Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?

  
 
sphaero126
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


My main setup has been a Canon 70D with the 100mm 2.8 macro lens. It works great for the couple times a year I bring it out to photograph animals.

I recently picked up a Canon EOS R to try using a mirrorless camera for the first time in the field, since most of my photos are at night and see they have their own 100mm macro lens for mirrorless.

For those who have used both, is there any real discernable difference between the two to justify buying the RF lens vs using my EF lens with an adapter? I dont ever shoot portraits or people, and dont use autofocus - I strictly photograph small animals with manual focus, so not sure if that makes a difference.

Thanks,



Sep 22, 2022 at 07:51 AM
JRobertson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


Other than being lighter, focusing faster, and the 1:1.4 as opposed to the EF's 1:1, not a ton. I switched to the RF personally, just liked the images I was getting better with it.


Sep 22, 2022 at 02:35 PM
Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


The RF 100 macro has a "characteristic" that may or may not be a problem. It has focus shift at a specific range of distances, meaning that the field of sharp focus shifts when the camera stops down to the f/value you selected. The camera focuses vide open, you see.

I really love my RF 100 on R5. But some find the focus shift an abomination and loudly make their hatred heard. Their loss.

The point is that if your preferred shooting technique is unaffected, then you will find the lens wonderful, especially as it goes to 1.4x with razor sharpness from 1.4x to infinity. But if you struggle with the focus shift and canīt work around it, then it will be a pain.

I use focus stacking a lot and it is amazing with the RF. Unfortunately the R does not have stacking. Therefore I jumped from R to RP just to get it. I never really found any love for the R. But that was perhaps more me than the R. However you put it for macro mirrorless is such a great step forward with magnification in the viewfinder and so on.

However and in conclusion I would recommend that you use your EF 100 Macro with an adapter.

A few friends have the EF and do very well indeed with it adapted. When you choose adapter, have a look at the different models. Some have the control ring included in the adapter so you get that opportunity with adapted lenses too. I have it selected to do exposure compensations swiftly and nicely and love it especially with macro as some flowers are white, some bugs black and the pace can be challengingly high.

Some adapters apparently take filters and one that I like has a foot for use on tripod. Nice with some heavier lenses and moves the point of rotation slightly forward, same with the point of mass.

When you have got accustomed to the wider view on the full frame, Iīm sure you will find the R + EF 100 macro a powerful combo to capture the wonderful tings out there!



Sep 22, 2022 at 02:38 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


It's mind bending that they came out with a $1200-1400 100mm macro lens that has focus shift. Probably better off adapting EF IS or non IS.


Sep 22, 2022 at 07:49 PM
John_Benson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


Can someone explain why did Canon go from the ef with 1:1 to the rf 1:4? From what I have read the 1:1 is much better for macro shooting than 1:4



Sep 22, 2022 at 08:12 PM
Choderboy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


It's not 1:4. 1:4 means a 4cm subject will be 1cm on the sensor.
Another way of saying that is 0.25x magnification which many non macro lenses can do.
The RF100 macro has 1.4x maximum magnification. The EF100 has 1x magnification.
This means a 1cm subject will be 1.4cm on the sensor for RF or 1cm for EF (both at maximum magnification).
So the RF has higher magnification which would be considered better for 99% of users.



John_Benson wrote:
Can someone explain why did Canon go from the ef with 1:1 to the rf 1:4? From what I have read the 1:1 is much better for macro shooting than 1:4




Sep 22, 2022 at 09:06 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


John_Benson wrote:
Can someone explain why did Canon go from the ef with 1:1 to the rf 1:4? From what I have read the 1:1 is much better for macro shooting than 1:4


Actually, typically, a true macro lens is 1:1, like the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro. The new RF is 1.4:1, meaning that it can be used at an even closer minimum focus, to achieve magnification greater than 1:1.




Sep 22, 2022 at 09:11 PM
Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


AmbientMike wrote:
It's mind bending that they came out with a $1200-1400 100mm macro lens that has focus shift. Probably better off adapting EF IS or non IS.


Would be educative if they would share the different design options they had on the table when they decided that focus shift was acceptable. I have no problems with it in the macro. But the EF 50/1.2 could be a challenge and pain, especially with the wobbly AFs of those day.



Sep 23, 2022 at 04:56 AM
Alan Kefauver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


I have never run into the focus shift issue, but then again i don't use the lens that much. I understand it only occurs within a certain aperture range.


Sep 23, 2022 at 07:37 AM
Pete73
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


For me the extra magnification alone was worth the upgrade. I found myself always using a 25mm extension tube with the EF. When I transitioned to the R system I had an EF-RF adapter, extension tube then the EF lens. It worked of course, but it was very front heavy and awkward. The RF lens has better IS, less CA, faster auto focus, lighter weight and better balance. I have not been able to produce focus shift with two copies (one I rented, one I now own). After reading all the online reviews shift was a real concern for me. Over all the lens has been great! although the SA control is all but useless to me.


Sep 23, 2022 at 08:02 AM
tsunathanh
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon RF 100mm macro vs EF 100mm macro?


The RF is better. However-- you should really also look at other lenses. If you're using it mostly for macro and you aren't using autofocus, check out the Laowa offerings. I have many macro lenses, and the one I use the most is the Laowa 85mm macro. It is $500 and in many ways better than the RF or EF offerings.

The laowa 90mm and the new 58mm are also exceptional, but the 85 is really small- smaller than a MFT macro lens (!). It is really great. It has a max aperture of 5.6, but since no one ever uses an aperture bigger than around f8 for real macro work, the 85 saves you the weight and bulk of carrying around glass you don't use. And it goes to 2x instead of just 1.4x like the RF. It also will save you around the same cost as a plane ticket to some place with phenomenal bugs to photograph



Sep 23, 2022 at 08:19 AM







FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password