals will call a true macro anything 1:1 or greater.
The 85 f2 and the EF 100 f2.8 L Macro make beautiful bokeh and are very sharp, but generally the 100mm is not my go-to for portraits as much as I use it for commercial product work. If you are not shooting tiny things like jewelry then the 85 f2 macro is a wonderful macro where 1:1 isn't a major concern. The 85 f2 is amazing, one of my favorite lenses. I use it for commercial, portraits, and street photos.

I blame Canon for not having a good naming system. Only 1x, 2x and up should be called true macro. The others should be called CF (Close Focus) or something similar.

Well, I hate to see this lens, lol, since I bought the $200 control ring adapter to use with my 100L EF and my 16-35 f4 EF. At any rate, I would guess this lens is going to be $1599, or at most will start at $1899 and then drop to $1599 after a year.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 12, 2021)

For the static macro photography I do the (non-L) EF 100 f/2.8 macro has been quite adequate. (By "static" I mean "camera is screwed to a copy stand") No need for the IS the L version brings to the table. But correcting for spherical distortion _and _ 1.4X might make a _big_ difference to me.

Of course I'd have to ditch the Rebel T6i I have bolted to the copy stand, too! Actually, an RP might be almost ideal for this application, since it's such a controlled environment. (No need for whiz-bang autofocus and dozens of exposures per second; in fact I manually focus via tether and my subjects don't move.)

Of course I'd be going from crop to full frame, and that could make a number of differences. Ironically, "reach" matters here at a range of 30-50 centimeters.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 12, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it?


It was mentioned in a Tweet by Nokishita:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...f-100mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-macro.40314/post-888761

Sounds very promising and I hope it will be true.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 12, 2021)

SteveC said:


> But correcting for spherical distortion


I do not know what You expect, but IMO it will adjust the bokeh. This would be very useful for some of my pictures (flowers eg). A 1.4 magnification would be a dream!


----------



## bks54 (Apr 12, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from, is this still speculation or did Canon confirm it? It wasn't clear to me whether the quote about spherical aberration in the post came from Canon or was just a definition copied from somewhere.


It’s based on Nokishita tweet. Very reliable.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 12, 2021)

AJ said:


> Sounds expensive! I'm thinking 1599 USD at launch.



Double it and you'll be closer.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 12, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I'm not big into optics, but doesn't this sentence sound like SA control could possibly affect diffraction at small apertures? If Canon found a way to combat diffraction for macro photography which is often stopped down, that could be huge.
> 
> "Images formed by the lens at large apertures are therefore unsharp but get sharper at smaller apertures."



No, they're just stating the common fact that lenses tend to get sharper when stopped down (_until_ diffraction hits), partly because SA is strongest at large apertures. They're trying to improve wide-open rendering rather than stopped down. There's little that can be done about diffraction because it's a fundamental limit of physics, a direct result of the wave nature of light, rather than any imperfection of the optics.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Apr 12, 2021)

This could be really interesting, or it could be a gimmick ie the touch bar on the Canon R, very interested to see what the real-world application will be


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Apr 12, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> I own the new 85mm f2 macro, love it, and I have had the 100L EF L Macro for years. I am a product shooter and I also do portraits and hobby street photos. For me, a real macro lens is generally shooting life size or better. I own several lenses that say "macro" on the barrel, but only one I consider real macro (100 L.) Most professionals will call a true macro anything 1:1 or greater.
> The 85 f2 and the EF 100 f2.8 L Macro make beautiful bokeh and are very sharp, but generally the 100mm is not my go-to for portraits as much as I use it for commercial product work. If you are not shooting tiny things like jewelry then the 85 f2 macro is a wonderful macro where 1:1 isn't a major concern. The 85 f2 is amazing, one of my favorite lenses. I use it for commercial, portraits, and street photos.
> 
> I blame Canon for not having a good naming system. Only 1x, 2x and up should be called true macro. The others should be called CF (Close Focus) or something similar.
> ...


For us, for weddings, the RF 85 ƒ2 replaces both the EF 100L and the EF 85L 1.4. As you said, 100 is often too long for portraits (especially in tight rooms) but just as frustrating is any 85's lack the ability to close-focus. Who hasn't griped on a job when you have to back-up with an 85? Now, we have a nice portrait lens and great close-focus lens in one value-priced solution. Thank you, Canon!


----------



## Sync (Apr 12, 2021)

bks54 said:


> It’s based on Nokishita tweet. Very reliable.


The quote is actually lifted (and not referenced) from here https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology-of-photography/Black-and-white-films
Regardless, agree on the reliability of the source


----------



## bks54 (Apr 12, 2021)

Shane Sinclair said:


> The quote is actually lifted (and not referenced) from here https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology-of-photography/Black-and-white-films
> Regardless, agree on the reliability of the source


Actually, I was not referring to the quote, but to the question “Where did the info that the SA stands for spherical aberration control come from”. This formation came from Nokishita, as did the images of the new lens showing the SA control.


----------



## bks54 (Apr 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Way more than that! The RF 85 f2 is $599, the EF 100 L Macro just had a price rise (indeed this is probably why) to $1,299. This new RF macro is going to cost a lot more than the EF version not least of which because it is a much better lens.
> 
> I’d put this new lens at $1,995 launch price.


$1399 according to Nokishita.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 13, 2021)

My shopping list is getting longer not shorter... I’m betting it starts at $2200


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2021)

bks54 said:


> $1399 according to Nokishita.


Well there will be a lot of happy people if that is correct.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 13, 2021)

bks54 said:


> $1399 according to Nokishita.


That would make it very tempting, especially with the 1.4 magnification. AUD1,800


----------



## JohnC (Apr 13, 2021)

bks54 said:


> $1399 according to Nokishita.


Somehow I went right by this. If so that is welcome news.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 13, 2021)

I was hoping it was going to be f/2, but 1.4:1 is a nice boost over my 100L. Still hoping they release a 150/180 f/2.8/3.5 at some point and that it can take a 1.4x TC at least.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I was hoping it was going to be f/2, but 1.4:1 is a nice boost over my 100L. Still hoping they release a 150/180 f/2.8/3.5 at some point and that it can take a 1.4x TC at least.


I think you will find it is f2.8 with a 1:1.4 reproduction ratio, that is, it isn’t any faster than your EF L macro, but it magnifies more.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 13, 2021)

As I think more about it...in order to be an improvement over my 24MP crop sensor with EF 100 mm non/L...I'd need to pair it with *at least* a 70 MP full frame.

Or at least, when magnifying 1.4 times instead of 1 time, put the same image across more than 4000x6000 pixels on the full frame sensor as it did on the 24 MP sensor. Maybe my R5 would be enough; the RP certainly wouldn't be.

Otherwise, since I can't use it with my EF crop sensor camera and get that pixel density...not gonna do.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 13, 2021)

DaveGrice said:


> Ooooooh, 1.4x macro. Welp, there goes another paycheck.



Is that 1:1.4 or 1.4:1 ?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 13, 2021)

The danger for Canon is its pricing itself out of the market. So few of the RF lenses are affordable and with it discontinuing so many EF lenses the choices are going down for typical Rebel users that may want a few reasonable choices.


----------



## schaudi (Apr 13, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> The danger for Canon is its pricing itself out of the market. So few of the RF lenses are affordable and with it discontinuing so many EF lenses the choices are going down for typical Rebel users that may want a few reasonable choices.


The price pretty accurate for what u get - those lenses r mostly just incredible and worth there price tag. And despite the fact, that there is no "Rebel Type" RF Kamera on the Market yet (The RP still costs a lot more than the Rebels), the typical Rebel User is probably buying it's lenses on the second hand market usually though. The wide variety of lenses from 30 Years of EF Lenses is still available there and is as good as before. The RF lineup is still pretty new and they can't release ALL Options simultaneously but if they would have startet with cheap lenses, no pro or semipro would have considered switching to RF/R-Cams. 

BTW: With the 35mm and 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 they actually have some decent options. The 35mm cost about the same as the EF 35mm 2.0 used to cost. And take a look at the roadmap - cheaper options are coming


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 13, 2021)

schaudi said:


> The price pretty accurate for what u get - those lenses r mostly just incredible and worth there price tag. And despite the fact, that there is no "Rebel Type" RF Kamera on the Market yet (The RP still costs a lot more than the Rebels), the typical Rebel User is probably buying it's lenses on the second hand market usually though. The wide variety of lenses from 30 Years of EF Lenses is still available there and is as good as before. The RF lineup is still pretty new and they can't release ALL Options simultaneously but if they would have startet with cheap lenses, no pro or semipro would have considered switching to RF/R-Cams.
> 
> BTW: With the 35mm and 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 they actually have some decent options. The 35mm cost about the same as the EF 35mm 2.0 used to cost. And take a look at the roadmap - cheaper options are coming


See my recent post. The advantages of mirrorless are smaller & lighter equipment along with shorter back focus allowing more parallel light paths & lower artefacts. Canon thus far has not made many smaller & lighter lenses and the only lightweight body is the RP with old technology in it. I have the RF 24-240mm lens I was hoping for a single lens option for short breaks but the quality is simply not there so Ive reverted to the RF 24-105mm f4L. Given that in the UK the RF 24-240mm is £ 959.00 it represents poor value for money and you have to buy a lens hood separately! putting the total cost over £ 1,000. The Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM II is currently £ 1,339.00 in the UK, the RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £ 1,719.00 a little over 22% more. The manufacturing costs are not going to be significantly different, in fact the RF version is likely cheaper to produce given its lens design (no internal focusing). Much of Canon manufacturing is automated including lens assembly & the only different factor maybe R&D amortisation but at a unit cost level it would not add 22%. 
Maybe Canon is factoring in lower volumes, maybe its simply better margins either way across the RF & R body lineup costs are significantly increased to the consumer and that in turn will lower volumes by pricing consumers out of the market for your product.


----------



## entoman (Apr 13, 2021)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Sounds expensive — I'll wager over twice the price of the RF 85 Macro


Apparently it will be $1300/£1300 according to Canon Watch.


----------



## hachu21 (Apr 13, 2021)

bks54 said:


> It is worth reading the following article (specifically the section on spherical aberration) to get a sense of the kinds of adjustments to the appearance of out-of-focus specular highlights that the new RF macro will provide. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh


So it means that, at least 2 Nikon lenses has alredy been released with a system that looks similar?


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 13, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Way more than that! The RF 85 f2 is $599, the EF 100 L Macro just had a price rise (indeed this is probably why) to $1,299. This new RF macro is going to cost a lot more than the EF version not least of which because it is a much better lens.
> 
> I’d put this new lens at $1,995 launch price.


If we were playing The Price is Right, I'd go with $1996 to block you in, but since its polite company I'll go $2299. I think their pricing structure is nothing under F4 for less than $2k (nothing with an L on it anyway).


----------



## unfocused (Apr 13, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> ...across the RF & R body lineup costs are significantly increased to the consumer and that in turn will lower volumes by pricing consumers out of the market for your product.


I'm pretty sure Canon has done a lot more analysis of the market that anyone on this forum. From reading your post, it sounds to me like you are missing the target market for the R line, which is primarily enthusiasts with high disposable income. That market is not particularly price sensitive. The consumer line and successor to the Rebel is the M series. Also, keep in mind that the R series is new and has not been fully built out yet. In addition, the pandemic has impacted all aspects of the market and supply chain. As supplies increase and the market returns to normal, we will likely see R system prices settle in at more reasonable levels, just as the D/EF system always did.


----------



## DaveGrice (Apr 13, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> The danger for Canon is its pricing itself out of the market. So few of the RF lenses are affordable and with it discontinuing so many EF lenses the choices are going down for typical Rebel users that may want a few reasonable choices.


In a market where they can't keep the RF lenses or bodies in stock, I think Canon is probably feeling OK about its pricing strategy


----------



## DaveGrice (Apr 13, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Is that 1:1.4 or 1.4:1 ?


Valid question, I assume it was mis-quoted, and that the magnification is actually 1.4:1. If so, I'm pretty excited about that. If it's the other, not so much


----------



## Stuart (Apr 13, 2021)

So Manual spherical aberration control - what will it look like to the photographer?
e.g. if i'm close to my object at f8, then use SA to blur a variable amount of the outer area of the image circle will that even more focus in on to my subject. Like a super portrait lens. Or even a bit like a lens baby playing with out of focus areas for vignette blurring effects.


----------



## lexptr (Apr 13, 2021)

Great! The x1.4 alone would be awesome improvement. I missed the lost "magnification" of 1:1 on APS-C, after moving to full frame. I hope the IQ and IS will be improved too.
The SA control is an odd story. I didn't get the idea yet and thus looks more like excessive feature, adding price, weight and place to break. I hope, I'm wrong. And I will miss the tripod collar for sure.


----------



## AlP (Apr 13, 2021)

Here are some specifications (from Nokishita):

17 lenses in 13 groups
minimum focusing distance: 0.26 m
maximum magnification: 1.4 times
total IS: 5 stops (EOS R), 8 stops (EOS R5)
filter diameter: 67 mm
size: 81.5x148 mm
weight: probably 730 g.


----------



## AlP (Apr 13, 2021)

And a better picture (also from Nokisthita):


----------



## Stuart (Apr 13, 2021)

AlP said:


> Here are some specifications (from Nokishita):
> 
> 17 lenses in 13 groups
> minimum focusing distance: 0.26 m
> ...


So gets a tiny bit closer than the EF version, but is also a little bit longer. However able to give a much larger (1.4 times image)


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 14, 2021)

After having seen the Japanese presentation of the new 100 Macro, one certainty: I WANT IT QUICK !
AS is a  feature.
Even though I didn't understand a single word, but the picture-examples speak for themselves.
PS: I want the R 3 too
PPS: but can't afford both...


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 14, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> After having seen the Japanese presentation of the new 100 Macro, one certainty: I WANT IT QUICK !
> AS is a  feature.
> Even though I didn't understand a single word, but the picture-examples speak for themselves.
> PS: I want the R 3 too
> PPS: but can't afford both...


The auto-translate captions in youtube do a pretty good job.


----------



## David_E (Jul 19, 2021)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> Most macro photographers consider a macro lens to 1x magnification or higher. I'd really prefer if they marketed 0.5x as "close focus" and not macro. They'll slap "macro" on anything, including crappy cheap kit zooms.
> 
> The 35mm is cool, I really like the lens, the close-focus feature is cool, but it's not really macro.


You are correct, as is @schaudi after you. But you’re quibbling over a technical definition, talking about a distinction without a difference.


----------

