# Patent: Canon RF 100mm f/2 IS STM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 11, 2021)

> The RF mount is obviously missing macro offerings, but I expect that to change in 2021. Here we have an interesting patent for a macro optical formula uncovered by Canon News.
> An RF 100mm f/2 IS STM would definitely be a welcomed and cost conscience lens for RF mount shooters. If this does become a consumer product, it’ll be very interesting to see what they do with an RF L Macro.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## xwxw (Mar 11, 2021)

Can’t wait for this to be released. Might beat the 85mm one. Hope it will be in that same price range.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 11, 2021)

Does every L lens need to be massive?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Does every L lens need to be massive?


Yes, it is written in Japanese lore.


----------



## HMC11 (Mar 12, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Does every L lens need to be massive?


Both size & price, although some are not too bad with discount, such as the 24-105 F4L.
If IQ matches or exceed the RF85 non-L, and assuming similar pricing, then I would be most interested in this 100 F2.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 12, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Can’t wait for this to be released. Might beat the 85mm one. Hope it’s will be in that sameness price range.


Given the current L Macro is back to its MSRP(1299) this would cost slightly more than old lens its replacing.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Mar 12, 2021)

I’ve been waiting a while now to see more new and impressive lenses from Canon in the RF mount like we were promised. The 28-70 f/2 lens was an awesome start but after that i was really left underwhelmed. The RF 70-200 is cool but what else is there?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2021)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> I’ve been waiting a while now to see more new and impressive lenses from Canon in the RF mount like we were promised. The 28-70 f/2 lens was an awesome start but after that i was really left underwhelmed. The RF 70-200 is cool but what else is there?


RF 85 f1.2 DS. An AF 50mm f1.2 that actually works. The smallest and lightest 70-200 f2.8 around. The minuscule and very high image quality 70-200 f4. 

The trouble is if the developments are not in areas we specifically want we might feel there aren’t any...


----------



## xwxw (Mar 12, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Given the current L Macro is back to its MSRP(1299) this would cost slightly more than old lens its replacing.


You are right. F2 certainly commands a premium. But I was hoping the STM designation points to a likely budget friendly offering. I know this could be just wishful thinking. The thing is that this is the first true macro that opens up to f2 if I am not mistaken. So it could be both portrait and macro. Replacing the 85/1.8 100/2 100/2.8 135/2 offerings in one go.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 12, 2021)

xwxw said:


> You are right. F2 certainly commands a premium. But I was hoping the STM designation points to a likely budget friendly offering. I know this could be just wishful thinking. The thing is that this is the first true macro that opens up to f2 if I am not mistaken. So it could be both portrait and macro. Replacing the 85/1.8 100/2 100/2.8 135/2 offerings in one go.


So a bargain. What a deal!

I have used my EF 100mm macro for portraits, but I didn’t care for the look. So I bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 when it was on sale. I doubt the usefulness of f/2 for actual macro shots, maybe if you are chasing around insects in dim light and going for an artsy one eye in focus look.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 12, 2021)

An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2021)

I'd be more interested in the 1:2 2:1 macro patent posted a while back.


----------



## syder (Mar 12, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
> Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...


As someone who enjoys macro, I'd have 0 interest in a 1:2 100mm close up lens, and for those that do want that there's already the 85 f2. Although the 35mm is fun for wide angle flower shots, you're so close to the subject that most living things have left.. Even the 1:1 of the 100l often isn't enough - 2:1 would be better... I look forwards to there one day being a RF version of the mpe65.


----------



## risto0 (Mar 12, 2021)

Why they make *macro *lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 12, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> An f/2 100 macro with 1:2 max reprod ratio + IS would be THE fusion of my EF 2.0 100 and EF 2.8 100 Macro non-IS and THE companion to my RF 35. Maybe a 2nd RP body with this lens would be a great combo for a lot of applications.
> Hopefully the RF 100 macro - if it comes to the market - is well suited for video work ...


Trouble is macro lenses are usually optimized for close-up photography, and can be disappointing at infinity setting.
I bought 2 lenses for "universal" usage, EF 100L and Zeiss 50mm f2, both are excellent macros, but only just good for landscapes (center dead sharp, sides and mostly corners OK...).
So, I learnt my lesson, either use them for macros or portraits, or replace them with the unfortunately manual-only Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100, superb at macro and landscapes.
But I'm hoping the RF 100mm f2 could be the solution...chances are good!


----------



## Nemorino (Mar 12, 2021)

risto0 said:


> At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture.


Not necessery with focus stacking.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 12, 2021)

syder said:


> As someone who enjoys macro, I'd have 0 interest in a 1:2 100mm close up lens, and for those that do want that there's already the 85 f2. Although the 35mm is fun for wide angle flower shots, you're so close to the subject that most living things have left.. Even the 1:1 of the 100l often isn't enough - 2:1 would be better... I look forwards to there one day being a RF version of the mpe65.


I fully understand what you mean - I am more of a "close focus" guy who likes to have some 1:3 or similar close focus capability.
While I understand that 85 and 100 are similar in perspective I like the 50 - 100 - 200 - 400mm series because of sheer beauty 
For real macro @ 1:1 I have re-established my EF-S 60 macro with my M50 which gives 1.6 : 1 macro if you compare it with a 1:1 macro in FF sensor land and I really enjoy it sometimes. I bought this lens in 2005 with the EOS 20D (that lens was the reason to buy a digital ILC system) and it is good enough for a 24 MPix sensor - until physics manages IQ via diffraction.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 12, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Trouble is macro lenses are usually optimized for close-up photography, and can be disappointing at infinity setting.
> I bought 2 lenses for "universal" usage, EF 100L and Zeiss 50mm f2, both are excellent macros, but only just good for landscapes (center dead sharp, sides and mostly corners OK...).
> So, I learnt my lesson, either use them for macros or portraits, or replace them with the unfortunately manual-only Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100, superb at macro and landscapes.
> But I'm hoping the RF 100mm f2 could be the solution...chances are good!


I do not know the EF 100L but the EF 100 USM macro is very usable for infinity shots in my experience but this is restricted to a 5D classic and EOS M50 - my RP hasn't seen my 100mm USM macro seldomly. Maybe the IS system of the latest EF 100 macro has some impact to the optical quality at infinity or I haven't used my older 100mm macro not often enough to see the difference.
But one thing I remember during writing: The EF 2.0 100 @ f/4 is tack sharp, contrasty lens which reproduces textures etc very very well. Maybe I should investigate both lenses with my EOS RP in the next future to support any future decisions about 100mm lenses for the RF mount. Until that I have to choose from two lenses and have to go without IS ...
About the chances to make a much better compromise with a hypothetical RF 100 F2 IS macro: I agree, now we have new glass types, new methods of producing e.g. aspherical shapes an more freedom to place the lens elements (closer to the sensor e.g.) and maybe some additional tools to move more groups of lenses to optimize the system to a very low "degree of compromise"!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Mar 12, 2021)

risto0 said:


> Why they make *macro *lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.


The EF 100mm L is one of my most used lenses. I use it for true macro, mushroom photography, frogs, flowers and all the way up to people portraits. I use all apertures from f2.8 up to about f16! These lenses aren’t just about true 1:1 macro.


----------



## yankiefrankie (Mar 12, 2021)

Is this going to be a 1:1 macro lens or more as companion to the RF 85 f/2 STM with a half macro? The EF mount had both an 85 f/1.8 and a 100 f/2.0 that were both affordable and similar design (same size even).

Maybe this RF 100mm is going to be to the RF 85mm as the EF 100mm is to the EF 85mm...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 12, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> Not necessary with focus stacking.


I don't shoot macro, but...

You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still. If you want neither the shallow depth of field nor the short exposure, why invest in f/2?


----------



## Canfan (Mar 12, 2021)

Why didn’t the go USM, not really a fan of the STM motors. Looking to upgrade my 100mm IS macro L. Sigh..


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2021)

risto0 said:


> Why they make *macro *lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.


Well, it's handy for low light shots with static subjects....focus stacking is pretty easy to do.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 12, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> I do not know the EF 100L but the EF 100 USM macro is very usable for infinity shots in my experience but this is restricted to a 5D classic and EOS M50 - my RP hasn't seen my 100mm USM macro seldomly. Maybe the IS system of the latest EF 100 macro has some impact to the optical quality at infinity or I haven't used my older 100mm macro not often enough to see the difference.
> But one thing I remember during writing: The EF 2.0 100 @ f/4 is tack sharp, contrasty lens which reproduces textures etc very very well. Maybe I should investigate both lenses with my EOS RP in the next future to support any future decisions about 100mm lenses for the RF mount. Until that I have to choose from two lenses and have to go without IS ...
> About the chances to make a much better compromise with a hypothetical RF 100 F2 IS macro: I agree, now we have new glass types, new methods of producing e.g. aspherical shapes an more freedom to place the lens elements (closer to the sensor e.g.) and maybe some additional tools to move more groups of lenses to optimize the system to a very low "degree of compromise"!


I know 2 other lenses excellent @ 100mm: the 70-200 f4 L IS II and the 100-400 L II, both very good for close-ups (I'm often using them for global pics of wild orchids...)
As to the EF 100 f2, I totally agree, super value for few $$$.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 12, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't shoot macro, but...
> 
> You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still. If you want neither the shallow depth of field nor the short exposure, why invest in f/2?


Easier to focus manually on a specific part of the flower.
I'd even prefer - if same quality was granted - an f 1,4


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2021)

syder said:


> As someone who enjoys macro, I'd have 0 interest in a 1:2 100mm close up lens, and for those that do want that there's already the 85 f2. Although the 35mm is fun for wide angle flower shots, you're so close to the subject that most living things have left.. Even the 1:1 of the 100l often isn't enough - 2:1 would be better... I look forwards to there one day being a RF version of the mpe65.


I mistyped it, its a 2:1. A 85 f/2 is close focus but not a macro design. f/2 or f/2.8 isn't needed for macro, at 2:1, f/5.6 or f/8 would be fine, the wider stop allows for focusing but my R5 focuses fine in less light. My 100mm L macro works fine with my R5 so I'd be hesitant to change unless it was something like 150mm 0r 200mm @2:1.


Image surface infinity
Various data
Focal distance 99.75
F number 2.92
Half field angle (degree) 12.24
Whole-length-of-the-lens 168.47
BF 14.00


Magnification ∞ - 1.0 - 2. 0


----------



## Nemorino (Mar 12, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> If you want neither the shallow depth of field nor the short exposure, why invest in f/2


I want both! But I need higher mag, not only 0,5x like these two lenses.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 12, 2021)

STM may be fine for video, but is sloppy for manual focusing. And f/2 for a macro lens? No, thanks.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 13, 2021)

risto0 said:


> Why they make *macro *lens with such huge aperture f2? At close distances the DOF gets so thin that we close down the aperture. Why whould one want to pay extra for f2 when most pictures are taken at f8, f11, f16 and even smaller apertures.


I agree that macro insists on stopped down shooting for any meaningful DOF however many of us use these lenses for portraits etc. and thus would enjoy the increment of speed.
I believe Zeiss had an f2 macro 100 but it was not great wide open close up but did very well stopped down as all lenses do.


----------



## Nemorino (Mar 13, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> You can only focus stack if the object you're shooting is perfectly still


The software has been improved and can correct a lot.
I posted two examples of handheld focus stacking in the flowers thread. Especially the second was not a perfectly still subject. 
flowers and other flora


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 13, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> The software has been improved and can correct a lot.
> I posted two examples of handheld focus stacking in the flowers thread. Especially the second was not a perfectly still subject.
> flowers and other flora



Your point being...? What did you get by focus stacking hand held photos that you wouldn't have gotten with a smaller aperture?


----------



## Kit. (Mar 13, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Your point being...? What did you get by focus stacking hand held photos that you wouldn't have gotten with a smaller aperture?


1. More "natural" background separation.
2. Less blur from camera shake.


----------



## Nemorino (Mar 13, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Your point being...?


It proves the quoted statement by you is wrong?
Neither the subject has to be


Antono Refa said:


> perfectly still


nor the camera. Software has been improved.
And of course the points Kit mentioned:


Kit. said:


> 1. More "natural" background separation.
> 2. Less blur from camera shake.


and
3. Less blur from slightly moving subject.
The wind moved the blossom of the second image. A longer exposure with a tripod would have been useless.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 14, 2021)

stevelee said:


> So a bargain. What a deal!
> 
> I have used my EF 100mm macro for portraits, but I didn’t care for the look. So I bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 when it was on sale. I doubt the usefulness of f/2 for actual macro shots, maybe if you are chasing around insects in dim light and going for an artsy one eye in focus look.


Couple of years back I had gone to Himalayas for butterflying and soon afterwards had to attend my cousin's wedding. Since I was alone decided to pack light and only carried a 100mm L on me. And I shot all the photos of said wedding using 100mm L and I also forgot to change out of setting I use for butterflying. 




Here are butterfly pics from few days prior to that:


Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Common Punch(Dodona durga) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Tailed Punch by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Straight-banded Treebrown(Lethe verma verma) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Azure Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Yellow bordered flat by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr



Himalayan yellow jester(Symbrenthia brabira brabira) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## Tangent (Mar 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The Canon News link identifies this as an RF version for the EF 100 f2, just as the recent RF 85 f2 replaces the 85 1.8 EF. It is projected by CanonNews to have the handy 0.5x "macro" that the RF 85 f2 has. It's not really intended as a true macro lens like the 100 f2.8 L IS macro, so angst on that point is misplaced. 

The user reviews I've seen are positive for the 85 f2 RF, but the more thorough reviews such as Gordon Laing, Christopher Frost, Dustin Abbott (etc.) point out that the STM performance is -- err -- not the best. So here's hoping that the RF 100 has the same good points as the RF 85 _and_ STM performance on the 100 is beefed up! (And include the doggone lens hood, too!)


----------



## figiko (Mar 14, 2021)

I want 2:1 macro not just 1:1


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 16, 2021)

figiko said:


> I want 2:1 macro not just 1:1


An understandable request as expressed by others, but the downside would be a bulkier (mostly longer) lens that has less chance of fitting into a pocket or a small walk-around camera bag. With the RF 35 and RF 85 Canon has demonstrated that one can push the MFD down to a very low value, around 1:2 ratio, while maintaining or even achieving a smaller form factor than the EF equivalent. 
This lower MFD goes in the category of "handy feature" and to label this "Macro" is admittedly somewhat misleading. It is nice for a portrait lens (85 or 100) to not have a minimum focus limit so that one can get close to the subject. The 35mm's small MFD can offer some nice opportunities for focus stacking with a close foreground for landscape. But these are not really macro lenses.
So it is about portability, compare the EF 100mm f:2.0 and either of the EF 100 macros and you can see that to deliver the 1:1 the lenses sported larger and heavier specifications while offering one stop less in aperture:
Lens Weight Length Filter
EF 100 f:2.0 460g 74mm 58mm
EF 100 f:2.8 Macro 600g 119mm 58mm 30% heavier / 60% longer
EF 100 f:2.8 Macro L IS 625g 123mm 67mm


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> 1. More "natural" background separation.
> 2. Less blur from camera shake.


1. Can be done with software.
2. Optical IS & IBIS go quite a long way nowadays.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> 1. Can be done with software.


Like... repainted by hand?

Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".



Antono Refa said:


> 2. Optical IS & IBIS go quite a long way nowadays.


How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?


----------



## stevelee (Mar 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Like... repainted by hand?
> 
> Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".
> 
> ...


The extremes of wide open fast lens pictures often don't look natural, either.

I have on a few occasions selected the subject, inverted the selection, gone into Quick View mode, used a white to black gradient in lighten mode to paint from near bottom to top and then exited the QV. Then I'd apply the lens blur at a moderate amount, adjusting with the "fade" command. That makes distant things blur more than the closer background. In judicious amounts it can look OK. But that doesn't happen often. Mostly I just try to choose the right lens for the job.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Like... repainted by hand?
> 
> Just selecting the object and uniformly blurring the background won't look "natural".


It isn't "natural", its familiar.


Kit. said:


> How would they compensate for "change of magnification" kind of blur?


You claim IBIS & optical IS introduce shake along the optical axis that wasn't there to begin with? Otherwise, either its not a problem to begin with (as Nemerino claims, as software will correct for it), or you need a tripod.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Mar 18, 2021)

I'm just about to upgrade my EF 85 1.8 to the RF 85 f2, the macro feature being a huge bonus for me as I regularly go between shooting close up to further away with products/lifestyle/food/drink shoots. So not having to swap out extension tubes will be a massive bonus. 

However, if the RF100 f2 is around the same price I will 100% be swapping the 85 for it. That slightly longer reach and maintaining f2 will be a huge benefit. If anything when stopped down to f2.8/4/5.6 it should be insanely sharp for product work. I've used the old EF 100 f2 and it's a beautiful focal length to shoot.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Mar 19, 2021)

Focus stacking also lets you avoid softness due to diffraction. Shooting at f/8 at 1:1 magnification is equivalent to f/16* at infinity, so you definitely have some diffraction softness already. If you go beyond 1:1 it starts getting pretty crazy. I shoot coins at f/5.6, which for small coins like dimes is _barely_ enough to get the whole relief in focus (or even not quite enough); that's already into diffraction limited territory, with a very flat subject.

I was really delighted to realize that the R5's high frame rate would let me do hand-held focus stacking. This was _literally_ my first attempt at it after getting the camera. This wasn't even a completely still subject (the spider only had one line but the focus stacking rendered it as several because it was fluttering in the breeze). It's pretty small; this is close to 1:1 magnification with a bit of a crop.




_* This assumes some specific details about the lens's optics, but it's usually correct, or at least close._


----------

