# An RF mount L macro lens will be announced alongside the high-megapixel EOS R camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 11, 2019)

> We’re told that Canon will announce a new and “unique” RF mount L macro lens alongside the high-megapixel EOS R camera sometime in early 2020.
> The source wasn’t sure what will make the new macro lens “unique”, but did say they were told that it would be faster than f/2.8.
> In the past, we have heard that Canon is working on some kind of zoom macro, but we aren’t sure if that’ll be a feature in a new standard type zoom lens, or an actual 1:1 macro lens.
> Note: The image for this article is the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

A tilt macro would be unique. Or maybe low hanging fruit, like a _full-frame_ macro with a built-in LED ring light (as found on EF-M and EF-S macro lenses).


----------



## Mark3794 (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> A tilt macro would be unique. Or maybe low hanging fruit, like a _full-frame_ macro with a built-in LED ring light (as found on EF-M and EF-S macro lenses).



Do you mean tilt-shift? There are already 3 TS-E macro prime


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Sep 11, 2019)

My guess would also be the built-in LED ring light as a first in a full frame macro lens.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 11, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Do you mean tilt-shift? There are already 3 TS-E macro prime



Those only have 0.5x maximum magnification.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> A tilt macro would be unique. Or maybe low hanging fruit, like a _full-frame_ macro with a built-in LED ring light (as found on EF-M and EF-S macro lenses).



That reminded me of a thought I had.

Would it be feasible to make an EF-RF (or EF-M) adapter that had the tilt-shift mechanics in it?

If so, basically ANY EF/EF-S lens could become a tilt-shift lens on an R or M series camera.


----------



## LensFungus (Sep 11, 2019)

> The source wasn’t sure what will make the new macro lens “unique”


It has an additional card slot and it will give the camera 24p!


----------



## slclick (Sep 11, 2019)

Anything new to Canon's macro glass quiver will be a welcome addition.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 11, 2019)

SteveC said:


> That reminded me of a thought I had.
> 
> Would it be feasible to make an EF-RF (or EF-M) adapter that had the tilt-shift mechanics in it?
> 
> If so, basically ANY EF/EF-S lens could become a tilt-shift lens on an R or M series camera.



Possibly, but TS lenses aren’t just normal lenses with a fancy mechanism. They have an extra large image circle in order to be able to fill the sensor even tilted/shifted. But an FF lens on an M body, or R body in crop mode, could work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> Do you mean tilt-shift? There are already 3 TS-E macro prime


I’m aware of them, thanks (and although I don’t have the new TS-E lenses with 1:2 max mag, I have the 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses). 

No, I mean tilt only. Combined with 1:1 macro that would be unique. From a purely macro perspective (pun intended), shift doesn’t offer much but tilt can be very useful. I suspect that by sticking to tilt, Canon could both allow higher max magnification and a greater degree of tilt (the latter would be important if the lens has a longer focal length, which I think is likely given that there’s already an RF 35mm macro).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

SteveC said:


> That reminded me of a thought I had.
> 
> Would it be feasible to make an EF-RF (or EF-M) adapter that had the tilt-shift mechanics in it?
> 
> If so, basically ANY EF/EF-S lens could become a tilt-shift lens on an R or M series camera.


Possible, but keep in mind there’s only 24-26mm / 1” to work with. The TS mechanisms on the current lenses are much longer than that. A tilt-only or shiFt-only adapter would be straightforward. That assumes a lens image circle large enough, as mentioned above, so an adapter for EF lenses to an M body would make more sense. Well, more sense from a technical standpoint, the problem is they would not make much sense from a marketing standpoint, IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Could also be something more straightforward, like a 2x macro with AF. For example, the EF-M 28mm Macro goes to 1.2x.


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 11, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> They have an extra large image circle in order to be able to fill the sensor even tilted/shifted.


Is a larger image circle necessary for a tilt?

PS
"Faster than f/2.8" seems to exclude a 180-200mm focal length, I'm afraid...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> Is a larger image circle necessary for a tilt?


For a tilt lens, yes. That’s one major difference between TS lenses and the old cameras where the film back did the moving – a tilted image plane (sensor/film) will remain within the size same image circle as the default neutral angle, whereas tilting the lens will cause clipping if the image circle is not larger than what is needed to cover the sensor. It’s progressive, so the more tilt the lens has, the bigger the image circle needs to be.


----------



## dancan (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Possible, but keep in mind there’s only 24-26mm / 1” to work with. The TS mechanisms on the current lenses are much longer than that. A tilt-only or shit-only adapter would be straightforward. That assumes a lens image circle large enough, as mentioned above, so an adapter for EF lenses to an M body would make more sense. Well, more sense from a technical standpoint, the problem is they would not make much sense from a marketing standpoint, IMO.


I take the shit-only adapter


----------



## Cochese (Sep 11, 2019)

A new 1-5x macro, but with a ring light at the end. That would be pretty sick.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Cochese said:


> A new 1-5x macro, but with a ring light at the end. That would be pretty sick.


Yeah, but not unique.









Yasuhara Nanoha Macro Lens 5:1 for Canon EF-M


Buy Yasuhara Nanoha Macro Lens 5:1 for Canon EF-M featuring 4:1 to 5:1 Macro Magnification, Removable Three-LED Light Source, Focusing Range: 11-19mm, Four Plastic Subject Holders Included. Review Yasuhara null




www.bhphotovideo.com





Well, sort of unique because the linked lens has three LEDs not a ring and is 4-5X, not 1-5x.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 11, 2019)

I’d welcome a native RF TS-E lens to go with the new RS camera. I have all the EF versions and love them however, I’m not sure how useful a true tilt macro would be at macro magnifications as while the plane can be tilted the depth of focus in front and behind that would still be tiny.


----------



## Cochese (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but not unique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So then, unique. Also, that's still for EF-M. Not RF. You'd have been better pulling up a link for Canon's 1-5x EF lens (which is fantastic and relatively cheap).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So then, unique. Also, that's still for EF-M. Not RF. You'd have been better pulling up a link for Canon's 1-5x EF lens (which is fantastic and relatively cheap).


Good point, I forgot it was EF-M and neglected to check.

Thanks for the correction!

I have the MP-E 65. Not sure I’d actually want a ring light, too flat. The TwinLite does much better for adding depth to my shots (I had both MR and MT, didn’t keep the former).


----------



## cruso (Sep 11, 2019)

A very welcome news ?


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 11, 2019)

If it has f/2.0, 1:1 or 1.5:1 macro capability it would be a reason to pay 2000 EUR for this one and go into the EOS R world! It would combine some qualities I like from my 2.8 100 macro and my 2.0 100 lens in one len!


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 11, 2019)

Or perhaps a macro lens with built-in adjustable extension tube at the back that can be extended a few millimeters, i.e. combining MPE-65 and a fixed focal macro lens with auto focus capability.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 11, 2019)

I wish Canon would officially give us some info before I give up waiting and make do with Sony until they sort their shoit out.


----------



## AJ (Sep 11, 2019)

Could the innovation be built-in focus stacking. Software that drives the AF motor to set positions and then fires off a series of shots.
Or maybe an innovation in image stabilization


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 11, 2019)

AJ said:


> Could the innovation be built-in focus stacking. Software that drives the AF motor to set positions and then fires off a series of shots.


That has already been built into the RP camera.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 11, 2019)

AJ said:


> Could the innovation be built-in focus stacking. Software that drives the AF motor to set positions and then fires off a series of shots.


That is something I love to see in a Canon, similar to how Phase One do it. I think its more of a camera software thing controlling the lens rather that a special feature of a lens though.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 11, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> That has already been built into the RP camera.


Canon R cameras can focus stack?


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 11, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Canon R cameras can focus stack?



The RP can. The R hasn't got the function (yet)


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 11, 2019)

built in LED powered by the RF pins. said it here first.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 11, 2019)

I’m wondering what in a macro I would want the most that Canon doesn’t already have, and while the Zeiss 100 f2.0 is one of my top 5 lenses ever, I can’t really say I used my 1:1 macro’s at 2.8, always stopped way down. And what would be the point of a zoom? 

The thing that comes to mind is what already is talked about, a TS 1:1 in 100mm, not sure a f2.0 is possible, but TS 100 f2.8 L 1:1 would be seriously cool .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> built in LED powered by the RF pins. said it here first.


Totally new and innovative compared to the built in LEDs powered by the EF pins and the EF-M pins.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 11, 2019)

AJ said:


> Could the innovation be built-in focus stacking. Software that drives the AF motor to set positions and then fires off a series of shots.
> Or maybe an innovation in image stabilization





Gazwas said:


> Canon R cameras can focus stack?



Besides the RP, the M6II and 90D can as well. The selection of supported lenses is pretty limited, though.


----------



## AJ (Sep 11, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> That has already been built into the RP camera.


Interesting. I did not know that.
Maybe it's apodization? First STF macro lens? Would go with the fstop < 2.8


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 11, 2019)

I don't shoot macro, but Canon seems to be hitting on all 12 cylinders right now. Even on the RP with the focus stacking feature, this could be nice.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 11, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Canon R cameras can focus stack?


RP


----------



## melgross (Sep 11, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Those only have 0.5x maximum magnification.


That’s still macro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

melgross said:


> That’s still macro.


How about 0.4x? 0.35x? If the latter, some will be pleased to know that the EF-S 18-55 IS STM kit lens is a macro lens!

Personally, I define macro as 1:1 or higher.


----------



## peters (Sep 11, 2019)

slclick said:


> Anything new to Canon's macro glass quiver will be a welcome addition.


Hm, i have the 100mm 2,8L - I use it mostly for some portraits and occasionaly Macros for product shots. I must say that I actualy enjoy the lense. Is there something particular wrong with it, that I miss?
However, of course its very important for canon to include a good macro lense in the R lineup.


In my opinion 90% of the average photographers work can be done with a 24-70 F2,8 IS. However, I think for a truely unique lense lineup, Canon has to release this selection for the R mount, before it truely holds up to a professionals needs:


8mm Fisheye
11-24mm Ultra wide
16-35mm f4 Wide angle for travel
16-35mm f2,8 Wide angle
24-70 f2,8 general lense
24-105 f4 general lense for travel
70-200m f2,8 light tele
70-200mm f4 light tele for travel
100-400mm f 5,6 tele
200-600mm f5,6 sports and wildlife tele
800mm high end sports tele
24mm f1,4
35mm f1,4
50mm f1,2
85mm f1,4
135mm f1,8
50mm f2 Macro
100mm f2 Macro
60mm TSE
90mm TSE



In my opinion this is a perfect lineup to truely support pretty much any kind of professional work


----------



## peters (Sep 11, 2019)

melgross said:


> That’s still macro.


I thought 1x and above is considered "macro"?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 11, 2019)

I agree with both peters and neuroanatomist--1:1.

Although I suppose some could argue that all you need is a short minimum focus distance.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2019)

I give Canon Rumors Guy credit. All he has to do is use the words "unique," "innovative," or "elegant solution" in a blog post and we are good for at least 10 pages of fairies and unicorns. (Just seven more to go on this one).


----------



## Cochese (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good point, I forgot it was EF-M and neglected to check.
> 
> Thanks for the correction!
> 
> I have the MP-E 65. Not sure I’d actually want a ring light, too flat. The TwinLite does much better for adding depth to my shots (I had both MR and MT, didn’t keep the former).



I've only ever rented the the MP-E for a brief moment. I never got a chance to try any purpose built lights with it, just rigged up a holder for my two 430EX flashes. It did the job pretty well. But you know, bulky.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2019)

Cochese said:


> I've only ever rented the the MP-E for a brief moment. I never got a chance to try any purpose built lights with it, just rigged up a holder for my two 430EX flashes. It did the job pretty well. But you know, bulky.


Macro rigs can get bulky! Even with the MT-24 EX, I sometimes prefer to get the heads further off axis with a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets. Then there’s the need to light the background. All of that can turn into a Frankenmacro rig...


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Sep 11, 2019)

Unique .. ?

*Going to have a 2nd card slot in the lens.

*

On a serious note .. aperture related?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 11, 2019)

I have a little macro experience with my 100mm f/2.8 but would not be considered an expert but a focus rail slider is a pain. Could a zoom macro be used with focus (and zoom) stacking? Zoom avoids the rail slider and would end up being working from on tripod position. Would certainly be unique and potentially simplify macro shooting from a tripod. Slightly different focal length from back to front so open to comments about possible issues.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Macro rigs can get bulky! Even with the MT-24 EX, I sometimes prefer to get the heads further off axis with a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets. Then there’s the need to light the background. All of that can turn into a Frankenmacro rig...


My God! What a rig!! Do you actually handhold it?


----------



## Jethro (Sep 11, 2019)

I suspect the unique element will be the inbuilt LEDs. If it is at least 100mm then I'm definitely in!


----------



## flip314 (Sep 11, 2019)

I'm predicting a Canon RF 200mm f2 macro... A Big White macro lens that costs $6000+. The innovation is that it's white.


----------



## Bradzphotos (Sep 12, 2019)

My perfect macro lens would be an image stabilized, fully weather sealed RF100-200mm f2.8 having 1x at 200mm and 2x at 100mm. Add in a fairly powerful built in ring light and of course a removable rotating tripod collar to round out its features. Wait.. while I'm at it, why not include a built in 2x teleconverter. Who wouldn't like a 400mm f5.6 that would focus from infinity to 2x life size? This lens would not only be an incredible macro lens but it would also be a nice portrait lens too with Wildlife and Sports capability as a nice kicker!


----------



## slclick (Sep 12, 2019)

1:1 and up. Everything lower is just a lens with nice close focus.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Hm, i have the 100mm 2,8L - I use it mostly for some portraits and occasionaly Macros for product shots. I must say that I actualy enjoy the lense. Is there something particular wrong with it, that I miss?
> However, of course its very important for canon to include a good macro lense in the R lineup.
> 
> 
> ...


You need to add a 400 f/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to photograph soccer, rugby and American football in crowded stadiums with ugly backgrounds. (Maybe ditch the 800 f/5.6.) Also, a 200 f/2 might be useful if you're ever hired to photograph the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. If you have to do indoor architectural photography, the 17 TSE and 24 TSE would also be useful.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 12, 2019)

You all got it wrong. The lens will have a unique price tag, that's all...


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

How about an RF TS-E Macro that is Auto Focus - something like the EF 100mm f/2.8L but with tilt/shift?

Is that possible?


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Canon has to release this selection for the R mount, before it truely holds up to a professionals needs:
> 
> 
> 8mm Fisheye
> ...


You missed the wide TS-E lenses. I'd love to see an updated version of the Canon TS-E 17mm f4L in RF to eliminate its distortion.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 12, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> How about an RF TS-E Macro that is Auto Focus - something like the EF 100mm f/2.8L but with tilt/shift?
> 
> Is that possible?



One engineering problem that would have to be solved is getting the electrical connectivity through the sliding/tilting hardware. One solution to that I can think of would be ugly, involving a ribbon cable of a sort to connect the end that's on the camera with the actual motors (in the front, the other side of the slide and rocker)

But that assumes something I shouldn't assume: I don't know what it would mean to "autofocus" a tilted lens anyway. Generally the focal plane is tilted with respect to the sensor in this case--and that's where my knowledge ends. It may not be possible to autofocus under these circumstances (especially if it's not definable).

As a complete aside, I have the non L 100 mm macro, and they can have it when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 12, 2019)

Easy boys ... you have 3 or 4 years to speculate. By which time you'll be doing it with your phone


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I agree with both peters and neuroanatomist--1:1.
> 
> Although I suppose some could argue that all you need is a short minimum focus distance.


Wouldn't a bellows make nearly any lens a Macro?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

Jethro said:


> My God! What a rig!! Do you actually handhold it?


Yes, I do. It’s a little unwieldy...but less so than my 600/4L IS II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> You missed the wide TS-E lenses. I'd love to see an updated version of the Canon TS-E 17mm f4L in RF to eliminate its distortion.


What distortion?


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 12, 2019)

Eagerly waiting to see what they do, but that lens might what pushes me to get RF camera for travel.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 12, 2019)

peters said:


> I thought 1x and above is considered "macro"?


It's a question of definition and my FD 3.5 50mm has an engraved "MACRO" + lots of markings of the reproduction ratio on its outer tube. But does only 1:2. But it's from 1973 ( https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd156.html ) where 1:2 was state of the art in macro.
Maybe modern designs with floating elements based on extensive computing results lead to those ingenious compact non-extending 1:1 macros Canon ( ? ) has introduced with EF 2.8 100 USM macro or EF-M 2.8 60. So 1:1 is todays standard but extended by - if memory serves well - LAOWA and the EF-M 28mm macro to >1:1


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> It's a question of definition and my FD 3.5 50mm has an engraved "MACRO" + lots of markings of the reproduction ratio on its outer tube. But does only 1:2. But it's from 1973 ( https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd156.html ) where 1:2 was state of the art in macro.



And it came with a custom extension tube, the Extension Tube FD 25-U, that gave it 1:1 capability. I have the FDn version of the lens and it maintained the original chrome ringed 25mm extension tube.

The EF 50 Macro did a similar thing but the Life Sized Convertor has glass elements in it as well. The dedicated Convertor costs more than the lens!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Totally new and innovative compared to the built in LEDs powered by the EF pins and the EF-M pins.


first for a full frame lens on a full frame canon.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 12, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Eagerly waiting to see what they do, but that lens might what pushes me to get RF camera for travel.


Macro lens for travel?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 12, 2019)

Interestingly, almost nobody is talking about the high-res "RS". Beginning of next year sounds a bit more promising than the previous report that mentions "first half of the year".

Meanwhile, while I was thinking whether or not I should get a A7RIV, this test chart was published https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9306199729/sony-a7r-iv-added-to-studio-test-scene-comparison and it doesn't look good for Sony! Basically it produces a stronger noise than A7RIII even after normalising the samples to the same size.

Definitely not getting the A7RIV. I'll wait for other reviews but this doesn't look like an improvement, so will be looking forward to seeing what Canon offers with their high-res RS.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What distortion?


The 17mm TS-E shows some barrel distortion and a total pig for flare which I'd love to see eliminateed in an RF version (shorter fange distance).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade. We've seen a few patents for TS-e macro lenses, some which have made it to market and some that haven't. One lens that pro macro shooters have been crying out for years is an update to the venerable ef 180mm macro. It seems there was developement of a replacement around the time the fantastic ef 100mm LIS macro was launched....but news of that lens seems to have gone quiet...leading me to suspect that it was shelved for future Rf mount re-work. It makes sense as it would be a low volume lens that would be another push for serious Pro photographers to get into the Rf mount. It certainly would prick up my ears and make me contemplate an Rf mount camera. 
We can only speculate on what such a lens could be...but here's a few thoughts. 
TSe 200mm f2.8 LIS Macro. 
135mm f2.0 LIS macro....that would cover 2 genres and make many reach for their wallet.
TSe 100mm f2.8 LIS Macro. 
I know the news states faster than f2.8..but it would be curious if a macro lens could be made a constant T2.8 (all the ones I've tried substantially loose brightness as the focus draws in). 
Something like a 300mm f4 LIS half Macro wold be amazing too. A lot of fungi shooters need longer focal lengths to separate the small fungi from the busy backgrounds.


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 12, 2019)

Bradzphotos said:


> My perfect macro lens would be an [...]


Pretty modest expectations by today’s standards.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade. We've seen a few patents for TS-e macro lenses, some which have made it to market and some that haven't. One lens that pro macro shooters have been crying out for years is an update to the venerable ef 180mm macro. It seems there was developement of a replacement around the time the fantastic ef 100mm LIS macro was launched....but news of that lens seems to have gone quiet...leading me to suspect that it was shelved for future Rf mount re-work. It makes sense as it would be a low volume lens that would be another push for serious Pro photographers to get into the Rf mount. It certainly would prick up my ears and make me contemplate an Rf mount camera.
> We can only speculate on what such a lens could be...but here's a few thoughts.
> TSe 200mm f2.8 LIS Macro.
> 135mm f2.0 LIS macro....that would cover 2 genres and make many reach for their wallet.
> ...



A TS-E 200mm f/2.8 L IS Macro would be huge and heavy! I would be happy with a 180mm f/4 L IS, which I bet would also cost a lot less


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 12, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> And it came with a custom extension tube, the Extension Tube FD 25-U, that gave it 1:1 capability. I have the FDn version of the lens and it maintained the original chrome ringed 25mm extension tube.
> 
> The EF 50 Macro did a similar thing but the Life Sized Convertor has glass elements in it as well. The dedicated Convertor costs more than the lens!


Interesting info about the EF 50, never knew that detail about the adaptor.

I bought all the FD stuff 2nd hand in the early 1980s and my FD 3.5 50 had no adaptor with it but a filter, lens case and lens hood! I bought the original extensions tubes seperately for 10 german marks or so (today maybe 15 EUR / USD).


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade.


If it is released with the high megapixel mirrorless camera, it will likely be pretty special, and very expensive. Maybe a zoom? Realisticly, how long could its focal length be and still have an aperture wider than f2.8? What about a very short focal length for lots of depth of field?


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Macro lens for travel?


Well, people have different travel interests.


----------



## reef58 (Sep 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Interestingly, almost nobody is talking about the high-res "RS". Beginning of next year sounds a bit more promising than the previous report that mentions "first half of the year".
> 
> Meanwhile, while I was thinking whether or not I should get a A7RIV, this test chart was published https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9306199729/sony-a7r-iv-added-to-studio-test-scene-comparison and it doesn't look good for Sony! Basically it produces a stronger noise than A7RIII even after normalising the samples to the same size.
> 
> Definitely not getting the A7RIV. I'll wait for other reviews but this doesn't look like an improvement, so will be looking forward to seeing what Canon offers with their high-res RS.



Not picking on you but quoting since you brought it up. I am amazed a the number of people who buy or not based on sensor performance test charts. I can't imagine a full frame camera produced recently having image quality issues. What is the application for the camera? This is coming from someone who has no interest in Sony cameras. I am genuinely curious.


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon calls the EF 24-70 f4 IS zoom a macro even though it doesn't get all that close to 1:1. So maybe an RF zoom that actually does 1:1?


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

reef58 said:


> Not picking on you but quoting since you brought it up. I am amazed a the number of people who buy or not based on sensor performance test charts. I can't imagine a full frame camera produced recently having image quality issues. What is the application for the camera? This is coming from someone who has no interest in Sony cameras. I am genuinely curious.


I don't know how much the DR magic numbers influence actual sales, but they sure generate a lot of internet posts. At this point, maybe the biggest effect of the DR magic numbers is to convince people that it isn't worth upgrading the equipment they already have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> Canon calls the EF 24-70 f4 IS zoom a macro even though it doesn't get all that close to 1:1. So maybe an RF zoom that actually does 1:1?


Canon prints the word ‘macro’ on the barrel of many lenses, even the original 24-105/4 had that badge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> I don't know how much the DR magic numbers influence actual sales, but they sure generate a lot of internet posts. At this point, maybe the biggest effect of the DR magic numbers is to convince people that it isn't worth upgrading the equipment they already have.


Apparently these magic numbers really matter to some people. One guy called the EOS R substandard, and one of the reasons he gave was that it had less DR than the 5DIV (according to DxO, the difference is a whopping 0.1 stops). 

History strongly suggests that the numbers do not meaningfully affect camera buying decisions.


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon prints the word ‘macro’ on the barrel of many lenses, even the original 24-105/4 had that badge.


Interesting point. If you filter lenses by "macro" at the online Canon store, it results in a set of lenses that does not include the 24-70 f4 or any other zoom lens for that matter. Apparently the filter selects lenses that have macro in the name. The 24-70 f4 would seem to be an intermediate case between lenses that have macro in the name and lenses that are not called macros but have "macro" printed on the barrel. Macro is not included in the name of the 24-70, but the promotional material on the Canon website features its "macro" capability. Maybe the upcoming RF lens will be the first Canon zoom lens to have macro included in the name.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m aware of them, thanks (and although I don’t have the new TS-E lenses with 1:2 max mag, I have the 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses).
> 
> No, I mean tilt only. Combined with 1:1 macro that would be unique. From a purely macro perspective (pun intended), shift doesn’t offer much but tilt can be very useful. I suspect that by sticking to tilt, Canon could both allow higher max magnification and a greater degree of tilt (the latter would be important if the lens has a longer focal length, which I think is likely given that there’s already an RF 35mm macro).


The problem is that as you increase magnification, the degree of actual tilt of the plane of focus becomes smaller, to a point of being pretty useless for the added complexity. Shift can be of use at strong tilt to reduce some vignetting effects, but that depends on lens design and usage.

I've tested all Canon TS-E lenses including with extension tubes and they all work well, but the movements become much less effective as you increase magnification.

If looking for something 'different' then some of Laowa's designs show what a bit of more original thought can lead to - I've looked at quite a few of their lenses at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/category/articles-and-reviews/laowa/


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Hm, i have the 100mm 2,8L - I use it mostly for some portraits and occasionaly Macros for product shots. I must say that I actualy enjoy the lense. Is there something particular wrong with it, that I miss?
> However, of course its very important for canon to include a good macro lense in the R lineup.
> 
> 
> ...


Not my professional work... 
that list would stymie 75% of my paying work ;-)

Missing from my POV are:
8-15 zoom fisheye
wide TS-E (24)
very wide TS-E (17)
MP-E65 equivalent


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> The problem is that as you increase magnification, the degree of actual tilt of the plane of focus becomes smaller, to a point of being pretty useless for the added complexity. Shift can be of use at strong tilt to reduce some vignetting effects, but that depends on lens design and usage.
> 
> I've tested all Canon TS-E lenses including with extension tubes and they all work well, but the movements become much less effective as you increase magnification.


Agreed. My point was that between the shorter flange focal distance and not incorporating a shift mechanism, a greater degree of tilt may be achievable than with EF TS designs.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What distortion?


Indeed - I hear of this and very rarely see it in my architectural and interior work.

I guess I must be using it wrong... ;-)

If you stitch images over the full image circle I do see a bit of barrel distortion, but that's easily fixed. The edges of the image circle fall off in detail, needing f/11 if there's any detail in strongly shifted areas.

Yes, it could be improved, but it's still a damn fine lens...


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 12, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> [..]
> 
> If looking for something 'different' then some of Laowa's designs show what a bit of more original thought can lead to - I've looked at quite a few of their lenses at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/category/articles-and-reviews/laowa/



I've been considering the Laowa 100mm lens as an alternative for the 100mm and MP-E I have. It *finally* has electronic aperture control and lens info which saves me from faffing about with exiftool to satisfy my OCD.
I also noticed the Laowa 65mm EF-M rumour, but that seems to lack electronic aperture control again


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Indeed - I hear of this and very rarely see it in my architectural and interior work.
> 
> I guess I must be using it wrong... ;-)


Its there, I promise I’m not making it up. 

I suppose it depends on your style. I like balance and use straight lines in my interiors a lot (walls/floor transitions/stairs etc) and used this way you see the distortions. 

While I know there are small for a lens this wide I’m hoping an RF design would eliminate it completely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> While I know there are small for a lens this wide I’m hoping an RF design would eliminate it completely.


From what I’ve seen, the RF lens designs to date fail to offer better distortion performance than their EF counterparts, and in some cases it’s worse.

Personally, I don’t find it to be an issue on the TS-E 17 – it’s minor to start with and easily correctable.


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently these magic numbers really matter to some people. One guy called the EOS R substandard, and one of the reasons he gave was that it had less DR than the 5DIV (according to DxO, the difference is a whopping 0.1 stops).



Some people have trouble grasping the notion of significance.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 12, 2019)

melgross said:


> That’s still macro.



Not really. Though to be fair common usage has bastardized the term and even camera companies have for marketing purposes.

Websters:
 *Definition of macro-
: *large *: *on a large scale 

Something that is 1/2 it's original size is not large or on a large scale, it's small, it's reduced in size. 
For most, macro means life size or greater, 1x and higher. That range would be large in scale.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

Lurker said:


> Not really. Though to be fair common usage has bastardized the term and even camera companies have for marketing purposes.
> 
> Websters:
> *Definition of macro-
> ...


I have to be careful with this when people ask for macro photography - my personal definition may be 1x or more, but I've had numerous clients where it just meant close-up.

In the interests of paying work, I'm happy to adopt the 'close-up' definition and not try and 'explain' why they are wrong ;-)


----------



## MadScotsman (Sep 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently these magic numbers really matter to some people. One guy called the EOS R substandard, and one of the reasons he gave was that it had less DR than the 5DIV (according to DxO, the difference is a whopping 0.1 stops).
> 
> History strongly suggests that the numbers do not meaningfully affect camera buying decisions.



Shpeck-nerds. They live in their mom's bashement and talk like they've got a mouf fulla shpit. 

Sony's customer culture is crawling with 'em.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 12, 2019)

reef58 said:


> Not picking on you but quoting since you brought it up. I am amazed a the number of people who buy or not based on sensor performance test charts. I can't imagine a full frame camera produced recently having image quality issues. What is the application for the camera? This is coming from someone who has no interest in Sony cameras. I am genuinely curious.



My 5DIV works fine for all purposes but apart from portraiture I'm shooting landscapes and night/astroscapes and concerned about the dynamic range and noise. I'm not a full time pro and photography for me is a side business, although I'm making some little money from it. In 5DIV there's also very annoying banding at high ISOs and/or long exposures. I'm pushing the camera to its limits all the time and I wouldn't mind an improved dynamic range. MP count is also important.

5DIV lags behind A7RIII but not enough for me to make a switch. I thought A7RIV would be a leap forward but apparently it's not, it may happen to be a step back even. So I guess I'm just waiting for what Canon offers with this prospective RS.


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Shpeck-nerds. They live in their mom's bashement and talk like they've got a mouf fulla shpit.
> 
> Sony's customer culture is crawling with 'em.


Not sure customer is the right word. To be a customer, you actually have to buy stuff. Trolling on the internet doesn't make you a customer.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 12, 2019)

Unique? How about a tilt/shift Macro lens. That would be unique, but perhaps quite useful given the shallow DOF that wider apertures give us. Being able to move the focus plan around a bit would be beneficial.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 12, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Unique? How about a tilt/shift Macro lens.



You mean, like what Neuro proposed in the very first comment of this thread?


----------



## SteB1 (Sep 12, 2019)

I hope it's not just a LED. I have the EF-S 35mm f2.8 STM, and whilst it's better than nothing, the power is too low to be of much use.

There is plenty of scope for better macro lenses. As a long time field macro photographer I find it frustrating that you have to continually work around the use of most supposed macro photography equipment, which is clearly not designed by an experienced macro photographer, or not an innovative one. I find it odd that with other photography equipment the manufacturers consult expert photographers, and yet with macro photography equipment we just get what some generalist engineer came up with.

Here are some features all macro photographers could benefit from, not just field macro photographers of insects.

1) Greater than life-size magnification, whilst retaining infinity focus. If it wouldn't focus to infinity ideally it would have less than life-size as the MP-E 65mm can be a bit limiting, because 1:1 is often too much magnification. As there is no overlap between a normal macro lens and the MP-E 65mm it means you constantly have to switch lenses, and especially when there's a lot of pollen around you soon get a dirty sensor. Covering the most used range of 1:5 to 2.5:1 with a single lens would be ideal.

2) Not such an unnecessarily bulky front of the lens which limits your ability to get close to small objects on a flat surface.

3) Some sort of clip on front bracket, which bayonets on to take a small flash. It could use a multi-purpose bayonet which also takes a lens hood. Large and bulky macro flashes are not necessary, and you can get similar lighting with an ordinary small flash. If you are using a large twin flash on a pro type body it can get very heavy and hard on your wrists, as in field macro photography you often have to hold the camera in one hand for long periods.

4) A long focal length macro lens like a 300-400mm lens. Or rather a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 with a close focus function, say at least 1:2, but 1:1 would be nicer. My 100-400mm mk2 is nice, but often 1/3 life size isn't close enough and it's a bit heavy. Also there is a fair bit of focus breathing, focal length shortening at close focus.

5) A macro lens of 150mm to 200mm with a max aperture of f5.6. These could be much lighter, and Sigma in fact did make a lovely little 180mm f5.6 years ago (although it only went to 1:2). Such a lens would be great for photographing butterflies and dragonflies.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Unique? How about a tilt/shift Macro lens. That would be unique, but perhaps quite useful given the shallow DOF that wider apertures give us. Being able to move the focus plan around a bit would be beneficial.


See earlier for more on this - the issue for me is that for macro use 'a bit' really isn't very much at all


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Meanwhile, while I was thinking whether or not I should get a A7RIV, this test chart was published https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9306199729/sony-a7r-iv-added-to-studio-test-scene-comparison and it doesn't look good for Sony! Basically it produces a stronger noise than A7RIII even after normalising the samples to the same size.



Once again, I don't know why people think there are significant high ISO differences within a format, or why they hope that a new model will bring significant high ISO improvements. 15 minutes browsing the DPReview Studio Scene tool set to RAW, a high ISO value, and equal view size will disabuse any such notions. There are only a few outliers such as the A72 which turns in a particularly poor FF performance, or Fuji's crop sensors which are relatively good. 

DPReview repeatedly says that the A7r4 has the first "new" FF sensor from Sony since 2015. (Sony reuses sensor tech? I thought only Canon did that. *Sony is *******!*) So the A7r4 has the very latest tech Sony can deliver. And high ISO is not only roughly the same as the A7r3, it's roughly the same as the 4 year old 5Ds in my closet.

Heck, looking purely at noise (gray and color patches) and not at noise versus detail, the A7r4 isn't even 1 full stop better than the 5D mark II! Naturally the A7r4 records a lot more detail than a 5D2 throughout its ISO range, and you can trade between detail and noise using NR in post, so it's going to be a better high ISO camera. But not by the leaps and bounds people imagine.

Today's sensors are incredibly efficient photon counters and there are no easy gains left to be made. Not unless you want to strip the color filter array completely or use active cooling. If you're shooting crop and want better high ISO the next shiny new model isn't going to do it. Go FF. If you're shooting FF and want better high ISO, better start looking at recent MF systems.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, people have different travel interests.


There's already a Rf 35mm f1.8 LIS macro, which pretty much fits that criteria


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> If it is released with the high megapixel mirrorless camera, it will likely be pretty special, and very expensive. Maybe a zoom? Realisticly, how long could its focal length be and still have an aperture wider than f2.8? What about a very short focal length for lots of depth of field?


Macro zooms are a bit of an anathema, most macro Primes focal breath so much that they effectively become focus controlled zoom lenses any how. Which is why it's often easier to move the subject in / out of focus than it is to actually move the lens focus point...then re-frame...then re-focus...etc.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> The 17mm TS-E shows some barrel distortion and a total pig for flare which I'd love to see eliminateed in an RF version (shorter fange distance).


You may have damaged the front element on your TSe 17L...sure I can make mine flare but it's probably the lowest amount of flare I've seen on a lens and very easy to fix. I find the TSe 17L remarkably low in flare considering how much the front element sticks out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> You may have damaged the front element on your TSe 17L...sure I can make mine flare but it's probably the lowest amount of flare I've seen on a lens and very easy to fix. I find the TSe 17L remarkably low in flare considering how much the front element sticks out.


There are multiple components to what we call flare. The TS-E 17 shows strong _flare artifacts_ (‘ghosting’) with a bright light source in the frame or just outside of the frame. Most of my use of the lens is blue hour shooting in urban settings, and I always check the live preview for flare artifacts from streetlights just out of the frame, and block them with a flag or my hand. However, the _veiling glare_ (diffuse loss of contrast from that bright light source) is very well controlled.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Macro lens for travel?


I used to pack Eos 500D(before shutter failed) with 18-270mm and 100mm L for travel needs and if the RF 24-240mm lens is good then I will be purchasing RP with 24-240mm and RF equivalent of 100mm L as my travel kit. I shoot butterflies and flowers(native plants only). Which is why Macro lens is a necessity for me.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



While the idea (as per neuro) of the built in ring light would be outstanding, I wonder if a wider aperture would be useful. My experience with macro work is very limited, but it seems like anything you are shooting that close would require a much more stepped down aperture than f2. Seems like most macro I see gets shot at 5.6 or 8 or deeper just to even get a DOF of an inch or two because of the focusing proximity. Again, I never really dove into macro much. Would be curious to hear other opinions from those who have


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2019)

My bet would be on a FF macro lens with built-in light, as some have mentioned above. As usual, most people speculate based on what they'd like to see, not what they think is most likely. It does entirely depend on what line Canon is taking, however...



GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon's lens push with the Rf mount is quite clearly top end pro. So I doubt if this new rumored lens is anything mass market / consumer grade.



...and this is the flipside - they have already released some rather niche lenses before much in the way of consumer ones, so maybe it'll be something exotic. Depends how big a market high-end macro work represents. Even in that case, I'd imagine longer telephoto constitutes a tiny minority - I'd have thought product photography was the more common professional application. Regardless, it'll be interesting.

And fwiw if I were to choose a couple of macro lenses I'd personally love to see, however unlikely, I'd go for an updated MP-E with IS and more than 6 aperture blades, and a 200mm f/2.8 or wider aperture IS macro telephoto.


----------



## Pape (Sep 12, 2019)

I hoping RF teleconverter i could use with EF 70-300mm  its nice lense with focus stack ,no focus breathing. 400mm f5,6 macro would be super cool if without focus breathing.
would need only one lense for bugs and birds and some small flora.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> While the idea (as per neuro) of the built in ring light would be outstanding, I wonder if a wider aperture would be useful. My experience with macro work is very limited, but it seems like anything you are shooting that close would require a much more stepped down aperture than f2. Seems like most macro I see gets shot at 5.6 or 8 or deeper just to even get a DOF of an inch or two because of the focusing proximity. Again, I never really dove into macro much. Would be curious to hear other opinions from those who have



Short answer, it depends. Diffraction is an issue - the higher the magnification, the more it's apparent, so shooting the MP-E beyond ~f/6.3 is trading off detail for DOF, especially beyond 1x mag (in my opinion). For focus stacking, shooting wide open (or stopping down only a little) offers the best solution, and I assume a wider native aperture would allow for even better results in that regard. Additionally, alhough this is more relevant to lower magnification, i.e. no more than 1x, shooting wide open for blurred backgrounds at lower magnification can help with subject separation, especially useful (again imho) for insects, flowers, etc. Either way, a wide aperture gives more options - however I don't see us going much beyond f/2.8 simply because it'll make the lens too bulky and expensive. *Maybe* f/2 at a shorter focal length, say 50mm. But that's less useful to me (though would make a nice portrait lens on the side) - and maybe too similar to the expisting 35mm f/1.8.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> You may have damaged the front element on your TSe 17L...sure I can make mine flare but it's probably the lowest amount of flare I've seen on a lens and very easy to fix. I find the TSe 17L remarkably low in flare considering how much the front element sticks out.


We obviously all photograph things very differently then. My lens is fine and has had flare and some distortion from new. If I shoot interiors downlighting causes flare, my Bron flash heads flare if too close to the edge of the frame, windows at the edge of a frame can even cause flare. Not just flare spots but contrast reducing flare.

Standatd practice for me is to use mine with a Lee wide angle lens hood but this limits the movements or I have to use flags next to the lens.

I own all the Canon TS-E lenses and I’d just like to see a redesign in RF to address some of its unique handling characteristics compared to all the others which are faultless.


----------



## David_E (Sep 12, 2019)

Please not an LED ring or a tilt-shift! Keep it lightweight and make the quality at least equivalent to the current 100mm macro. Faster than ƒ2.8? Don't need it. I use my macro lens to shoot macros, usually between ƒ11 and ƒ22. In some cases I open up to 3.5 to isolate a subject _in vivo_ from its background.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 12, 2019)

David_E said:


> Please not an LED ring or a tilt-shift! Keep it lightweight and make the quality at least equivalent to the current 100mm macro.


Heck YES! - We want them all - LED ring, TS-E and 100mm Macro!


----------



## robinlee (Sep 12, 2019)

A unique lens with a stratospheric price.


----------



## David_E (Sep 12, 2019)

Gazwas said:


> Heck YES! - We want them all - LED ring, TS-E and 100mm Macro!


Ah, yes. You’re looking for a conversation piece, while I’m looking for a macro lens for use in the field.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

David_E said:


> Ah, yes. You’re looking for a conversation piece, while I’m looking for a macro lens for use in the field.


No, the field is the last place I want to use mine - indoors only ;-)
That's why I'm hoping it won't be yet another 'normal' lens with macro.
'Proper macro' please - loads of magnification and none of this infinity focus nonsense (OK, the Laowa 25mm relay lens does 2x and focuses to ∞ , but that's just too weird for Canon)


----------



## peters (Sep 12, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Not my professional work...
> that list would stymie 75% of my paying work ;-)
> 
> Missing from my POV are:
> ...


Oh thats a very interesting lineup. I guess you are working in some kind of architecture topic?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people have trouble grasping the notion of significance.



With some people you can't even explain it or demonstrate it with pictures. All they see is that camera A has a higher DxO score than camera B so naturally you can't even make snapshots with camera B. As a professional you must have A, _you must have that score!_


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 12, 2019)

180mm macro WITH IS would be good! 

Dream butterfly lens!


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 12, 2019)

peters said:


> Oh thats a very interesting lineup. I guess you are working in some kind of architecture topic?


Yes architecture, interiors and industrial - I do macro work as well, mainly electronics related (so no flowers/insects/fungi)
I have one long lens, a 70-200 2.8L IS ;-)
These are my main reasons that I've no business interest in video, and AF performance (and high ISO) are things largely of interest from the spec sheets ;-)


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Short answer, it depends. Diffraction is an issue - the higher the magnification, the more it's apparent, so shooting the MP-E beyond ~f/6.3 is trading off detail for DOF, especially beyond 1x mag (in my opinion). For focus stacking, shooting wide open (or stopping down only a little) offers the best solution, and I assume a wider native aperture would allow for even better results in that regard. Additionally, alhough this is more relevant to lower magnification, i.e. no more than 1x, shooting wide open for blurred backgrounds at lower magnification can help with subject separation, especially useful (again imho) for insects, flowers, etc. Either way, a wide aperture gives more options - however I don't see us going much beyond f/2.8 simply because it'll make the lens too bulky and expensive. *Maybe* f/2 at a shorter focal length, say 50mm. But that's less useful to me (though would make a nice portrait lens on the side) - and maybe too similar to the expisting 35mm f/1.8.


Never done focus stacking, but on my bucket list. But that makes sense if that’s what you’re doing and a shallow Dof doesnt matter except for the fact Id assume you’d have to take even more photos to stack.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 13, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> DPReview repeatedly says that the A7r4 has the first "new" FF sensor from Sony since 2015. (Sony reuses sensor tech? I thought only Canon did that. *Sony is *******!*) So the A7r4 has the very latest tech Sony can deliver. And high ISO is not only roughly the same as the A7r3, it's roughly the same as the 4 year old 5Ds in my closet.



5Ds still lags behind in terms of the noise but not too much. A7RIII is the cleanest.



dtaylor said:


> Today's sensors are incredibly efficient photon counters and there are no easy gains left to be made. Not unless you want to strip the color filter array completely or use active cooling. If you're shooting crop and want better high ISO the next shiny new model isn't going to do it. Go FF. If you're shooting FF and want better high ISO, better start looking at recent MF systems.



I expected A7RIV's noise to to be on par with A7RIII but higher resolution. It's a new sensor tech after all and they promised a lot. But it's worse even after normalising to the same size. The sharpness isn't very indicative there because they used different lenses on A7RIV and A7RIII (as a DPR guy explained in the comments below).

So I'm disappointed with Sony but will wait for what Canon offers. Moving to MF isn't an option, it'll never pay off as a workhorse and too expensive as a toy. With Sony at least I can pay an extra $600 for an adapter and keep my lenses, with MF I'll have to spend about $5-10k on MF lenses, plus the camera itself.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 180mm macro WITH IS would be good!
> 
> Dream butterfly lens!


Part of me would love a 180mm (or even a 150mm) - with IS - but I fee like anything over 100mm is going to send the price towards the stratosphere. A 100mm f2 (or f2.4 or even f2.8) without IS would be plenty good for me. Built in LEDs would be a bonus.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 13, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Part of me would love a 180mm (or even a 150mm) - with IS - but I fee like anything over 100mm is going to send the price towards the stratosphere. A 100mm f2 (or f2.4 or even f2.8) without IS would be plenty good for me. Built in LEDs would be a bonus.


I wouldn’t expect a 180mm f2 or anything! Although you never know what patent will show up at the moment.. A low cost 150mm f4 weathersealed true macro lens with IS would interest me! I’m not a fan of built in LEDs really, just no replacement for speedlites and softboxes!


----------



## Jethro (Sep 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I wouldn’t expect a 180mm f2 or anything! Although you never know what patent will show up at the moment.. A low cost 150mm f4 weathersealed true macro lens with IS would interest me! *I’m not a fan of built in LEDs really, just no replacement for speedlites and softboxes*!


I don't disagree - but its a feature that doesn't have to be used all the time. Depending on how flexible it is on what part of the LED array you can use, it has the potential to be very handy (especially in the field).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 13, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I don't disagree - but its a feature that doesn't have to be used all the time. Depending on how flexible it is on what part of the LED array you can use, it has the potential to be very handy (especially in the field).


True! There’s certainly been times when I’ve needed a bit of extra light but didn’t bring flashes and diffusers with me. Would be handy for focusing too!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> True! There’s certainly been times when I’ve needed a bit of extra light but didn’t bring flashes and diffusers with me. Would be handy for focusing too!



It has the additional advantage of not being blocked by the lens, no matter what.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> True! There’s certainly been times when I’ve needed a bit of extra light but didn’t bring flashes and diffusers with me. Would be handy for focusing too!


The LEDs on the current macro lenses are really only good out to about 12” / 30 cm at best. Perhaps an LED on a new RF macro would be more powerful, but I definitely would not expect it to replace a flash. Not even close.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The LEDs on the current macro lenses are really only good out to about 12” / 30 cm at best. Perhaps an LED on a new RF macro would be more powerful, but I definitely would not expect it to replace a flash. Not even close.


I do a lot of my best work inside 30cm!


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 180mm macro WITH IS would be good!
> 
> Dream butterfly lens!



Have you tried the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS (=IS)? I had one and although I had to return it due to a damaged AF unit, it produced really excellent images. A native Canon would presumably be even better but much more expensive.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Never done focus stacking, but on my bucket list. But that makes sense if that’s what you’re doing and a shallow Dof doesnt matter except for the fact Id assume you’d have to take even more photos to stack.



Yes, that is a downside. Depends how much time you have and how much storage you want to use (if I'm doing loads of moths, say, in a short space of time, I tend to increase the DOF to save both).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 13, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Have you tried the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS (=IS)? I had one and although I had to return it due to a damaged AF unit, it produced really excellent images. A native Canon would presumably be even better but much more expensive.


Never tried that lens but heard good things. I use a canon 100-400 ii for those kind of shots now though!


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 13, 2019)

A 50 to 135 macrozoom is what I'd like to get!


----------



## SkynetTX (Sep 16, 2019)

As for me, a 250mm f/4 or f/5.6 with an MFD of 75 cm or larger would be the best. But an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS USM with at least 2 stops stabilization would also be good.
I'm not really interested either in built-in ring light or larger than f/2.8 aperture as I'm used to take my shots at f/8 or f/9 and sometimes – if the subject is relatively big and I can have a larger working distance – at f/5.6 or so.
I don't think that focus stacking is really that important as the larger the magnification you have to use the smaller the subject is. I have a front-view shot of a small weevil – about 3 mm – and with the EF-S 60 mm and the 25 mm extension tube I have almost the complete beetle in focus with f/8 while it almost completely fills the frame (the photo).
As for the definitions: 10:1 or larger is micro. Between 1:1 and 10:1 it is macro. From 1:2 to 1:1 you can call it close-up. Smaller than 1:2 is just a regular photo with something small in it. It's not macro and not even close up.
And at last just a theoretical question: would a macro zoom lens with at least 1:1 magnification ration in any focal range be possible? Because a RF 60-180mm (or 70-200mm) f/2.8 IS USM macro only – from 2.5:1 to 1:1 magnification ratio – would really be unique.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 16, 2019)

SkynetTX said:


> As for me, a 250mm f/4 or f/5.6 with an MFD of 75 cm or larger would be the best. But an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS USM with at least 2 stops stabilization would also be good.
> I'm not really interested either in built-in ring light or larger than f/2.8 aperture as I'm used to take my shots at f/8 or f/9 and sometimes – if the subject is relatively big and I can have a larger working distance – at f/5.6 or so.
> I don't think that focus stacking is really that important as the larger the magnification you have to use the smaller the subject is. I have a front-view shot of a small weevil – about 3 mm – and with the EF-S 60 mm and the 25 mm extension tube I have almost the complete beetle in focus with f/8 while it almost completely fills the frame (the photo).
> As for the definitions: 10:1 or larger is micro. Between 1:1 and 10:1 it is macro. From 1:2 to 1:1 you can call it close-up. Smaller than 1:2 is just a regular photo with something small in it. It's not macro and not even close up.
> And at last just a theoretical question: would a macro zoom lens with at least 1:1 magnification ration in any focal range be possible? Because a RF 60-180mm (or 70-200mm) f/2.8 IS USM macro only – from 2.5:1 to 1:1 magnification ratio – would really be unique.



The EF 100mm isn't 100mm at macro distance, more like 70mm, so a zoom would probably be even worse.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2019)

M


BillB said:


> If it is released with the high megapixel mirrorless camera, it will likely be pretty special, and very expensive. Maybe a zoom? Realisticly, how long could its focal length be and still have an aperture wider than f2.8? What about a very short focal length for lots of depth of field?


Maybe the high res camera will do focus stacking automatically like the RP? Could be a reason to release a new macro lens along side it.


----------



## Pape (Sep 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> M
> 
> Maybe the high res camera will do focus stacking automatically like the RP? Could be a reason to release a new macro lens along side it.


maybe its first focus breath free macro lense . so prolly somekind of macrozoom


----------



## ebergram (Sep 24, 2019)

Will this High Mega EOS R have.
1. Same or better ISO performance?
2. Same or better dynamic range?
3. Same or faster high speed frame rate in servo?


----------



## Pape (Sep 25, 2019)

ebergram said:


> Will this High Mega EOS R have.
> 1. Same or better ISO performance?
> 2. Same or better dynamic range?
> 3. Same or faster high speed frame rate in servo?


This is actually macro lens convo .
Sounds like you dont want high resolution camera if want all 3 thing too .
General purpose sony A7r iv or canon 5div would suit better ,those cameras wont do compromises to get as high mpixel count as possible.


----------

