Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The new Cannons ...
#11
(04-15-2021, 04:06 PM)Rover Wrote: It won't be "suddenly" discontinued (and rendered unserviceable) by Canon... at least not quite as soon. Smile

Well, from "discontinued" to "unserviceable" usually takes a while. But anyway... those buying new (professionals) will possibly switch completely if they fall in love with the R3. And this will offer opportunities for those longing for one of the EF lenses to get them used for a fair price.

Thanks, BC, for the explanations. So, it does make sense to switch to RF lenses, unless someone wants to keep a hybrid system with both mounts.
Editor
opticallimits.com

#12
7 years really is a while but time does fly (2014 was 7 years ago and for me, it's not all that far off in the memory). Besides, one would feel safe using even lenses with earlier inception dates knowing that they are not discontinued, and spare parts are still being churned out. BTW I think people have missed that the EF lens with longest ever production run has finally bit the dust as well - and it's the humble 100mm f/2 which has been in production for 30 years, beating the 85/1.8 by a year and some of the more well known units like the 135/2. Oh, and I've only seen it once in the wild - it's always been overshaded by the 85/1.8, of which I've seen tons, and even used one (loaned from a colleague) a couple of times.
#13
(04-16-2021, 06:28 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(04-15-2021, 08:52 PM)wim Wrote: The 100 mm macro, as before, is not a 100 mm lens anymore when shooting macro. Focusing distance at 1:1 is 28 cm (object to sensor) and 26 cm at 1:1.4.

That means it is a 69 mm lens at 1x magnification and 65 mm lens at 1.4x magnification. This means I will certainly not get one.

For those who like to shoot video this behaviour may be beneficial, as it may have little to no focus breathing at normal shooting distances.

Yeah.. about that.

You got those numbers from dpreview?
DPReview says 26cm MFD (1.4:1), 8.6cm working distance. 

The lens is internal focussing, as far as I know. 

DPReview says 28cm object distance at 1:1... So they gain 40% magnification with 2cm of movement (or to put it more clearly.... they gain 40% magnification with going only 7% closer to the subject)? And they say 11.2cm working distance at 1:1.
26 - 8.6 = 17.4cm
28 - 11.2 = 16.8cm.
Something is off with those DPReview numbers, and your calculations.

Canon states 26cm MFD and a lens length of 14.8cm. The RF mount has a 20mm flange distance. 26 - 14.8 - 2 = 9.2cm working distance instead of 8.6cm. So DPReview's working distance figure for MFD is wrong.

Can you point me/us to a Canon subject distance number for 1:1?

Anyway. You say you will not get one. You won't be getting the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 L USM then, either. It does 1:1 at 30cm MFD (this RF lens does 1.4:1 at 26cm MFD). Or the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM. It does 1:1  at 31cm MFD. Sigma's new 105mm f2.8 DN ART? 1:1 at 29.5cm MFD....

No, I won't get any of the Canon EF 100 macro lenses either. I actually owned the 100 non-L version, and wasn't too impressed by it. I would not consider a Sigma lens either, because of personal experience(s) with the brand..

In order to caculate the FL at these magnifications I used the simple lens formulas which take magnification into account. Basically for 1:1 it is very easy, especially as Canon uses MFD correctly, as in, the distance from the sensor to sharp focus plane of the object being imaged.

I know you don't like simple lens formulas, because modern lenses aren't simple, but it is nice for a comparison. At 1:1, it works out that the real MFD equals 4x the FL, so that makes it even easier Smile.

The 28 cm and 26 cm figures, actually just a little less expressed in inches, are Canon's as far as I am aware, so the math for the actual FL is simple: a little less than 28 cm divided by 4 makes it around 69 mm. I honestly can't remember where I saw the MFDs, but since I saw inches, it must have been a US article.

For 1.4x magnification I put it in my spreadsheet, where I stored the actual fomula Smile.

With macro lenses, I prefer a lens that does a lot of focus breathing, i.e., extends the barrel rather than focuses internally. It gives one several advantages, namely a slightly larger working distance to the object, relatively speaking a lot more distance from operator to object, and generally no change in rendering.

I also find that many IF lenses, especially in the macro area, don't render all that nicely, but that obviously is a matter of taste.

I therefore prefer lenses like the longer TS-Es for macro, and even some lenses a lot of people would not consider, but do actually well in macro ranges, like the old 50 F/1.2L, 135L, both with extension tubes, 100-400L with D500 anachromat close-up lens, the non-IS 70-200 F/4 with tubes, and some of the shorter TS-Es {45, and even 24) as well, with tubes.
Macro lenses I really like are the 180L Macro, and the MP-E 65 Smile. I also liked the diminuitive EF-S 60 a lot when I got that back in 2005. Sold it a year after  the 5D II was released.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#14
My Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not IF, it extends a lot. It has an MFD of 29cm. It extends 51.5mm. That makes it have less working distance than all those IF lenses..
#15
I saw a review of the Canon 100mm RF macro demonstrating the de-focus control ............. the minus end softened the entire image including the subject ........ the plus end brought out strong "bubble bokeh" in the background ......

  "Goldielocks's choice" was where the focus control was at zero and the lens was neither "too hot, nor too cold and not too sweet or sour ................

....... the natural bokeh is good on the lens !!
Dave's clichés
#16
(04-17-2021, 10:38 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: My Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not IF, it extends a lot. It has an MFD of 29cm. It extends 51.5mm. That makes it have less working distance than all those IF lenses..

I actually forgot to mention that a lens may actually protrude well beyond its optical FL, because that often tends to be around the midpoint of a multi-element lens which is not retrofocus {WA) or telefocus (telelens} by design.

Even so, an MFD of 29 cm at 1:1 indicates an effective FL of 72.5 mm at that magnification. This means it still does something internally, othrwise it would extend by 90 mm to get from infinity focus to 1:1. So it may well be of a telefocus type of design.

Kind regards, Wim

(04-17-2021, 11:30 AM)davidmanze Wrote: I saw a review of the Canon 100mm RF macro demonstrating the de-focus control ............. the minus end softened the entire image including the subject ........ the plus end brought out strong "bubble bokeh" in the background ......

  "Goldielocks's choice" was where the focus control was at zero and the lens was neither "too hot, nor too cold and not too sweet or sour ................

....... the natural bokeh is good on the lens !!

I believe you, but it is in the eye of the beholder. I'll check it out, though.

I never liked the bokeh of the EF 100 mm macro lens designs at close focus distances. Just too restless fo rmy taste.

It could well be that this one is a lot better, but I would not buy it for macro, because it is not a 100 mm lens at 1:1 or anywhere else in close focus areas.

I do like the 100 and 105 mm FLs for portraits, generally speaking, as to me they look more natural than they do with 85 or 135 mm lenses.

In addition, I do have plenty of macro lenses and other lenses I can use for macro too Smile.

I used to have an SMC Takumar 105 F/2.8 back in 1974, and I loved it, for portraits, landscapes and candid photography. When I went K-bayonet I got the 100 F/4 Macro instead, however, and that just was not the same - used it really mostly for macro Smile.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#17
You are right about that Tamron, Wim It has floating elements or "CRC" as Nikon (used to?) call(s) it. The back element(s) stay in place as the front extends.
#18
(05-08-2021, 07:46 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are right about that Tamron, Wim It has floating elements or "CRC" as Nikon (used to?) call(s) it. The back element(s) stay in place as the front extends.
Thank you, BC, that info is much appreciated.

I'd like to compliment you on your recent behaviour as well, f.e. regarding the way you deal with equivalence lately, by keeping things more in perspective. It did not go unnoticed, and is appreciated too.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)