Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

I'm on the fence between these two. I currently only use two bodies; R6 and 7dmk2.

I'm not ready for ultra professional macro photography yet; just want to get some close up shots of small (seemingly abundant) bugs and spiders in my back yard. I have no plans on ever taking this lens on a travel vacation; this is an entirely "stay at home" lens.

Reasoning for each lens:

1. EF version; tried and true, has the reputation of being a spectacular lens. Also, maybe some day I'll come across a good deal on a used 5DMK4.

2. RF version; looks to be a decent lens. I'm not a fan of that extra ring for defocus, or bokeh adjuster, or whatever Canon calls it. It's comforting to know I can leave that ring locked on the "0" position, as I will never use it for absolutely anything. However, that's just one extra component that can fail in the long run. Also, being an RF lens, I'll never be able to use it on my 7dmk2 (or my future 5DMK4 great deal I dream of some day coming across).

Both lenses cost the same at this time (Canon jacked up the price of the EF version probably to confuse people like me).

Which would you get if you were me?

Jul 23, 2023 at 08:02 PM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

Someone is bound to come here to tell you the RF lens is terrible due to focus shift within a certain close focusing range. Use of the spherical aberration control ring helps control this matter. I highly recommend you read Jordan's thread here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1757213

Jul 23, 2023 at 08:08 PM

dthrog00
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

I'm still using DSLRs and have had the EF version since 2013. It is outstanding in my opinion. It is of course good for macro/close up photography, has good performance at infinity focus, and the bokeh is nice too.

I have a bunch of samples: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dthrog00/tags/100mmf28lmacrois/

Dave

Jul 23, 2023 at 08:39 PM

Gochugogi
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

snegron7 wrote:
2. RF version; looks to be a decent lens. I'm not a fan of that extra ring for defocus, or bokeh adjuster, or whatever Canon calls it. It's comforting to know I can leave that ring locked on the "0" position, as I will never use it for absolutely anything. However, that's just one extra component that can fail in the long run. Also, being an RF lens, I'll never be able to use it on my 7dmk2 (or my future 5DMK4 great deal I dream of some day coming across).

The SA dial may be used to mitigate the focus shift at medium distances, e.g., 6 meters: dial in .5+. It's not needed for infinity or macro, just your typical portrait distances. Otherwise AF is amazingly accurate and agile: I no longer need to use MF for macro distances. Also the diaphragm and Nano USM blaze and can handle 40fps focus brackets on the R6 MK II. My RF 85 2.0 Macro often gives me an error when I try that...

Jul 23, 2023 at 09:54 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

rscheffler wrote:
Someone is bound to come here to tell you the RF lens is terrible due to focus shift within a certain close focusing range. Use of the spherical aberration control ring helps control this matter. I highly recommend you read Jordan's thread here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1757213

That'd be me, might stop short of terrible but I'd hate to have to adjust a ring as I'm trying to sneak up on a bug. Suppose it's fine if you focus bracket though.

I prefer 180 or maybe 150mm for bugs , gives more room. Have to buy used though. My 180 Tamron is really good. Non-OS Sigma 150 supposed to be particularly sharp, IS/OS a big deal for macro though imo. Although 180 Tamron doesn't have it

Jul 23, 2023 at 10:00 PM

Gochugogi
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

AmbientMike wrote:
That'd be me, might stop short of terrible but I'd hate to have to adjust a ring as I'm trying to sneak up on a bug. Suppose it's fine if you focus bracket though.

I prefer 180 or maybe 150mm for bugs , gives more room. Have to buy used though. My 180 Tamron is really good. Non-OS Sigma 150 supposed to be particularly sharp, IS/OS a big deal for macro though imo. Although 180 Tamron doesn't have it

The SA adjustment isn't needed at bug range—I've shot many—but at typical upper body portrait range only. I really enjoy the RF 100 2.8L for twilight landscapes. No coma even wide open. Stars and street lights are actual points of light. Most of my other F2.8 or faster lenses need to be stopped down to F4 or F5.6 to nix coma.

Jul 24, 2023 at 01:33 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

Gochugogi wrote:
The SA adjustment isn't needed at bug range—I've shot many—but at typical upper body portrait range only. I really enjoy the RF 100 2.8L for twilight landscapes. No coma even wide open. Stars and street lights are actual points of light. Most of my other F2.8 or faster lenses need to be stopped down to F4 or F5.6 to nix coma.

I'm at 1:2-1:5 a lot, I'd hate to have to keep an eye on magnification and adjust a ring.

Jul 24, 2023 at 11:16 AM

muurman
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

Big difference:
Rf does 1.4:1

Jul 24, 2023 at 11:19 AM

Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

As much as I love my RF 100, I´d say that if you really intend to use EF extensively for a few year more, go for the EF. Unless a general change in the World order, later on you can switch to the RF or a newer RF that we know nothing about yet. The 3:1 RF 180 f/4 is lightbendingly good, my future me tells me!

Using extension rings to reach 1:1 and better macro, I never realized how nice it is to reach 1.4x without any fippling with rings.

Jul 24, 2023 at 03:05 PM

ross attix
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

I’m with AmbientMike-100 is too short for macro unless you want to breathe on the subject.

Jul 24, 2023 at 03:13 PM

Gochugogi
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

ross attix wrote:
I’m with AmbientMike-100 is too short for macro unless you want to breathe on the subject.

I find 100mm often too long and my tripod is at maximum height and I can't frame the art, product or document. In such cases the RF 35 1.8 Macro or RF 24 1.8 Macro are ideal.

Jul 25, 2023 at 02:09 AM

muurman
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

RF 35mm and 24mm are not real macro
Canon call them macro but it is just 0.5 : 1

Jul 25, 2023 at 12:53 PM

johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

muurman wrote:
RF 35mm and 24mm are not real macro
Canon call them macro but it is just 0.5 : 1

I know we'd prefer 'macro' to mean 1:1, or 100% magnification, but there's really no strict definition beyond 'close focus'. This is why we typically specify "1:1 macro" when that's what we intend to refer to.

Jul 25, 2023 at 01:08 PM

Gochugogi
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

muurman wrote:
RF 35mm and 24mm are not real macro
Canon call them macro but it is just 0.5 : 1

According to the Oxford dictionary macro means closeup photography:

"Photography relating to or used in macrophotography: your lens has a macro setting for shooting big close-ups."

I also own an old EF-S 35 2.8 Macro IS STM and it does 1:1 macro and is amazing for side and negative copying on my R7 with the Nikon ES-2 Film Digitalizer Adapter. But 1:1 for anything else is silly close (blocks the light and is in danger of bumping the subject). .5X macro is a practical limit for a 24 or 35mm lens. Indeed, .5X makes sense on a 50mm lens as well. 1:1 really only gets practical at 85mm+. I probably use the .25X to 50X macro range the most for my subjects.

Jul 25, 2023 at 04:59 PM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

Update:

I ended up ordering the EF 100mm f2.8L, not the RF version.

I'm really happy I did! Turns out I'm getting much better images with it on my old 7dmk2 than on my R6. Maybe it's the crop factor, I don't know. The close up images I'm getting with my R6 seem noisy and lack detail, unlike my old 7dmk2 which are awesome.

Aug 27, 2023 at 12:28 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · EF 100mm f2.8L vs RF 100mm f2.8L

I'll go for the RF version when I eventually sell my EF gear. For now the EF 100 L does what I need. I rarely take it away from home anyway preferring the 35 or 60 EF-S macros on the R7 in the field. Rarely need 1:1 for bugs and flowers so the 1:2.? range works just fine. Really like that many of the RF zooms like the 14-35, 18-150, and 100-400 focus quite close for their focal lengths (the 18-150 max magnification is at about 60 mm). All these are great for closeup nature and work well with the R's focus stacking. One of the surprise improvements over my EF kit. One of these days 1.4:1 will call me but for now I'm content.

Aug 27, 2023 at 02:34 PM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.