https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-a...f-85mm-f18
they are patented and logically those are classic lenses so no doubt they are coming...
85mm f1.8 with a 1:2 magnification ratio and stabilization that's absolutely awesome, I would be ready to sell my 100mm macro and EF 85f1.8 to get it
(04-07-2020, 07:54 PM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-a...f-85mm-f18
they are patented and logically those are classic lenses so no doubt they are coming...
85mm f1.8 with a 1:2 magnification ratio and stabilization that's absolutely awesome, I would be ready to sell my 100mm macro and EF 85f1.8 to get it
A 85mm with 1:2 magnification ratio technically ain't a macro lens. Extreme close up... yes.
But it is nice to see them improve their primes with macro capability.
Don't need a macro lens, that's an awesome portrait lens that can do close up macro very useful for babies, 1:1 is good but not a must, Canon 50mmf2.5 macro has only 1:2 if Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the magnification would be even better
If Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the FOV will be much more narrow and you are not talking about a "85mm lens" in FF context anymore.
If Canon decides to launch a 1.6x TC, the same.
If Canon launches an extension tube set, you can reach the 1:1 magnification in 85mm in FF context.
Almost all macro lenses from the 1960s/70's/80's were 1:2 macro lenses, usually with an 1:1 extension tube or mixed TC + extension tube thing, like the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro and its dedicated "life size converter".
Macro photography has been "defined" as photography within the 10:1 to 1:1 range. Since the magnification is defined on the projected image plane, it is a pretty useless definition. It says nothing about the size of the subject in the resulting photographs (this is sensor/film size dependent).
(04-08-2020, 06:34 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]If Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the FOV will be much more narrow and you are not talking about a "85mm lens" in FF context anymore.
If Canon decides to launch a 1.6x TC, the same.
If Canon launches an extension tube set, you can reach the 1:1 magnification in 85mm in FF context.
Almost all macro lenses from the 1960s/70's/80's were 1:2 macro lenses, usually with an 1:1 extension tube or mixed TC + extension tube thing, like the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro and its dedicated "life size converter".
Macro photography has been "defined" as photography within the 10:1 to 1:1 range. Since the magnification is defined on the projected image plane, it is a pretty useless definition. It says nothing about the size of the subject in the resulting photographs (this is sensor/film size dependent).
Yes all of the above are correct. Still the definition is the definition. What I can think of is that with 1:1 magnification the final reproduction in media will be larger than life size. Because the print media is always larger than the recording media in photography.
1:1 is a domination from film era that says size of the subject on the slide/film is same as the size of the actual subject
(04-09-2020, 08:15 AM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]1:1 is a domination from film era that says size of the subject on the slide/film is same as the size of the actual subject
Do you have the idea that that is any different from what has been said above?
Off topic
Digital and film photography differ only in the nature of the exposure media.
On topic if it was a Pentax 1:2 "macro" lens you would be joking about it. By the way my first digital camera was a Canon G5.