Klaus review of RF100 macro is out

It would have been useful to have compared it with the EF100 macro and adaptor

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

With 85 on R7 will be more practical imo, chopping off the edge, which is very decent too anyway, will provide a very nice 135mm f3 macro

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

About the review or about the lens?

I found it interesting that he demonstrates the focus shift effectively but doesn't mention it anymore. Seems not a big deal for him. Maybe I should test this, too, since I got the lens. Still very weird that Canon didn't implement an auto correction for this - should be easy to do.

I have to say that the autofocus is a joy to use, much faster than anything I have used before, like Sigma 105mms or the EF 100 L. These lenses do offer similar image quality for a much lower price, though.

And yeah, the CA control is just very weird, and I have yet to see anyone who really uses this creatively. Seems that virtually everyone just locks the ring up and forgets about it. I wonder how much smaller and more affordable the lens would be without that... probably not that much.

fritzli wrote:

The AF of the RF ist noticeably faster than the EF.
I tried to "prove" the focus shift of the RF. But my test settings were probably not very scientific. The best I got were these:

Interesting, thanks! Good to see that you didn't immediately manage to show the focus shift There's a lot of people out there who say that it isn't an issue for them.

I finally baught the RF. My learning curve is steep. I find it hard to master that darn lens. If you like, you can find some recent exercises here: https://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Nature/Spring/Spring-2022/

I find these pretty good! Inhowfar are you having difficulty? Do you find the lens more difficult than other macro lenses or is it your first one?

From what I have read, the focus shift is no big deal at 1:1 or 1:1.4.  And it's not there if you are shooting portraits at f2.8.

But if you are doing "medium macros" like flowers or butterflies, it's huge.  And if you shoot portraits at f8 with flash, it's huge.

So some people may never see it, and others may have a near unusable lens.  Seems unacceptable to me given the price.

tkbslc wrote:

From what I have read, the focus shift is no big deal at 1:1 or 1:1.4. And it's not there if you are shooting portraits at f2.8.

But if you are doing "medium macros" like flowers or butterflies, it's huge. And if you shoot portraits at f8 with flash, it's huge.

Hmm, not awesome. Sure, at 2.8, there is nothing to shift in the first place It did worry me a bit since what you call "medium macro" is what I do most often.

If there are problems, they don't become apparent to me. Shots like this one usually are spot-on.

EDIT: But yeah, it might be tricky to spot because most macro subjects are pretty threedimensional, so rarely everything's in focus. There is a plugin for Lightroom to show where the focus point was. I'll look into that, it should clear this up a bit.

EDIT 2: Got the plugin, it works like a charm. I'll add two examples. @tkbslc: What do you make of those? They seem good to me. Both are medium macro with pretty far closed down aperture, that should show it, right?

The focus point for the above image.

And one more example:

Fullsize picture

focus point:

And-roid wrote:

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

With 85 on R7 will be more practical imo, chopping off the edge, which is very decent too anyway, will provide a very nice 135mm f3 macro

Personally I prefer 60-65mm on a crop camera. I do a lot of macro using those and rarely use the 100L. Having tried the RF100 and owning the EF100L magnification on the RF is great and the AF is faster for the few times I use AF in macro. Otherwise the upgrade would not be worth it for me, mainly as it would still rarely be used as it is not my preferred focal length on a crop.

Blue-Shift wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

From what I have read, the focus shift is no big deal at 1:1 or 1:1.4. And it's not there if you are shooting portraits at f2.8.

But if you are doing "medium macros" like flowers or butterflies, it's huge. And if you shoot portraits at f8 with flash, it's huge.

Hmm, not awesome. Sure, at 2.8, there is nothing to shift in the first place It did worry me a bit since what you call "medium macro" is what I do most often.

If there are problems, they don't become apparent to me. Shots like this one usually are spot-on.

@tkbslc: What do you make of those? They seem good to me. Both are medium macro with pretty far closed down aperture, that should show it, right?

Those look decent to me.  I don't have the lens, I just saw a pretty scathing review over at fredmiranda recently and that was the summary I shared.

quiquae wrote:

And-roid wrote:

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

With 85 on R7 will be more practical imo, chopping off the edge, which is very decent too anyway, will provide a very nice 135mm f3 macro

Very nice 135mm f3 half-macro, you mean. Half-macro is great if you just want to stop worrying about MFD all the time, but for actual macro shooting, half-macro can be pretty limiting.

I suppose that comes down to what each individual calls macro, or in fact what some lens makers call macro. It has become a bit of a woolly term these days. Many just want to photograph butterflies or dragons so for them the loose definition is fine.

fritzli wrote:

I finally baught the RF. My learning curve is steep. I find it hard to master that darn lens. If you like, you can find some recent exercises here: https://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Nature/Spring/Spring-2022/

I find these pretty good! Inhowfar are you having difficulty? Do you find the lens more difficult than other macro lenses or is it your first one?

Perhaps it's not (only) the lens but macro photography itself. I mean, flowers dont hold still. There ist always some wind. I mostly shoot handheld with AF servo or coninuous AF. I'd like to shoot butterflies like you, but it's hard to find them and they fly away verry fast. How do you this?

TIA
Jonny

In the evening when they roost, or just after rain can make shooting butterflies a lot easier.

fritzli wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

fritzli wrote:

I finally baught the RF. My learning curve is steep. I find it hard to master that darn lens. If you like, you can find some recent exercises here: https://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Nature/Spring/Spring-2022/

I find these pretty good! Inhowfar are you having difficulty? Do you find the lens more difficult than other macro lenses or is it your first one?

Perhaps it's not (only) the lens but macro photography itself. I mean, flowers dont hold still. There ist always some wind. I mostly shoot handheld with AF servo or coninuous AF. I'd like to shoot butterflies like you, but it's hard to find them and they fly away verry fast. How do you this?

TIA
Jonny

In the evening when they roost, or just after rain can make shooting butterflies a lot easier.

Thanks!
Jonny

Just had a look at your site. You have some wonderful images there. Particularly like the cityscapes.

Distinctly Average wrote:

And-roid wrote:

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

With 85 on R7 will be more practical imo, chopping off the edge, which is very decent too anyway, will provide a very nice 135mm f3 macro

Personally I prefer 60-65mm on a crop camera. I do a lot of macro using those and rarely use the 100L. Having tried the RF100 and owning the EF100L magnification on the RF is great and the AF is faster for the few times I use AF in macro. Otherwise the upgrade would not be worth it for me, mainly as it would still rarely be used as it is not my preferred focal length on a crop.

Do you mean 6o-65mm eg 100-105mm equivalent or 60-65mm equivalent? Either way I don't think that or the 1:2 is the issue for most!

And-roid wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

And-roid wrote:

fritzli wrote:

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1140-canonrf100f28

highly recommended, some focus shift though. what do you think?

With 85 on R7 will be more practical imo, chopping off the edge, which is very decent too anyway, will provide a very nice 135mm f3 macro

Personally I prefer 60-65mm on a crop camera. I do a lot of macro using those and rarely use the 100L. Having tried the RF100 and owning the EF100L magnification on the RF is great and the AF is faster for the few times I use AF in macro. Otherwise the upgrade would not be worth it for me, mainly as it would still rarely be used as it is not my preferred focal length on a crop.

Do you mean 6o-65mm eg 100-105mm equivalent or 60-65mm equivalent? Either way I don't think that or the 1:2 is the issue for most!

I don’t concern myself with equivalent lengths, 60mm is 60mm.  I didn’t use the 100L much on FF or crop bodies as I preferred the 60mm. Fits easier in my bag for one, which means I can also carry the MPE-65. Now that lens is challenging for now macro togs, especially handheld. I took the tripod ring off it out of the box and never used it. Took a lot of practice to learn. It is also heavy with quite a front ended balance making it hard work at times. The results are worth the effort, at least they are for me.