ThrillaMozilla wrote:
ZilverHaylide wrote:
But I doubt that you'd gain a solution to that issue by a switch to Canon,
Damsel flies
Not extreme macro, but I'm extremely impressed.
Maybe not a reason to switch, but certainly something to be aware of.
A reason to NOT switch to Canon is the flawed performance of their current 100mm macro for their mirrorless "RF" mount. Because while it's not an "extreme macro" lens, I'd bet that many people doing extreme macro are also interested in more "normal" macro too (sometimes NOT stacked) and a lens in the 90-105mm range is usually a basic tool for that. And that Canon lens reportedly exhibits some noticeable focus shift stopping down, with only a kludgy, guesstimate way to compensate:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-100mm-F2.8-L-Macro-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
"Compensating for the focus shift requires focusing in front of a subject. Pressing the depth of field preview button shows the shifted focus, but the lens does not focus (on the R5 at least) while the DOF button is pressed. This anomaly from an RF L-series lens is disappointing."
at least not for extreme macro, where depth-of-field is extremely thin, and any built-in focus bracketing has probably not been designed for that, that is, probably doesn't have fine-enough steps either.
I wouldn't make that assumption. I've never tried extreme macro, but do you think 999 steps is enough?
I answered that in another post.
Not even sure what built-in focus bracketing is available in Canon. I think that some, but not all, Canon mirrorless bodies have it
Yes, indeed, the M6 II, the RP, the R5, the R6 the R7, and probably some others have it.
; be aware that even when the body has it, it only works with certain lenses -- I remember someone complaining in a DPReview post that info about it not being possible with that lens was only found in some obscure place in the lens' user manual.
It works with plenty of lenses, and Google is your friend.
Google is not "my friend". It's a giant corporation sucking up and trying to monetize all information -- and doing so with nearly complete disregard for whether it's correct or incorrect information.
Sometimes it can correctly answer a question. Sometimes it provides incorrect answers. And sometimes, by spreading false and absurd info, it damages popular belief in fundamental institutions like democracy, science, and public health (which aren't perfect, but are much better than what some persons are promoting).
No, I'm not a Canon user, so my conclusions are based on what others have said, but those others aren't just some Googled random reviewers in their bedrooms with webcams doing a side-hustle, but rather, persons/sites that have been, I think, quite carefully and objectively evaluating lens performance for a very long time, and that I think are worth trusting. For example:
Closeuphotography.com
coinimaging.com
The-digital-picture.com
Blog.kasson.com
Don't know whether any Canon DSLRs have it.
Oh, yes.
Canon does have the supposedly fairly-good 65mm 1-5x macro lens for DSLRs but I believe that's manual focus, so built-in focus bracketing is irrelevant for that.
It is manual focus, but it isn't "fairly good". It's great.
"Great"? Um, no, at least not with regard to LoCA, so I'll stick with my "fairly good" label.
HIGH-MAGNIFICATION MACRO LENSES AT 4X:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/4x-lens-test-part-4
"The MP-E 65 can make nice, sharp images, no doubt. The lens is sharpest at f/2.8 at 4x, but shooting at f/2.8 comes with a chromatic aberration penalty. Closing down to f/4 helps clean up the CAs, but at the same time, the resolution also starts to go away. I need to mention that this lens has some of the worst longitudinal chromatic aberrations in the group"
His comments about LoCA on this lens are even more stinging in his 5X test:
CANON MP-E 65MM MACRO LENS VS MAG.X 5X 0.20 LD PLAN APO OBJECTIVE 5X TEST
https://www.closeuphotography.com/5x-test-canon-mpe-65-lens-vs-mag-x-5x-objective
"The specs include one UD or Ultra-low glass element but looking at the results you would never have guessed it judging by the amount of neon green bokeh fringing. Its not just an average performance, its one of the worst LoCA producing lenses that I own, and I own a lot of lenses."
He has plenty of photos posted to illustrate the issue. And beyond that, a lot of other tests and comparisons. I strongly urge a visit to his site, if interested in some evidence-based information on how specific macro lenses perform, and perform compared to others.
However, I could be mistaken, but I'm not aware of any major manufacturers that support autofocusing at magnifications >2. But you could try Googling it.
