# Patent: Optical formulas for Canon RF macro lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2020)

> We’re obviously going to get an RF L macro lens sooner than later, and Canon News has uncovered another patent showing various optical formulas for such a lens.
> *Canon RF 65mm f/2.8*
> 
> Focal length: 65.13mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## sulla (Apr 16, 2020)

Any of those got IS?


----------



## slclick (Apr 16, 2020)

Good news. Personally a great 100-ish macro and a pancake would get me onboard onto the RF train. I don't need IS for a macro lens, as I do nearly 100% on a tripod, ymmv. Plus, won't the bodies be stabilized?


----------



## lbeck (Apr 16, 2020)

Man I hope these come soon, I’d prefer the 100 or 180, and it’d be great if one of them did more than 1:1 mag, I’d love a 1-5x like their manual focuse MP-E 65


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 16, 2020)

Personally I would like to see 180mm f4 IS USM macro over 180mm f2.8 Macro. Sigma already offered similar lens and it was very bulky lens. Now due to shorter flange distance if these lenses offer some additional working distance over their Slr counterparts then I would gladly purchase these lenses along with hypothetical crop sensor based RF camera.


----------



## CJudge (Apr 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Good news. Personally a great 100-ish macro and a pancake would get me onboard onto the RF train. I don't need IS for a macro lens, as I do nearly 100% on a tripod, ymmv. Plus, won't the bodies be stabilized?



The 100 macro makes for a great portrait lens too, and that's where a lot of shooters would benefit from IS. Although with the upcoming IBIS, all of this matters less and less...


----------



## Ruiloba (Apr 16, 2020)

That 180 macro... Is probably on my bag when it comes


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 16, 2020)

IS would be nice in those lenses! (IS+IBIS 4tw!)


----------



## slclick (Apr 16, 2020)

I wish I could find the quote, I think it was from the CEO of Olympus who said there is a limit of how many stops of stabilization is possible due to forces from the Earth's rotation....anyone?


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 16, 2020)

Yay! More patents!

*Just having fun. I know what this sites purpose is and why nothing is materializing in the current global situation.*


----------



## SteveC (Apr 16, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> That 180 macro... Is probably on my bag when it comes



Will it make a sonic boom flying off the shelf into your bag? If not, well, I just can't take this rhetoric seriously.


----------



## miketcool (Apr 16, 2020)

RF 180mm Macro would be a little less cumbersome than my current setup.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> I wish I could find the quote, I think it was from the CEO of Olympus who said there is a limit of how many stops of stabilization is possible due to forces from the Earth's rotation....anyone?











Olympus Says Earth's Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max


It turns out the only thing standing between Olympus and even better image stabilization than the E-M1 Mark II's already insane 6.5 stops... is the




petapixel.com


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Olympus Says Earth's Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max
> 
> 
> It turns out the only thing standing between Olympus and even better image stabilization than the E-M1 Mark II's already insane 6.5 stops... is the
> ...


Well, just wait for better performance. Earth’s rotation is slowing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century.


----------



## lexptr (Apr 16, 2020)

Wow, 180mm f/2.8 is very interesting! Hope it will sport IS. 
Also hope the 65mm will be the MP-E counterpart with improved sharpness.
Switching to R system one day gonna be a budget disaster...


----------



## joseph ferraro (Apr 16, 2020)

Can I hope and hope that there might just be an updated RF 65mm lens like the MPE-65. From my handheld macro perspective IS isn't much of an issue or want, since at +1x or more I feel that it wouldn't have much effect. Anyone on here use the MPE-65 on a EOSr body?


----------



## kcfp (Apr 16, 2020)

Curious on the timeframe history - The date of Canon patent application to date of product announcement? More than a year, less than a year?


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Canon is really hitting it out of the park.
Great superior lenses by far and the new R cameras just blow everything else away.
Glad to see Canon cutting loose and going full speed with the RF Mount system.


----------



## flip314 (Apr 17, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Well, just wait for better performance. Earth’s rotation is slowing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century.



No wonder the days seem to drag on more as I get older!


----------



## picperfect (Apr 17, 2020)

hmm, slightly disappointed. no crazy RF 100/1.2 L IS Macro weighing 5 pounds and priced north of 5000?


----------



## slclick (Apr 17, 2020)

I know many want to use their macro lens as a portrait lens but us macro shooters don't give a damn about it being fast. Hell, make it f/5.6 but make it crazy sharp without aberrations at 1:1 or higher. A middle ground is needed between the 100L and the MP-E 65. Real world usability, handheld and stabilized. Not a beast necessarily needing focus rails, twin strobes or focus stacking to achieve the results but basically an update of the 100 on the RF mount with today's optics.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 17, 2020)

EF 100/2.8 L IS optics dont need an update to RF. they are absolutely fine.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 17, 2020)

RF 180mm f2.8 macro would be great for me, as I prefer to take high magnification/macro photos with long telephoto lenses so I have a good separation to the subject. If it had (optical)OIS it would be spectacular. I know the future R... bodies will have IBIS, but OIS + IBIS is always better. I sometimes use a tripod, but prefer to walk around without one (which would need the best total IS possible).

I am also assuming it has AF, as I'd be surprised if it didn't. With AF & OIS it would allow it to be exceptional for general photos as well as macro use - so exceptional that I might consider having it with a RF 15-35 f2.8 and RF 70-135 f2 as a 3 lens set. It would be nice if they came out with a RF 200-500 f5.6(or 6) to top off the long range end.


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 17, 2020)

I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
> I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
> I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.



Would you want AF or IS in it? The Laowa 100mm EF version finally has electronic apterture, but it pretends to be an EF-S lens, so it's useless for me on my RP. The EF-M 28mm is a good start: IS, separate 1:1.2 mode, builtin ring light. I hope Canon scales that up to full-frame, 50-80ish mm and much, much stronger LEDs. I've been playing with the RAW burst feature on my M6II this week and I'm really starting to appreciate IS and strong video lights.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 17, 2020)

picperfect said:


> EF 100/2.8 L IS optics dont need an update to RF. they are absolutely fine.


Side- sharpness could certainly be improved, at least on mine.
And, if you take a look at "Optical limits" or "Imaging Resource", they seem to confirm my impression.
Yet, for flower macro pictures, where centre-sharpness matters more than side-sharpness, this lens really shines (love mine !).
But Canon has proven in the last few month that they are able to improve even great lenses (RF are almost all better than their EF counterparts).


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Side- sharpness could certainly be improved, at least on mine.
> And, if you take a look at "Optical limits" or "Imaging Resource", they seem to confirm my impression.
> Yet, for flower macro pictures, where centre-sharpness matters more than side-sharpness, this lens really shines (love mine !).
> But Canon has proven in the last few month that they are able to improve even great lenses (RF are almost all better than their EF counterparts).



And for centered macro pictures, the ability to use the CPL filter adapter on an RF mount camera is a big bonus. A new RF macro lens would net to offer something that the 100mm L doesn't offer for me to consider it: more than 1:1 magnification, useable builtin LEDs or a filter slot compatible with the CPL filter in the EF-RF adapter.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 17, 2020)

This is RF mount, so a 100 f/2 IS macro would be more fitting based on what's been released so far. Would make it a more versatile lens IMO.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 17, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
> I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
> I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.


I think the weight of a 180mm f2.8 macro would be OK to handhold. If it had AF and IS with a 45MP R5 with IBIS I would hope I could get good handheld results at high magnification (say 0.5x) but maybe not at 1:1, and I've got a tripod when needed. If there's no AF then I wouldn't buy it as I want the choice of AF and MF. If there's no IS then I'd rely on the 5x(or so) IBIS for whatever it gives.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 17, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> This is RF mount, so a 100 f/2 IS macro would be more fitting based on what's been released so far. Would make it a more versatile lens IMO.


A RF 100 f2 would be a superb lens for portraits or general use. It would probably have a 0.25x or so max magnification. But I would be surprised if they made it a 1:1 macro.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> A RF 100 f2 would be a great lens for them to come out with as a general purpose lens. It would probably have a 0.25 maxMagnification. But I would be surprised if they made it a 1:1 macro. But, then again, I'm rather surprised they're possibly coming out with a 180mm f2.8 macro which (if at 1:1) is also asking quite a lot.



Compare the 100mm f/2 with the 100mm f/2.8 non-L, roughly the same width but a lot more length in the macro version. That could be fixed my making it like the RF35 f/1.8 and use a barrel to make it longer when focussing close.


----------



## bclaff (Apr 17, 2020)

Sorry I'm arriving a little late to this thread.

Note that what is reported as Angle of view is actually the half-angle so you need to double those figures.

Example 5 in JP2020-060660 incorrectly states 1x and 2x; it's actually 0.5x and 1.5x

I find it fun to actually see these in my interactive ray tracer at the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench

Here's a direct link to the 110mm 2x lens.
You can modify the example number or patent number in that URL to get to other patents.
(Some patents are in the drop down list but many are not.)


----------



## BurningPlatform (Apr 17, 2020)

bclaff said:


> Sorry I'm arriving a little late to this thread.
> 
> Note that what is reported as Angle of view is actually the half-angle so you need to double those figures.
> 
> ...


Wow, that is cool. I guess aspherical elements could be problematic, is there enough information in the patents to sort that out?


----------



## bclaff (Apr 17, 2020)

BurningPlatform said:


> Wow, that is cool. I guess aspherical elements could be problematic, is there enough information in the patents to sort that out?


The Optical Bench handles aspherical elements. They display in blue rather than gray.
In that 2x macro lens the 4th element has two aspherical surfaces.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 18, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Would you want AF or IS in it? The Laowa 100mm EF version finally has electronic apterture, but it pretends to be an EF-S lens, so it's useless for me on my RP.


Yes, the Laowa EF similarly didn't work on my EOS R either. I was waiting for their RF mount, but that seems to have caught the coronavirus. I'd love Canon to bring out it's own 100mm (or 90mm - I'm not precious) soon.

Edit: having just checked Venus' website, the Laowa 100mm RF mount actually is now available. How brave do I feel?


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 18, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Compare the 100mm f/2 with the 100mm f/2.8 non-L, roughly the same width but a lot more length in the macro version. That could be fixed my making it like the RF35 f/1.8 and use a barrel to make it longer when focussing close.


If a RF 100mm f2 could get "good enough" macro results with an extension tube then I'm sure you'd be happy, especially since 100mm f2 is a superb prime for general portrait use and the travel weight/size/cost with tube would be low which would be great for longer hiking/backpacking.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 18, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm happy enough with my EF 180mm f/3.5L macro. Was the sharpest black EF lens for a long time, maybe still is? What are other people looking for in a macro lens that this one doesn't do?


Just IS, nothing else , wonderful lens, indeed!


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 18, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Just IS, nothing else , wonderful lens, indeed!


I looked at the Canon patent for the RF 70-200 f2.8, which uses the conventional up&down arrowed lines to indicate the IS lens group. But the macro patents above don't show anything like that, so it looks like they won't have IS (unless I'm missing something?). I sure hope the R5 IBIS is really good.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 18, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> I think a 180mm F2.8 would be too big and heavy for handheld macros.
> I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and it's pretty big and heavy for handholding, but it is a fantastic lens.
> I also have the Canon 100mm L and its size and weight are very good for hand holding, however, I'd love if they would do a 100mm F2.8 that goes 2:1 rather than 1:1.



Everyone is different, but I use a 180mm f/2.8 macro lens handheld. IS really helps of course!


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I looked at the Canon patent for the RF 70-200 f2.8, which uses the conventional up&down arrowed lines to indicate the IS lens group. But the macro patents above don't show anything like that, so it looks like they won't have IS (unless I'm missing something?). I sure hope the R5 IBIS is really good.


I guess it will ! (the R 5's IBIS)


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

lbeck said:


> Man I hope these come soon, I’d prefer the 100 or 180, and it’d be great if one of them did more than 1:1 mag, I’d love a 1-5x like their manual focuse MP-E 65



I'm hoping that 65mm RF macro is the MP-E 65mm replacement. It would get me to switch over to mirror-less.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> That 180 macro... Is probably on my bag when it comes



That focal lenght is really only good for natural light work (too much working distance for a flash) and the only practical way to get it above 1x is to use telecoverters.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Also hope the 65mm will be the MP-E counterpart with improved sharpness.
> Switching to R system one day gonna be a budget disaster...



Same, and if it were an L lens even better but I can only get so erect


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

joseph ferraro said:


> Can I hope and hope that there might just be an updated RF 65mm lens like the MPE-65. From my handheld macro perspective IS isn't much of an issue or want, since at +1x or more I feel that it wouldn't have much effect. Anyone on here use the MPE-65 on a EOSr body?



I don't know of too many people using the MP-E 65mm with natural light, and a flash pretty much makes IS obsolete. I've been hoping that Canon would update the MP-E, but I don't think they are going to make anymore EF lenses. So really hoping that 65mm RF lens is the MP-E replacement, and it would cause me to move the RF cameras. Don't know of anyone shooting with the MP-E on an RF body.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> I know many want to use their macro lens as a portrait lens but us macro shooters don't give a damn about it being fast. Hell, make it f/5.6 but make it crazy sharp without aberrations at 1:1 or higher. A middle ground is needed between the 100L and the MP-E 65. Real world usability, handheld and stabilized. Not a beast necessarily needing focus rails, twin strobes or focus stacking to achieve the results but basically an update of the 100 on the RF mount with today's optics.



No one should ever buy a macro lens because they can use it for something else, and macro lenses in the 100mm range are not optimal (too much workign distance for a flash, and for natural light you'll wish you had more room to work). IS is obsolete if you're using a flash, since the short duration of light it produces is your "shutter speed" and when using natural light IS only compensates for your motion. Worthless for images like this one where the subject is actively foraging.



Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower III by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I've only shot single frames with the camera in my hand. So for me a lighter version of the MP-E with an RF mount would definitely get me to switch to an RF camera body.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm happy enough with my EF 180mm f/3.5L macro. Was the sharpest black EF lens for a long time, maybe still is? What are other people looking for in a macro lens that this one doesn't do?



That focal length offers too much working distance for flash based macro, and it's a pain to get that lens above 1x. I prefer lenses in the 60mm range since it's easier to freeze motion and get good specular highlights due to the short working distance. I have the 180mm L and it sits in my closet collecting dust (bought it based on some bad advice). I'm using the MP-E 65mm (and sometimes the EF-S 60mm + tubes) to get shots like this one:



Honeybee Covered in Zucchini Pollen by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I'm hoping that the 65mm patent is for the MP-E 65mm replacement.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 21, 2020)

Ok, I’m going to plant some zucchini seeds now


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 21, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> That focal length offers too much working distance for flash based macro, and it's a pain to get that lens above 1x. I prefer lenses in the 60mm range since it's easier to freeze motion and get good specular highlights due to the short working distance. I have the 180mm L and it sits in my closet collecting dust (bought it based on some bad advice). I'm using the MP-E 65mm (and sometimes the EF-S 60mm + tubes) to get shots like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a magnificent photo!

How did you get so close to take the photo without the bee flying away?


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Ok, I’m going to plant some zucchini seeds now


 I set up four bamboo polls tied together at the top and separated at the ground by about two feet, then planted Zucchini close to every poll. Gonna get them to climb the bamboo so I don't have to lie on my stomach to take those shots.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> That's a magnificent photo!
> 
> How did you get so close to take the photo without the bee flying away?


The liquid she's feeding on is some sugar syrup that I had in a syringe. Give them something to eat and they'll let you get close. I used the same trick to inject sugar syrup into a Lavender flower...



Feeding Honeybee IX by John Kimbler, on Flickr


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 21, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> I set up four bamboo polls tied together at the top and separated at the ground by about two feet, then planted Zucchini close to every poll. Gonna get them to climb the bamboo so I don't have to lie on my stomach to take those shots.



The beds in my garden are already a foot of the ground for that reason


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 21, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> The liquid she's feeding on is some sugar syrup that I had in a syringe. Give them something to eat and they'll let you get close. I used the same trick to inject sugar syrup into a Lavender flower...
> 
> 
> 
> Feeding Honeybee IX by John Kimbler, on Flickr


I just checked out some of your pictures on Flickr-pro. They're amazing! I'm retired and a non-pro who's taken some good photos. I have a few printed large and on display in my little town's art gallery, but nothing like this! My EM1mk2 with 300mm f4 pro lens (FF Equivalent 600mm f8) takes some amazing handheld closeups up to a FF equivalent 0.48x. But I plan to buy the upcoming R5 and am interested in what I can do with it for closeups. I always thought their expected RF 180mm macro would be the best for me, but now you've got me wondering whether I should try to do what you're doing with the 65mm version.

Also, I've been wanting to find a website to collect & show off my pictures where I don't have to do website programming or worry about the site owner having poor privacy/copyright protection. Do you think Flickr-pro might be the best site for me? If so, this would be a good time for me to get one started.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I just checked out some of your pictures on Flickr-pro. They're amazing! I'm retired and a non-pro who's taken some good photos. I have a few printed large and on display in my little town's art gallery, but nothing like this! My EM1mk2 with 300mm f4 pro lens (FF Equivalent 600mm f8) takes some amazing handheld closeups up to a FF equivalent 0.48x. But I plan to buy the upcoming R5 and am interested in what I can do with it for closeups. I always thought their expected RF 180mm macro would be the best for me, but now you've got me wondering whether I should try to do what you're doing with the 65mm version.
> 
> Also, I've been wanting to find a website to collect & show off my pictures where I don't have to do website programming or worry about the site owner having poor privacy/copyright protection. Do you think Flickr-pro might be the best site for me? If so, this would be a good time for me to get one started.



Thanks!

Flickr has been a mixed bag for me. Every time one of my images has been stolen it has been from Flickr, and every time someone has contacted me because they want to license my images for print it's because they saw then on Flickr. So it must be a popular site.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 21, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Flickr has been a mixed bag for me. Every time one of my images has been stolen it has been from Flickr, and every time someone has contacted me because they want to license my images for print it's because they saw then on Flickr. So it must be a popular site.


Can you control who sees your site? That is, could I say my site is private, then mention it to people I know and tell flickr that only those email addresses are allowed to see it? That way my friends could see it, or others I specifically offer access to. As you can tell, I'm more interested in privacy and sharing to a small group of friends than I am to letting the whole world see.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Can you control who sees your site? That is, could I say my site is private, then mention it to people I know and tell flickr that only those email addresses are allowed to see it? That way my friends could see it, or others I specifically offer access to. As you can tell, I'm more interested in privacy and sharing to a small group of friends than I am to letting the whole world see.


If you did that then people wouldn't be able to find you. If you're really worried about people stealing your work then you can't post your images online...

You can restrict who can see your full size images. It won't stop people from stealing the lower resolution versions.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 21, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> If you did that then people wouldn't be able to find you. If you're really worried about people stealing your work then you can't post your images online...
> 
> You can restrict who can see your full size images. It won't stop people from stealing the lower resolution versions.


If I can choose the low-resolution size (and/or watermark them somehow) that the public sees, so that I won't sweat them possibly being stolen, then I would be OK with it.

Since you say I can choose (somehow) who I allow to see the hires versions then I would be fine opening up an account after all.


----------



## Pape (Apr 22, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> That focal lenght is really only good for natural light work (too much working distance for a flash) and the only practical way to get it above 1x is to use telecoverters.


They should make 4x converter for 180mm macro ,could be intresting


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If I can choose the low-resolution size (and/or watermark them somehow) that the public sees, so that I won't sweat them possibly being stolen, then I would be OK with it.
> 
> Since you say I can choose (somehow) who I allow to see the hires versions then I would be fine opening up an account after all.


I wouldn't bother with a watermark since they are really easy to remove. Just restrict who can access the full resolution images to "Friends and Family" (I think that's what the setting is called).


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

Pape said:


> They should make 4x converter for 180mm macro ,could be intresting


 Not really since the working distance wouldn't change. Odds are you're not gonna field shoot anything with natural light at 4x, and if you're using a flash it's gonna be tough to get good light quality at the 180mm's working distance. At that point you might as well just shell out the grand for an MP-E 65mm macro lens.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ...My EM1mk2 with 300mm f4 pro lens (FF Equivalent 600mm f8) takes some amazing handheld closeups up to a FF equivalent 0.48x. ...


Just wanted to point out that whatever magnification you get from the lens is all the mag that rig will give you. Cropping an image, either with a smaller than full frame sensor or in post, creates an enlargement and is not the same as increasing magnification. So even though my 80D has a 1.6x crop sensor when I have my MP-E 65mm set to 2x then twice life is the magnification, for example. It's not 3.2x...


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks, very practical answer. Yes, the longer the lens, extension tube makes less difference. Conversely, the closeup diopter makes more difference but I don't recall trying it on the macro.
> 
> I dimly recall figuring out that the 180mm macro is more like 100mm at closest focus. Granted that's a lot longer than 65, and for all I know the 65 also shortens the effective focal length at close focus? I bow to your experience and good results but given that you're still just 30cm/1 foot from the subject I'm surprised to hear the flash doesn't reach that far. (Not questioning you, just not what I would have expected.) (BTW I don't shoot macro with flash, rather with long exposure, so I have zero experience, just supposition.)



The MP-E 65mm is fixed-focus, you can only vary the magnification for 1x to 5x. Both Canon 100mm macro lenses suffer from focus breathing, I haven't tested the EF-S 60mm for that yet.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 22, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Just wanted to point out that whatever magnification you get from the lens is all the mag that rig will give you. Cropping an image, either with a smaller than full frame sensor or in post, creates an enlargement and is not the same as increasing magnification. So even though my 80D has a 1.6x crop sensor when I have my MP-E 65mm set to 2x then twice life is the magnification, for example. It's not 3.2x...


I see your point, and would have to agree with you regarding the technical definition as it would apply to "macro" values claimed for lenses.

But then again, what if you have one FF lens and sensor with 50 lines per millimeter tested resolution and the same lens and better sensor with 100 lines per millimeter tested resolution and try 2 things: 1) put a 2x teleconverter on the first one and the image will be optically enlarged by 2x on the sensor, or 2) just do a 2x crop of the inner portion of the 2nd sensor and use software to interpolate it up by 2x to the same print size as that in 1). By your logic 1) will have a 2x increase in magnification (from both lenses), while 2) will not. But you would probably not see any difference between the prints at all. In fact, I have read many reviews of using the same lens and sensor while comparing one using a 2x teleconverter vs. using a 2x crop and interpolating by 2x up, and finding that they are basically the same quality and sometimes the crop & interpolate version is actually better. I could use the same comparisons of a 0.24x magnification of my 1/2 height image printed to the same height as a .48x magnification of a FF lens.

So it seems that the quality of the lens and sensor in producing an image should be considered in the definition of magnification and macro. In other words, we should be comparing the tested maximum lines per millimeter resolution of the subject in subject (physical) space, which would be a more accurate way to measure the useful magnification (or useful macro). So they should mention this tested measure along with the diagonal size (in physical space) of the subject at maximum magnification. That would give you the real value for any combination of lens / sensor crop & quality / teleconverter combinations for an equivalent comparison between them.

All in all, a royal mess, and one that manufacturers will never supply. So I guess I will just have to sigh and agree with your statement as a definition, and I will refrain from mentioning a doubling of equivalent magnification from a 2x crop sensor.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 22, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The MP-E 65mm is fixed-focus, you can only vary the magnification for 1x to 5x. Both Canon 100mm macro lenses suffer from focus breathing, I haven't tested the EF-S 60mm for that yet.


The 65mm lens keeps the same exact focus length (to sensor) no matter how you zoom it between 1x and 5x macro? That would be an interesting lens to look at on the "optical bench" previously mentioned (I just checked it, but that lens isn't in their list). It would make it truly ideal for you to fix the distance of the tip of the lens to your flower with sugar water and wait for an insect to appear, with the freedom to zoom without messing up the focused shot. Are you able to change the zoom while the bee is there without scaring it off, or do you have to do it beforehand and hope you get the right zoom value?

Also, what distance do you find it is between the focus spot and the front surface of the lens?


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I see your point, and would have to agree with you regarding the technical definition as it would apply to "macro" values claimed for lenses.
> 
> But then again, what if you have one FF lens and sensor with 50 lines per millimeter tested resolution and the same lens and better sensor with 100 lines per millimeter tested resolution and try 2 things: 1) put a 2x teleconverter on the first one and the image will be optically enlarged by 2x on the sensor, or 2) just do a 2x crop of the inner portion of the 2nd sensor and use software to interpolate it up by 2x to the same print size as that in 1). By your logic 1) will have a 2x increase in magnification (from both lenses), while 2) will not. But you would probably not see any difference between the prints at all. In fact, I have read many reviews of using the same lens and sensor while comparing one using a 2x teleconverter vs. using a 2x crop and interpolating by 2x up, and finding that they are basically the same quality and sometimes the crop & interpolate version is actually better. I could use the same comparisons of a 0.24x magnification of my 1/2 height image printed to the same height as a .48x magnification of a FF lens.
> 
> ...



Because cropping an image won't reveal more detail, but barring diffraction increasing the magnification can. You can make all kinds of arguments about lens and sensor resolution, but neither one factor into magnification. Magnification is not determined by resolving power, what matters is the scale of the subject that is projected onto the image plane.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The 65mm lens keeps the same exact focus length (to sensor) no matter how you zoom it between 1x and 5x macro?


No, because the lens extends as the mag increases. So the subject to image plane distance actually goes up, but the working distance drops from 4" at 1x to 1.6" at 5x. I just focused on something at 1x and then ran the lens out to 5x and it extended past the subject (I'd have to back up a little to bring the subject back into focus at 5x). The MP-E is an odd animal. It looks like a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube. In fact adding extension to it doesn't have much of an effect, and the easiest way to get it above 5x is to use a teleconverter. It does have a floating lens group that adjusts the focus as the mag changes, and IMHO is the sharpest macro lens above 1x.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I dimly recall figuring out that the 180mm macro is more like 100mm at closest focus. Granted that's a lot longer than 65, and for all I know the 65 also shortens the effective focal length at close focus?



The MP-E 65mm is an odd animal -more like a reversed lens on a variable length extension tube. Almost impossible to compare it to a standard macro lens. Adding extension tubes to it doesn't make much of a difference in the mag (better off using a teleconverter).

Canon's 100mm macro lenses are roughly 72mm at close focus, and the EF-S 60mm is the poor man's MP-E cause it's a 37mm lens at 1x (so it only takes 37mm of extension to get to 2x, and a full set of Kenko tubes will get you close to 3x).



SwissFrank said:


> I bow to your experience and good results but given that you're still just 30cm/1 foot from the subject I'm surprised to hear the flash doesn't reach that far. (Not questioning you, just not what I would have expected.) (BTW I don't shoot macro with flash, rather with long exposure, so I have zero experience, just supposition.)



The problem isn't getting enough light with the flash, the problem is getting enough good light. The closer the diffuser is to the subject the softer the specular highlights. The closer the flash is to the subject the shorter the flash duration (easier to freeze motion). One of the misconceptions in macro is that the flash is always going to fire fast enough to freeze motion, and it isn't true. Motion while the flash is firing can amplify diffraction softening, an effect I call "macro motion blur", and it won't look like traditional motion blur in the image. You'll just see a loss of detail and blame diffraction for it. Even the quality and the angle of the light can impact the detail that can be captured.

You want to be able to see color and texture in the specular area, and not a white hot spot. Here's an example of my worse case lighting, cause the image was taken at 1x (at higher mags the diffuser to subject distance drops and the specular highlights get softer):



Violet Darter II by John Kimbler, on Flickr

See how the bright areas in the dragon's eye still have color and texture in them? Same subject and light source, but now at 3x:



Violet Darter I by John Kimbler, on Flickr

See how the bright area in the eye gets softer? There's a difference between getting enough light, and creating soft light that doesn't blow out detail. So much more than just diffraction to worry about where detail is concerned, and that's one of the reasons I don't care about diffraction.

FWIW: Both of those images are single frames (I don't focus stack) and I don't allow myself to crop in post unless I want to make a square print. Forcing myself to nail the framing with the view finder has made my composition skills better, something that the cropping tool in post can't do...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 22, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> See how the bright area in the eye gets softer? There's a difference between getting enough light, and creating soft light that doesn't blow out detail. So much more than just diffraction to worry about where detail is concerned, and that's one of the reasons I don't care about diffraction.
> 
> FWIW: Both of those images are single frames (I don't focus stack) and I don't allow myself to crop in post unless I want to make a square print. Forcing myself to nail the framing with the view finder has made my composition skills better, something that the cropping tool in post can't do...


1st: These pictures are just stunning - thanks for the post!
2nd: Thanks for explaining the issue of lighting distance and flash speed for sharpness.
3rd: I'm glad to hear you don't focus stack. I've tried doing focus stacking and find (for me) it's usually more trouble than it's worth. I'm having similar issues with stitching multiple images in panoramas when there is perceivable motion (waves, clouds, leaves etc). I've also had issues while doing HDR merging where there's motion between the various exposure shots even thought they're so close together. I'm about to the point to mainly taking a single instance picture after composing via moving around & zooming so there's no cropping after the fact, other than slight edge trimming to make them ideal for printing.
4th: Your method of attracting insects via sugar water in flowers got me thinking that I should try to use my existing Oly 60mm f2.8 1:1 macro and make my own insect attractor setup like you did with flash so that I can get better to eventually take 1:1 shots similar to those you have shown. Then when I get my Canon R... setup I can consider getting an appropriate lens to increase the macro reach and sensor quality. If you don't mind, do you have any posts of ways one can use certain lower attracter plants / sugarcane climbing tubes / final flowers (or whatever) baited with sugar water / flash speed etc to get up to speed?


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 22, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> 1st: These pictures are just stunning - thanks for the post!
> 2nd: Thanks for explaining the issue of lighting distance and flash speed for sharpness.
> 3rd: I'm glad to hear you don't focus stack. I've tried doing focus stacking and find (for me) it's usually more trouble than it's worth. I'm having similar issues with stitching multiple images in panoramas when there is perceivable motion (waves, clouds, leaves etc). I've also had issues while doing HDR merging where there's motion between the various exposure shots even thought they're so close together. I'm about to the point to mainly taking a single instance picture after composing via moving around & zooming so there's no cropping after the fact, other than slight edge trimming to make them ideal for printing.
> 4th: Your method of attracting insects via sugar water in flowers got me thinking that I should try to use my existing Oly 60mm f2.8 1:1 macro and make my own insect attractor setup like you did with flash so that I can get better to eventually take 1:1 shots similar to those you have shown. Then when I get my Canon R... setup I can consider getting an appropriate lens to increase the macro reach and sensor quality. If you don't mind, do you have any posts of ways one can use certain lower attracter plants / sugarcane climbing tubes / final flowers (or whatever) baited with sugar water / flash speed etc to get up to speed?


 
1. Thank you!

2. Happy to help 

3. Focus stacking is a "solution" that creates more problems that in solves.

4. You can load up a spray bottle with some sugar water and spray plants with it. The down side is the the resulting images won't look "natural" cause critters normally don't lick leaves. But I can't say that it's all that bad. Better still to get a syringe, fill it with a 1:1 sugar syrup (one part sugar to one part water), and inject flowers.



Honeybee in a Passion Flower by John Kimbler, on Flickr

...or put some on your finger...



Finger Fed Bumblebee III by John Kimbler, on Flickr 

Be careful though, you don't want to put so much bait out that you empty out an entire beehive. *cough* Not that I've done that or anything *cough*


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 22, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> 1. Thank you!
> 
> 2. Happy to help
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback, pictures, & time spent in these posts.

I haven't decided what site to use to get my pictures up yet, but I wanted to post one back for you to see since you've been so kind in posting yours. This one isn't in the same ballpark as the ones you've posted, and isn't my best one (which is why I'm willing to post it here in much reduced resolution). It's what my MFT 300mm f4 can deliver hand held, uncropped. I can't wait to get an R5 and some sweet lenses!


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 23, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the feedback, pictures, & time spent in these posts.
> 
> I haven't decided what site to use to get my pictures up yet, but I wanted to post one back for you to see since you've been so kind in posting yours. This one isn't in the same ballpark as the ones you've posted, and isn't my best one (which is why I'm willing to post it here in much reduced resolution). It's what my MFT 300mm f4 can deliver hand held, uncropped. I can't wait to get an R5 and some sweet lenses!
> View attachment 190059



Very nice!

If you wanna give yourself a little more time to work load up a syringe with 1:1 sugar syrup.



Bees in a Wallflower Series 1-2 by John Kimbler, on Flickr


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 23, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Very nice!
> 
> If you wanna give yourself a little more time to work load up a syringe with 1:1 sugar syrup.
> 
> ...


I just checked out your wallflower series - wow! There are so many insects there that I've never seen, it's amazing! Do you handhold all your shots vs using a tripod? And do you use 50% or so flash illumination from 2 diffuse sides?


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 23, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I just checked out your wallflower series - wow! There are so many insects there that I've never seen, it's amazing! Do you handhold all your shots vs using a tripod? And do you use 50% or so flash illumination from 2 diffuse sides?



I always shoot hand held because I can adjust the position and focus faster, and with the techniques I use I actually have more control over motion because a tripod only braces the camera, but it does nothing for the flower (or other perch) that the subject is on.

I'm using Canon's MT-26EX RT macro twin flash. Here's a video of my rig and I explain my lighting in it.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 23, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> I always shoot hand held because I can adjust the position and focus faster, and with the techniques I use I actually have more control over motion because a tripod only braces the camera, but it does nothing for the flower (or other perch) that the subject is on.
> 
> I'm using Canon's MT-26EX RT macro twin flash. Here's a video of my rig and I explain my lighting in it.


Thanks for the video of your rig. It really helps someone like me consider jumping into the "deep macro waters", as I need to know as much as possible about how to do it and what to buy before I spend the money. I've always preferred taking hand-held photos if possible, and your successful single-shot technique without a tripod is something that would be ideal for me.

I wonder if Canon will come out with a RF version of the MP-E 65 macro, and if they do then what might they do in the design that makes it better that just using the EF version with EF-to-RF adapter (empty extension tube with electrical control pass-through) ?


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 23, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the video of your rig. It really helps someone like me consider jumping into the "deep macro waters", as I need to know as much as possible about how to do it and what to buy before I spend the money. I've always preferred taking hand-held photos if possible, and your successful single-shot technique without a tripod is something that would be ideal for me.



Happy to help! Check out the tutorial and blog links in my signature for more tips and tricks.



usern4cr said:


> I wonder if Canon will come out with a RF version of the MP-E 65 macro, and if they do then what might they do in the design that makes it better that just using the EF version with EF-to-RF adapter (empty extension tube with electrical control pass-through) ?


I think that as a hand held field shooter I'd like for an RF version of the MP-E to be lighter (maybe carbon fiber for the barrel) and weather sealed. 

The EF version has a bit of a design flaw, where the cable that runs between the electrical contacts and the aperture assembly will break over time. In the ten years I've owned mine I've had to get it repaired trice, and it's cost me roughly 600 USD total. If my copy breaks again I probably won't repair or replace it, I'll just use the EF-S 60mm + tubes until Canon comes out with an RF MP-E lens. That flaw needs to be addresses in the RF version.

Although I don't focus stack it would be cool if the magnification of the RF version could be controlled by the camera, so that it could be stepped by the camera for an in camera focus bracket sequence. Bonus points if the camera could output a stacked RAW file. 

Last, at the risk of the lens costing as much as a good used car, I'd like to see a red ring on it...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 23, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Happy to help! Check out the tutorial and blog links in my signature for more tips and tricks.
> 
> 
> I think that as a hand held field shooter I'd like for an RF version of the MP-E to be lighter (maybe carbon fiber for the barrel) and weather sealed.
> ...


I looked again at the patents Japan Patent Application 2020-060661 mentioned in the initial post of this thread. It mentions 4 lenses, of which I assume the 65mm f2.8 is 1. The image height and f# are exactly the same for all 4 lenses, and the patent images (I can't read Japanese) show that they are all the same basic design with 2 moving groups, where the front, back & overall length does not move. So I don't see how this 65mm macro could be the same as the MP-E 65. And I wonder if it is even possible for these non-telescoping designs to go beyond 1:1 all the way to 5:1 since it doesn't have the crazy long lens zoom moving extension used in the MP-E 65. And if it did allow 5:1 then you'd think that all the other 3 similar macros shown would be able to go way beyond 1:1 macro as well, which I really doubt will happen.

So I'm going to hazard a guess that we may not see a new RF version of this lens, at least not related to these patents (I hope I'm wrong). There are a lot of posts from serious macro users that find the MP-E 65 the best macro lens, but I don't know how many actually buy it vs all the other more mainstream ones. Since you are the published expert with history (& repairs) with this lens, have you contacted Canon to try and make them aware of what they should fix in a future design as well as lobbying for a new improved RF version of it? They might value what you have to say.


----------



## bclaff (Apr 24, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The 65mm lens keeps the same exact focus length (to sensor) no matter how you zoom it between 1x and 5x macro? That would be an interesting lens to look at on the "optical bench" previously mentioned (I just checked it, but that lens isn't in their list). It would make it truly ideal for you to fix the distance of the tip of the lens to your flower with sugar water and wait for an insect to appear, with the freedom to zoom without messing up the focused shot. Are you able to change the zoom while the bee is there without scaring it off, or do you have to do it beforehand and hope you get the right zoom value?
> 
> Also, what distance do you find it is between the focus spot and the front surface of the lens?


I haven't located the patent for that lens. If anyone knows I'd be happy to add it to the Optical Bench.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 24, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I looked again at the patents Japan Patent Application 2020-060661 mentioned in the initial post of this thread. It mentions 4 lenses, of which I assume the 65mm f2.8 is 1. The image height and f# are exactly the same for all 4 lenses, and the patent images (I can't read Japanese) show that they are all the same basic design with 2 moving groups, where the front, back & overall length does not move. So I don't see how this 65mm macro could be the same as the MP-E 65. And I wonder if it is even possible for these non-telescoping designs to go beyond 1:1 all the way to 5:1 since it doesn't have the crazy long lens zoom moving extension used in the MP-E 65. And if it did allow 5:1 then you'd think that all the other 3 similar macros shown would be able to go way beyond 1:1 macro as well, which I really doubt will happen.
> 
> So I'm going to hazard a guess that we may not see a new RF version of this lens, at least not related to these patents (I hope I'm wrong). There are a lot of posts from serious macro users that find the MP-E 65 the best macro lens, but I don't know how many actually buy it vs all the other more mainstream ones. Since you are the published expert with history (& repairs) with this lens, have you contacted Canon to try and make them aware of what they should fix in a future design as well as lobbying for a new improved RF version of it? They might value what you have to say.



Not sure who I could contact though, or if they'd listen to an amateur.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 24, 2020)

bclaff said:


> I haven't located the patent for that lens. If anyone knows I'd be happy to add it to the Optical Bench.


I take it that you're the developer of the Optical Bench? If so, hat's off to you! It's a remarkable piece of work. I spent a lot of time reading your tutorial of how the optics work relating to what you've done. Now I feel that I'm very much better informed on how lenses work, so that when I make camera & lens suggestions to others on what I think should be done I might be a little bit more wiser and a whole lot less clueless.

Thanks, again!


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 24, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> Not sure who I could contact though, or if they'd listen to an amateur.


A week or so ago I sent a customer request to Canon (https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...duct-showcases/projectors/contact-a-sales-rep) to make a suggestion on RF lenses and camera features (like aperture bracketing) that I'd like to see them add in the future. To me surprise, I got a very nice response from Tim at Camera Support <[email protected]> thanking me, with a few nice personally written paragraphs, and saying that my suggestion would be passed on. I responded with a few more suggestions, getting a nice response from Jacob. I have no idea if it will make any difference, but I will say that they were amazingly responsive and friendly and I think others interested in Canon might find that good to hear.

If they see your work, and history with the MP-E 65, the people that matter in Japan might take you very seriously and you might just make a difference. If they decide to design a new version of a RF MP-E 65 with AZ (user controlled auto-zoom, which also does the auto-focus when zooming) then the whole macro community can celebrate!


----------



## bclaff (Apr 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I take it that you're the developer of the Optical Bench? If so, hat's off to you! It's a remarkable piece of work. I spent a lot of time reading your tutorial of how the optics work relating to what you've done. Now I feel that I'm very much better informed on how lenses work, so that when I make camera & lens suggestions to others on what I think should be done I might be a little bit more wiser and a whole lot less clueless.
> 
> Thanks, again!


Yes, PhotonsToPhotos is my site. Best known for my sensor measurements but I think the Optical Bench and patent data are under-appreciated.

Thanks for the positive feedback. You seem to be getting just what I hoped out of that material I have prepared.

Feel free to email (contact is at the bottom of the main page) if you have additional feedback or requests.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Sep 23, 2021)

joseph ferraro said:


> Can I hope and hope that there might just be an updated RF 65mm lens like the MPE-65. From my handheld macro perspective IS isn't much of an issue or want, since at +1x or more I feel that it wouldn't have much effect. Anyone on here use the MPE-65 on a EOSr body?


replying to myself for others. Using the mpe-65 on the r5 and absolutely love it.


----------

