I have not yet upgraded to the RF, I still have the EF 100mm L. I'll be watching this thread as I am interested in the upgrade, mostly for the 1.4x magnification and the direct RF compatibility.
Super happy with my RF 100mm f2.8L Macro! Upgraded from the RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM lens which was nice, but the real macro, 1.4:1 macro is just superb. I usually use focus stacking as I´m doing most all free hand.
davholla wrote:
Interesting do you have any examples?
Almost 100% of anything flying, bumble or other bees, dragonflies, wasps, flies, mosquitoes. The 100-500 is great for anything a bit larger than "real macro" and if the subject don´t let you close enough for 100mm. The RF 100 Macro rules from 1:3 to 1.4:1.
Of course if you use the 100-500 at 100 and close to minimum distance, the Marcro is better. Never tested that, they are so different lenses for my use. The Macro for critical static, the zoom for fast action. The 100-500 is such a powerful general lens where as the Macro is a great specialist. It does landscapes very well indeed, but only at 100mm.
As for the focus shift, it is a nonissue when using focus stacking. I don´t necessarily stack, but select the best of the series. Does not matter if the focus is shifted or not in a short step series.
I own the RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro but admit I haven’t used it enough to judge its speed on my R5 Mark II. Also sold my EF L version before moving to RF so I never used it with the EF to RF adapter on an RF body. Do now also own the 1DX Mark II as my only EF body but don’t do any Macro work with it.
Sorry I’m not much help.
I don’t know if I'd call it an upgrade, but the RF 100 2.8L is different from my other macro lenses. My favorite is the EF-S 60 2.8 USM, and image quality and AF speed are very close. The shorter focus length is better for flowers, plants, docs, and small products. 100mm is often too long, and my back is up against the wall or bushes. I can say the RF 100 2.8 focuses a lot faster than the RF 85 2.0 and is more reliable for focus bracketing. The RF 85 2.0 is a real slowpoke.
Gochugogi wrote:
I don’t know if I'd call it an upgrade, but the RF 100 2.8L is different from my other macro lenses. My favorite is the EF-S 60 2.8 USM, and image quality and AF speed are very close. The shorter focus length is better for flowers, plants, docs, and small products. 100mm is often too long, and my back is up against the wall or bushes. I can say the RF 100 2.8 focuses a lot faster than the RF 85 2.0 and is more reliable for focus bracketing. The RF 85 2.0 is a real slowpoke.
That surprises me this was taken with the RF 85 mm
I have the 60mm and have taken a few insect in flight photos but not many.
I think I am going to use the test drive program and do the table tennis ball test. I.e get my wife to bounce a table tennis ball and how the two lenses compare.
On a FF body the 60mm is cropped to a ~100mm FOV, no? I have wanted to toy with a shorter focal length macro but there are few AF 1:1 options (Sigma 70mm, perhaps?).
Mar 12, 2026 at 07:54 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jaredmizanin wrote:
On a FF body the 60mm is cropped to a ~100mm FOV, no? I have wanted to toy with a shorter focal length macro but there are few AF 1:1 options (Sigma 70mm, perhaps?).
It is manual focus and you won't get the green triangles as a focus aid, but it does come in RF mount and you can use magnification in the EVF for focus. This lens goes all the way to 2X magnification so will do 1X quite easily.
