Out of all the L-series lenses that I have owned, the 100 EF L series is the sharpest by far. I can zoom into the subjects eyes and the reflection is so sharp that I can see myself. The stabilisation on the EF version has an audible clicking sound for video if you are not careful, but I will never sell it - I have captured some of my best images with it.
I really like macro lenses, they're very fun to use, but there are some reasons that pull me back. I like RF lens because of the fast auto focus, accurate, sharp and closer 1.4x aspect ratio. But issues are way more than pro. weight, size, focus breathing, aperture shift and a weirdo control SA ring. I wish canon keep it simple like ef version will be a great lens, not to mention that will keep the price cheaper as well. If that SA ring changes bokeh to smoother like RF 85mm F1.2 DS, I will sacrifice for that, but it's not.
Haven't yet seen a single example of an RF lens that outperforms its EF sibling in a way that justifies the cost and makes me want to jump ship (from mirror slapper to mirror-less).
I didn't and I'll never use the defocus effects. What a nonsense feature. This makes the lens only heavier and more expensive. But thanks good there is a lock-switch. I've been thinking about putting a drop of glue on the lock-switch. The rest of this objectiv is superb.
Hi Gordon, thanks for this but you missed one important aspect for macro photographers: the distance between front lens and subject at 1:1. This is very important for those that shoot skittish insects, or when lighting/shadowing is an issue. My understanding is that the RF lens will have the front element closer to the subject when shooting 1:1, when compared with the EF version. That is a significant disadvantage for nature photographers. I personally am disappointed with the RF version because we are paying for a gimmicky soft focus thing that no one really needs anymore, and after 10 years, the image quality improvement is very minimal, with the EF version having even more stabilisation stops than the new lens. This very expensive macro lens is probably aimed for wedding/portrait photographers at the expense of nature photographers, in my opinion.
Yes, I should mention the distance between the front of the lens and the subject - the closest focusing distance though is 26cm from the focal plane, so if you know the length of the lens and add the section from the mount to the sensor plane, you can work it out.
Excellent review/comparison. I have used the EF 100mm macro as a workhorse lens for years, and have found it to be one of my most reliable and sharpest lenses. Great to see it still holds up. I had considered "upgrading" to the RF, but after watching this, I think it still has some life left in it. Thank you for making the content you do!
This video is hands down the best comparison of the EF vs RF 100mm lens. I have the RF version, but have been struggling a bit with the autofocus. I'm sure over time I'll get used to it, but now I can take comfort in knowing that I made the right choice with the RF. Thanks!
I have the EF100L and it’s my workhorse for food photography. One accessory that made my life so much better is the tripod collar. It’s so easy to switch from vertical to horizontal composition especially for food. Does the RF100 have a similar accessory? I don’t mind spending on it just as long as it is an option.
Good question, but I'm not sure! I didn't notice mounting for it on the barrel, but you'd need to check Canon's accessories page for it. Let me know if you find out!
I just got this lens earlier today. A buddy of mine was selling two lenses.. He had an offer for both I absolutely could not refuse. $2400 for both the RF 70-200 2.8L & RF 100 2.8L Macro. Both in excellent condition. He often buys lenses to play with then sells or trades them in. And it was the right time for me.
I am no expert. But I still don't get the point of the SA ring. I mean it makes the whole picture blurry, not just the background. Everything just looks out of focus. What am I missing here?
I have tested extensively the RF lens in the macro range and it really suffers from focus shift from f/4 to f/11. It is sharp only at f/2.8. From f/11 and higher diffraction kicks in. So for people who wish to use the autofocus to do real macro photography like flowers, insects, etc. the EF version is sharper in the center. The EF version does not suffer from focus shift. Also, if you autofocus on the eye of a person for a portrait, the eyes will be slightly out of focus because of the focus shift problem. So in the end, if you want to use this lens in manual focus for macro photo, your best bet is to buy a manual lens like the excellent Laowa 100mm or 90mm that will cost you more than half the price and the lens is 2X instead of the 1.4X of the RF. I communicated with Canon for this focus shift problem and I was answered that no firmware upgrade is planned. It is regrettable that Canon does nothing to correct this lens with a firmware upgrade. It is the only lens in the RF series that has occasional rebate. Must be for a reason...
It’s probably due to their stupid SA control ring which adds elements that they might have not accounted for for macro AF. I usually do manual macro or af focus Stack at 2.8 and I have no issues with it. I don’t usually go around trying to AF a macro lens. Laowa is manual correct?
@@andreimicle Correct Andrei, Laowa is a manual lens. It is the most sharp lens. And I do the same: focus stack at f/2.8. I bought the RF 100mm thinking I would have the a better quality of lens than the EF with excellent autofocus which is easier in the field with fast moving insects for example.
Another fine review, thank you! I’m currently trying to decide between the EF and RF to use on an R5. I previously shot Sony with their 90mm so I’m a little new to the RF ecosystem. Since I’ve always manually focused when doing macro I’m not too concerned about the focus shift issue. TC’s aren’t important to me as I’d just use my 100-500 when needed. It’s appears that both lenses would perform well and with the EF version being significantly more expensive at the time of writing I think I’ll go that direction…that is unless I can find a compelling reason not to. Macro is very important to me so any comments would be appreciated.
I work for YEARS with 100 2.8 "non L", and move with it on R6. IBIS is greatly increase my productivity, because i mostly hand-held photographer. But i interested in possibility to max out stabilization performances, so this review slightly confused me. For some reason I thought that combined stabilization does not work with EF lenses. That in this case only lens IS works. Only EF IS lens that i have is 24-105stm, i never try test this scientific, but it seems to me, that i don't have any benefits on R6 compare to 5d2 with this lens. And I thought that combined stabilization is one of the main selling points of the new lens. Strange, very strange.
Thanks so much for another great review. I have the EF Tokina 100mm and some extension tubes. I would love to have this lens but the price is hard to justify when the Tokina does a pretty good job at $400. Cheers.
Another excellent lens review! Thanks! Up upgraded to this one a few months ago and noticed many of the slight differences as well. Still got me EF L and use it in one of my labs, but the RF version is a go to lens. Also I think those shaky hands of yours is from all that coffee! Which I will get to buying you one soon! Cheers!
Thank you so much for an awesome in depth comparison video. Could you highlight how to set a constant magnification ratio of say 1:1.5, 1:2 or 1:3 to standardize shots using the rf lens.
When using manual focus (which on the rf is electronic) you can’t feel a resistance in the ring when you overshoot the limits, this is felt easily on the old ef lens. I use that feature often when shooting macro at maximum magnification.
I used to own both EF 100 non L and L series. Sold them both a while back. Now I'm reordering the EF 100 L again. It sucks when the new RF has been reported to back focus, and Canon removed the IN Camera Lens correction. That could have solved the issue. I also experienced 2 RF 50 f1.2 that back focused. I spoke to Canon about it, but they just asked me to return the lenses back to where I bought them because they are new. Again In Camera lens correction could have solved the issues.
I just received this lens today. I did many focus testing... and it TRULY back focuses. It starts back focusing at f4 slightly, then as you step down, it continues to back focus. This is the lousiest lens Canon has ever produced. I am calling Canon tomorrow to return this lens.
Подскажите что за точки на линзе в начале видео когда камера прокручивалася на штативе?Сегодня тоже купил такой увидел точку,бывает вместо точки блик...это норм?
Did you take into account the RF is magnified by 1.4x when comparing the stabilization? To compare equally you would have to put a 1.4x TC on the EF lens.
I can see a good use case for SA correction. Take 2 shots - one without and another with positive correction. Combine the 2 in post for dreamy out of focus and sharp in-focus elements.
Thanks for another excellent video and review. I don't get the purpose of the SA control. With modern post-processing software, one can easily adjust the clarity, structure, or dehaze sliders in the negative direction to achieve a soft focus effect. With masking, we can apply the effect selectively to the foreground or background.
I own my RF 100mm almost one year, I made tons of photos and I love it. It is also so light, I take it almost always with me. I was also surprised how sharp it is on extension tubes. So highly recommended :)
I had the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lens. But when I bought the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM, I found it sharper than the 100mm macro at 100mm f/2.8. So I sold the Macro and got the 70-200.
I’ve had this lens for 1 year and was waiting for Canon to fix the shifting problem. Got tired of waiting and just sold the lens, loosing lots of money. Canon 👎🏻☹️
@@cameralabs still 100-150$ saving for not having SA control(which is quite gimmicky as things stand) would be enough incentive to upgrade over from EF 100. As things stand currently there is really no reason to upgrade from EF 100mm to RF 100mm L lens given the price premium that needs to be paid for upgrade and its biggest short coming of focus shift.
Thanks for the expert review as always. This was just another reminder of my decision to not buy into Canon RF infact I won't even bother collecting the R7 that I preordered 25th May that never shows up anyway.. my local dealer is SRS in Watford. It used to be we get ripped of in the UK $=£ on Canon lenses now they've gone way off so we are expected to pay another $450 for this lens. Serious Canon! Gordon just wondering would be great if you did a XH2s vs OM-1 vs R7. I can't decide between the Fuji and OM-1. Both have unique positives I seem to change the winner from day to day while I was waiting for the R7. Got a lot of old Canon gear to sell my Canon days are definitely over.
I dunno how much they charge you for R7, but selling all EF and spend again in another system is not cost effective. You can just get a R7 with adapters and it's all good to go. R7 is still a better spec-priced hybrid than XH-2S or OM-1. XH-2S is a better static photo camera. OM-1 is lighter because of the smaller mount&sensor
@@TigaWould yea... I see a lot of anti Canon people in the youtube community nowadays, regardless of language. I don't know which Canon gear caused them to be so hateful. I'm still enjoying Canon lenses from 90s with the new R bodies. Switching systems is costing more as the resell value is unsustainable. I also have Sony gears, because I was stupid enough to listen the haters and tried other brands. And found out it doesn't benefit too much for my use.
@@TigaWould I'm still a Canon shooter by the way nobody is paying me. I've been using Canon for 20 yrs. It shouldn't take you long to work that out my only two videos are 13/14 yrs old and It says exactly what I'm saying now I'm using prime lenses then plus 1d series Canon cameras. I've spent tens of thousands of £ on Canon gear over the years how much have you Canon fanboy invested?
I love my RF 100 lens and got the very expensive ($US200) tripod mount. I have found that the TM is nowhere near as useful (necessary?0 on the Rf version as it was on the EF version.
I wish you would speak a little more concisely. It would be slower and more understandable this way. Of course, if you are making this video only for British citizens, I can't say anything.
I make them for everyone. I thought I was already speaking quite slowly and clearly. The subtitles might help, and I also have written versions of all my reviews on my website at cameralabs.com
Hey Gordon a correction here: EF lenses with IS cannot use optical IS with IBIS as they lack the connection pins to communicate and coordinate both systems. Ibis switches off when a lens with IS is mounted, unless it's native RF, which will allow both to work together as a linked system
From Canon: "The IS Mode option will only show up in the menu when a lens with IS capability is not attached. If you want to reference the manual for that information it is in the caution note on page 238. The easiest way to see the option is to take the lens off, press the Menu button, go to the seventh page under the red camera icon, and when you go into IS (Image Stabilizer) Mode you will have the option shown on page 237. When you enable that setting the in body stabilization will work with any EF, EF-S, or RF lens that you attach to the camera. You do not need to re-enable it for each lens. Once it is on it stays on. " Then regarding the downgrading of IBIS with EF lens, they wrote: "From Canon engineer testing the EF lens do not cause the IBIS to be downgraded from 5-axis to 2-axis. In fact the camera's IS along with the lens IS work hand-in-hand when both are engaged."
Not true, per the table on the page titled “8-stops Image Stabilisation” on Canon Europe’s website. The limitation with EF is that the correction of pitch/yaw is entirely left to the lens, but the sensor still corrects x, y and roll.
As I was shooting with my EF 100 yesterday, I was wondering whether or not switching to the RF would be worth it. Your review is excellent and very helpful. Thanks!
RF 100 has 1.4x magnification. Can you compare it with RF 135 f1.8. It might be odd what i am asking but with 1.4x magnification will it be like 140mm vs 135? Just curious..thanks
How would this lens work for macro using the new Canon R8 camera body (no IBIS) - I currently use the RF 100-400 (Not L lens) for macro which is quite good - what do you think ?
Just purchased the lens and not tested yet - however my initial impression in handling is it could have done with a tripod ring as standard rather than the expense of designing that soft focus effect which few macro photographers will ever use. The Tripod ring is expensive
So I am an animal lover and I ended up getting the l series lenses to keep out any dust or animal here. Sad to say when I when I was changing lenses to this 100 mm macro I noticed a bunch of dust under my 24 to 70 2.8
@@cameralabs I only change lenses about once a month but I was leaving the camera out of the bag when I wasn't using it. I ended up buying an electronic blower and I'm thinking it might have possibly blew some dust through the seal. This was my first l series lenses so I definitely want to get it out but don't know the best way to do so.. other than be very careful pull off the label and unscrew it
Thanks for the very precise review. I've had the RF 100 for about 6 months and it's become my favorite lens. So much so that I'm thinking of selling my RF 85 f2.0 macro. But I do like the look I get from the 85 mm as well. Not quite sure how this will play out. Keep up the great work Gordon!
Hi Dominic...how are you fairing with the 85 and the 100 in your bag? I'm having the same indecisiveness but I tend to favor the 85 a tad more.... both for size and rendering. Just curious on hearing any updates you have on your end and if you made kept both still.
@@michaelcitrigno3398 Hi Michael, I still have both macro lenses, the 85 f2 and the 100 f2.8. Not sure what to do, so I'll be keeping both for now. The 85 f2 is also a pretty good portrait lens.
I have the lens and I'm learning to use it. I don't understand why the focus limiter at its shortest position doesn't include the minimum focusing distance.
Do I understand correctly that the focus shift issue is present only when using auto focus at close range? If you use manual focus for macro - not an issue?
I gave this a like since you at least mentioned the focus shift which make the 1.4x feature worthless except when focus stacking and used 'gimmick' when describing the soft focus feature. In truth, this seemed more a review of a 100mm lens for portrait use with an additional feature of macro. Too bad you had to hype Helicon Focus without even mentioning that the built in Focus Bracketing works well with the free DPP4 software Canon gives to all owners of their cameras. You may not value macro but there are some of us who are interested in that feature more than infinity and portrait ranges. Being able to focus a lens at 1.4x wide open and then stopping down to a smaller aperture for depth of field seemed like a good reason to consider the lens but the focus shift makes keeping my old 100 macro lens seem a better idea. Will Canon correct this problem or will they decide that most owners, like you, really want a 100mm lens for portraits and care little about 'true' macro?
Doug, I did do quite a lot of macro tests in this review, but I always include near and far results for anyone who wants to use a lens at different distances. Also if I only did macro tests in a review like this, it would get far fewer views which sadly doesn't make it commercially viable, as this is my full-time job.
Good question. Historically, I've found some black friday 'deals' to be worse than discount a few months or even weeks earlier. But it's hard to say. You'd need to check Canon's history of lens deals before and during black friday to make an educated guess. Personally I'd be tempted to wait, and if the BF deal is actually more, I bet you'll find it at the better price within a couple of months. So it also depends how soon you need it.
I own several macro lenses, all EF or EF-S mount. They are Sigma 150 mm, Laowa 100 mm 2X, Canon EF-S 60 mm, Canon EF-S 35 mm (very good and easy to work with and with inbuilt ringlight), Laowa 25 mm 2.5-5X (not to be confused with the 24 mm probe) and Laowa 15 mm. All are F2.8 except the 15 mm which is F4. My favourite is the Venus Laowa 100 mm F2.8 2X CA Dreamer. Its optical quality outperforms any Canon lens, I'm told. Super sharp and no Chromatic Aberration at all. My EF version does provide in-camera aperture control as well as EXIF data. There is of course only manual focus, but that's what you'd be using for macro anyway. Of course it's a disadvantage for general purpose photography, but I have other lenses for that. By the way, buying the 25 mm was in my case a mistake. It's a poor man's MP-E, and optically as good as the Canon 65 mm MP-E. But at 5X magnification F2.8 the depth of field is 0.04 mm, or one twenty fifth of a millimetre. Standard printing paper is 2.5 times thicker than that! So basically you'll have to stack. And with a manual focus lens a motorised rail pretty much becomes necessary. And there's a much easier way: Get a microscope objective and adapt it to the end of an AF telephoto lens, and use your camera's internal focus bracketing.
Thanks for a well done review! What program do you use for photostacking? I bought the RF and I´m glad I did it works very well. I also bought Canon ef 180/ 3.5 but don´t like it at all, have you tested that lens?
Great review. I'd love to play around with one of these, but I don't think it would work for what I do. As for favorite macro - I might have a strange choice - the Canon EF-M 28mm macro. So weird, but a whole lot of fun. I still look for excuses to take it out.
I will use my EF 100 Macro USM non-IS because it is compatible with RF and EF-M mount if the cameras are equipped with adapters. But: The new RF lens seems outstanding. With the R7 I have some IS capability with the old non-IS macro so the "photographic value" has been increased ... with all my non-stabilized lenses and it works very well with wide angles and well with moderate tele lenses. Not so with the 5.6 400 which would need laaaarge actors on the sensor to compensate. Thanks for another informative and well made comparison / introduction of a new equipment!
@@dima1353 Difference is on/off - small advantage. 200mm 2.8 on/off - large difference 10-22 on/off - gigantic difference (all lenses do not have IS subsystems)
The two lenses looks identical in portrait rendition. With both lenses you need a shave. And with both lenses you need to loose the stocking cap. Actually we love your reviews and will accept you shaven or unshaven and with or without the cap. Guess it's all personal preference.😁
In my defence, the stubble and hat add extra detail to resolve and reveal differences between the sharpness and rendering of lenses, so that's why I do that. Plus I like to wear a hat.
Actually is same lens don’t trust canon just change the mount said that is new lens, save the world and save your money, skip this lens, and thank you for the video:)
Great review as always, Gordon, especially clarity of visual examples in both stills and video. I think you could have been more critical of the stupid SA control gimmick; I have yet to see a review which valued it. A shortened version of the review excluding the EF comparisons could be made available; after all you point out there is a minimal price saving on what is essentially old technology.
I wouldn't use the SA control myself but as always I want to demonstrate what various features do so people can decide if its for them. I feel if a review is too opinionated, it becomes more about the person than the product.
Gordon, TY for the SA demo. I finally see a use case after seeing several reviews on this lens… what I notice in your demo w/ the background is a subtle swirling effect as the background softens..sort of a petzval look, something I hadn’t noticed in other demos. Maybe you just had the right subject to BG distance, but either way finally I can see a reason to use it
Moved to SONY , lots of lens options from budget to premium and I am overall so happy with it 🙏 !! I wish canon shares their RF patterns and rights to third party lens maker like Sigma and Tamron I am sure they can make lenses that can outperform original RF , but sadly canon will not gonna do that yet , Because this is business after all
I bought the RF 100mm Macro lens after looking at it and the EF version even though it cost more & I'm very happy I did. I even use it with extension tubes for even greater magnification than it's maximum of 1.4X. I was using an MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5X Macro for the most part and I still use it for magnification ratios greater than 2.5X.
At 5:35 you state that the older, 100mm f/2.8 L EF is compatible with telextenders. This may be the case if it is used with the EF to RF adapter which may provide enough air space behind the rear element such that an RF telextender will fit. However this is not the case when used on an EF mount camera. Per the lens's manual "The EF1.4X II/EF 2X extenders cannot be used with this lens." This is because the front elements of the extenders will strike the rear element of the 100mm lens. Thank you for a very thorough and informative comparison review. It was most helpful.
An extender tube is not the same as an extender in Canon parlance. The 1.4 and 2x extenders are more correctly tele-converters and contain optics (which are sometimes incompatible with some lenses for the reason you mention), whereas extension tubes are just that: tubes with no optical elements, just the electronic contacts. Extension tubes can be used with any lens actually (and make you lose infinity focus).
Thank you Gordon for the excellent review and comparison. I have the older EF 100L which I purchased new when it was first released. I have been contemplating getting the newer RF version for my R6
First, as always thank you for your video. So you rate this as Highly Recommended but so is the Nikkor Z 105mm f/2.8 VR S. Other than Canon’s 1.4x magnification which would you prefer? Would like your opinion on this.
Pros and cons to both lenses, but you'd probably choose based on which system you're currently shooting. Of course if you haven't yet bought an EOS R or Z body and are deciding based on this lens, it becomes more complex. As you may know, I didn't personally review the Nikkor lens on my website, so it's hard for me to make a direct comparison. I'd suggest downloading some of the sample image for both and seeing which you prefer the look of.
@@cameralabs On your site they have the same rating, highly recommended. Would end up using the Canon RF on an R5 and the Nikon Z on a Z9 since I have both bodies right now. Trying to decide which system to use for macro and portraits. So ...?
@@stevenwaldstein2249 ah, the website isn't always written by me. If you look under the title, you'll see the author of the Nikon lens reviews is Thomas, who's based in a different country and does his own tests which aren't comparable to mine. He does them as I can't get hold of the Nikon lenses myself. Even if I did them all though, they would be recommended within that particular system only. That said, you raise an interesting question for people who have both systems or are thinking of buying completely fresh, but I don't have the answer you're looking for, sorry. I'd suggest renting both lenses and making a comparison
Wow, if canon added that SA feature for added cost to the consumer... I just can't understand why that kind of feature would make sense on a mirrorless digital camera.
The Ef lense i was looking at when looking to get into that genre .. decided to get the Sigma 105mm mainly brvause it was massively cheaper . Recently bought a new macro lense the laowa x2 100mm Vast improvement , Another channel i follow that does Macro he recently used the RF Version . He wasn't all that impressed on it as he preferred the EF .. As i was kinda hoping that you would have used this shown it's moneys worth capturing insects small flowers sadly surprised you never did , Staged settings overlooks realworld conditions when capturing targets when Wind comes into play thus rendering the target O.O.F always garunteed where you have to wait for the wind to subside .
I have been using it for macro and comparing it to my EF 100 F2.8 L lens - for macro. This lens is NOT worth the money in my opinion. You have some great images, but I find the focus shift to be too much and many shots just miss the mark. Lets see what Canon offers on the next version. My advice is to get the EF version, the Laowa EF of just wait. I do NOT like this lens - it is not an upgrade in any way.
Great review Gordon, I currently use the EF100mm with my 5DSR and was wondering about adapting it when I eventually make the switch to mirrorless. The RF version certainly looks a step up in terms of sharpness wide open and the 1.4 x magnification is quite appealing, although I have my MPE-65mm with up to 5x magnification when I need to get REALLY close! Did you notice any appreciable difference in motor drive speed when focus bracketing? I shoot handheld a lot of the time so the faster the better in that regard.
The RF seems to be a fantastic lens but the defocus effects is completely useless in my opinion. Would prefer the lens without that feature at all.
I never use that feature. The base setting is more than good enough. It's an outstanding lens.
Especially if it makes it shorter
The EF 100mm is incredible fantastic lens ! There is no one reason to get the new one
@@kraevski 1.4x vs 1:1 is a pretty good reason.
Defocus is mad. Even a portrait photographer would want to start every frame with a sharp original shot.
SA control is just plain garbage...canon messed up on this one..I expect tit to be removed in the future..waste of money!
The added SA ring is an actual BS Upgrade. Knock off some 100s and get rid of that function Canon!
Out of all the L-series lenses that I have owned, the 100 EF L series is the sharpest by far. I can zoom into the subjects eyes and the reflection is so sharp that I can see myself. The stabilisation on the EF version has an audible clicking sound for video if you are not careful, but I will never sell it - I have captured some of my best images with it.
I really like macro lenses, they're very fun to use, but there are some reasons that pull me back. I like RF lens because of the fast auto focus, accurate, sharp and closer 1.4x aspect ratio. But issues are way more than pro. weight, size, focus breathing, aperture shift and a weirdo control SA ring. I wish canon keep it simple like ef version will be a great lens, not to mention that will keep the price cheaper as well. If that SA ring changes bokeh to smoother like RF 85mm F1.2 DS, I will sacrifice for that, but it's not.
Haven't yet seen a single example of an RF lens that outperforms its EF sibling in a way that justifies the cost and makes me want to jump ship (from mirror slapper to mirror-less).
The 85mm f1.2 both DS and non-DS are faster (much faster) and sharper than the EF 85mm f1.2. They also have better blare resistance.
Only.
The AF is normally faster on RF, often quieter and in my tests, always works better than EF with face and eye detection.
Good points, @@cameralabs! Hadn't thought of those aspects. Shooting mostly birds, BIF's and wildlife, so it might come in handy in the future.
I didn't and I'll never use the defocus effects. What a nonsense feature. This makes the lens only heavier and more expensive. But thanks good there is a lock-switch. I've been thinking about putting a drop of glue on the lock-switch. The rest of this objectiv is superb.
Hi Gordon, thanks for this but you missed one important aspect for macro photographers: the distance between front lens and subject at 1:1. This is very important for those that shoot skittish insects, or when lighting/shadowing is an issue. My understanding is that the RF lens will have the front element closer to the subject when shooting 1:1, when compared with the EF version. That is a significant disadvantage for nature photographers.
I personally am disappointed with the RF version because we are paying for a gimmicky soft focus thing that no one really needs anymore, and after 10 years, the image quality improvement is very minimal, with the EF version having even more stabilisation stops than the new lens. This very expensive macro lens is probably aimed for wedding/portrait photographers at the expense of nature photographers, in my opinion.
Yes, I should mention the distance between the front of the lens and the subject - the closest focusing distance though is 26cm from the focal plane, so if you know the length of the lens and add the section from the mount to the sensor plane, you can work it out.
Excellent review/comparison. I have used the EF 100mm macro as a workhorse lens for years, and have found it to be one of my most reliable and sharpest lenses. Great to see it still holds up. I had considered "upgrading" to the RF, but after watching this, I think it still has some life left in it. Thank you for making the content you do!
Over weight and over sized compared to the better (IMO) EF version.
This video is hands down the best comparison of the EF vs RF 100mm lens. I have the RF version, but have been struggling a bit with the autofocus. I'm sure over time I'll get used to it, but now I can take comfort in knowing that I made the right choice with the RF. Thanks!
I have the EF100L and it’s my workhorse for food photography. One accessory that made my life so much better is the tripod collar. It’s so easy to switch from vertical to horizontal composition especially for food. Does the RF100 have a similar accessory? I don’t mind spending on it just as long as it is an option.
Good question, but I'm not sure! I didn't notice mounting for it on the barrel, but you'd need to check Canon's accessories page for it. Let me know if you find out!
I just got this lens earlier today.
A buddy of mine was selling two lenses.. He had an offer for both I absolutely could not refuse.
$2400 for both the RF 70-200 2.8L & RF 100 2.8L Macro. Both in excellent condition. He often buys lenses to play with then sells or trades them in.
And it was the right time for me.
I am no expert. But I still don't get the point of the SA ring. I mean it makes the whole picture blurry, not just the background. Everything just looks out of focus. What am I missing here?
I have tested extensively the RF lens in the macro range and it really suffers from focus shift from f/4 to f/11. It is sharp only at f/2.8. From f/11 and higher diffraction kicks in. So for people who wish to use the autofocus to do real macro photography like flowers, insects, etc. the EF version is sharper in the center. The EF version does not suffer from focus shift. Also, if you autofocus on the eye of a person for a portrait, the eyes will be slightly out of focus because of the focus shift problem. So in the end, if you want to use this lens in manual focus for macro photo, your best bet is to buy a manual lens like the excellent Laowa 100mm or 90mm that will cost you more than half the price and the lens is 2X instead of the 1.4X of the RF. I communicated with Canon for this focus shift problem and I was answered that no firmware upgrade is planned. It is regrettable that Canon does nothing to correct this lens with a firmware upgrade. It is the only lens in the RF series that has occasional rebate. Must be for a reason...
It’s probably due to their stupid SA control ring which adds elements that they might have not accounted for for macro AF. I usually do manual macro or af focus Stack at 2.8 and I have no issues with it. I don’t usually go around trying to AF a macro lens. Laowa is manual correct?
@@andreimicle Correct Andrei, Laowa is a manual lens. It is the most sharp lens. And I do the same: focus stack at f/2.8. I bought the RF 100mm thinking I would have the a better quality of lens than the EF with excellent autofocus which is easier in the field with fast moving insects for example.
What a shame.
The focus shift is not an issue with the R3 (and I assume the R7) as it can be set to focus stopped down.
Just bought one. Couldn’t resist the $400 rebate.
Another fine review, thank you! I’m currently trying to decide between the EF and RF to use on an R5. I previously shot Sony with their 90mm so I’m a little new to the RF ecosystem. Since I’ve always manually focused when doing macro I’m not too concerned about the focus shift issue. TC’s aren’t important to me as I’d just use my 100-500 when needed. It’s appears that both lenses would perform well and with the EF version being significantly more expensive at the time of writing I think I’ll go that direction…that is unless I can find a compelling reason not to. Macro is very important to me so any comments would be appreciated.
I work for YEARS with 100 2.8 "non L", and move with it on R6. IBIS is greatly increase my productivity, because i mostly hand-held photographer. But i interested in possibility to max out stabilization performances, so this review slightly confused me.
For some reason I thought that combined stabilization does not work with EF lenses. That in this case only lens IS works.
Only EF IS lens that i have is 24-105stm, i never try test this scientific, but it seems to me, that i don't have any benefits on R6 compare to 5d2 with this lens.
And I thought that combined stabilization is one of the main selling points of the new lens. Strange, very strange.
I just purchased this lens based on your review and will use on my R5 and R7 (for the 1.6x additional reach)
Thanks so much for another great review. I have the EF Tokina 100mm and some extension tubes. I would love to have this lens but the price is hard to justify when the Tokina does a pretty good job at $400. Cheers.
Another excellent lens review! Thanks! Up upgraded to this one a few months ago and noticed many of the slight differences as well. Still got me EF L and use it in one of my labs, but the RF version is a go to lens. Also I think those shaky hands of yours is from all that coffee! Which I will get to buying you one soon! Cheers!
Thank you so much for an awesome in depth comparison video. Could you highlight how to set a constant magnification ratio of say 1:1.5, 1:2 or 1:3 to standardize shots using the rf lens.
Oh man..the timing...I've been looking at the RF version to be my latest "I'll never buy another L lens" purchase.
It’s like we are brothers..i bought it second hand for 1k euro and I love the RF version.
When using manual focus (which on the rf is electronic) you can’t feel a resistance in the ring when you overshoot the limits, this is felt easily on the old ef lens. I use that feature often when shooting macro at maximum magnification.
I used to own both EF 100 non L and L series. Sold them both a while back. Now I'm reordering the EF 100 L again. It sucks when the new RF has been reported to back focus, and Canon removed the IN Camera Lens correction. That could have solved the issue. I also experienced 2 RF 50 f1.2 that back focused. I spoke to Canon about it, but they just asked me to return the lenses back to where I bought them because they are new. Again In Camera lens correction could have solved the issues.
I just received this lens today. I did many focus testing... and it TRULY back focuses. It starts back focusing at f4 slightly, then as you step down, it continues to back focus. This is the lousiest lens Canon has ever produced. I am calling Canon tomorrow to return this lens.
That was a very good review. You are clear in your explanations and move from point to point smoothly covering all (to me at least) relevant points.
Thanks!
Подскажите что за точки на линзе в начале видео когда камера прокручивалася на штативе?Сегодня тоже купил такой увидел точку,бывает вместо точки блик...это норм?
Did you take into account the RF is magnified by 1.4x when comparing the stabilization? To compare equally you would have to put a 1.4x TC on the EF lens.
My stabilisation test was done from about 2m away, so both lenses were equivalent.
I can see a good use case for SA correction. Take 2 shots - one without and another with positive correction. Combine the 2 in post for dreamy out of focus and sharp in-focus elements.
Nice idea!
Thanks for another excellent video and review. I don't get the purpose of the SA control. With modern post-processing software, one can easily adjust the clarity, structure, or dehaze sliders in the negative direction to achieve a soft focus effect. With masking, we can apply the effect selectively to the foreground or background.
I think it was something they could implement quite easily so thought they'd try it out
I own my RF 100mm almost one year, I made tons of photos and I love it. It is also so light, I take it almost always with me. I was also surprised how sharp it is on extension tubes. So highly recommended :)
Which tubes are you using?
@@cameralabs Hi Gordon, I am using Meike extension tubes. 18mm and 13mm. I was surprised with sharpness of RF 100 even with both combined.
Mine has just arrived. Never owned the EF version but very happy with this one. Thanks for the detailed info
You're welcome!
I had the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lens. But when I bought the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM, I found it sharper than the 100mm macro at 100mm f/2.8. So I sold the Macro and got the 70-200.
I’ve had this lens for 1 year and was waiting for Canon to fix the shifting problem. Got tired of waiting and just sold the lens, loosing lots of money. Canon 👎🏻☹️
What's the issue?
Personally I would have liked to see this lens without SA control and focus shift but at slightly cheaper price as otherwise its excellent lens.
I'm not sure it would have reduced the price that much
@@cameralabs still 100-150$ saving for not having SA control(which is quite gimmicky as things stand) would be enough incentive to upgrade over from EF 100. As things stand currently there is really no reason to upgrade from EF 100mm to RF 100mm L lens given the price premium that needs to be paid for upgrade and its biggest short coming of focus shift.
Thanks for the expert review as always. This was just another reminder of my decision to not buy into Canon RF infact I won't even bother collecting the R7 that I preordered 25th May that never shows up anyway.. my local dealer is SRS in Watford. It used to be we get ripped of in the UK $=£ on Canon lenses now they've gone way off so we are expected to pay another $450 for this lens. Serious Canon! Gordon just wondering would be great if you did a XH2s vs OM-1 vs R7. I can't decide between the Fuji and OM-1. Both have unique positives I seem to change the winner from day to day while I was waiting for the R7. Got a lot of old Canon gear to sell my Canon days are definitely over.
I dunno how much they charge you for R7, but selling all EF and spend again in another system is not cost effective. You can just get a R7 with adapters and it's all good to go.
R7 is still a better spec-priced hybrid than XH-2S or OM-1. XH-2S is a better static photo camera. OM-1 is lighter because of the smaller mount&sensor
@@TigaWould yea... I see a lot of anti Canon people in the youtube community nowadays, regardless of language. I don't know which Canon gear caused them to be so hateful. I'm still enjoying Canon lenses from 90s with the new R bodies. Switching systems is costing more as the resell value is unsustainable.
I also have Sony gears, because I was stupid enough to listen the haters and tried other brands. And found out it doesn't benefit too much for my use.
@@TigaWould I'm still a Canon shooter by the way nobody is paying me. I've been using Canon for 20 yrs. It shouldn't take you long to work that out my only two videos are 13/14 yrs old and It says exactly what I'm saying now I'm using prime lenses then plus 1d series Canon cameras. I've spent tens of thousands of £ on Canon gear over the years how much have you Canon fanboy invested?
I love my RF 100 lens and got the very expensive ($US200) tripod mount. I have found that the TM is nowhere near as useful (necessary?0 on the Rf version as it was on the EF version.
I wish you would speak a little more concisely. It would be slower and more understandable this way. Of course, if you are making this video only for British citizens, I can't say anything.
I make them for everyone. I thought I was already speaking quite slowly and clearly. The subtitles might help, and I also have written versions of all my reviews on my website at cameralabs.com
Thanks. :))@@cameralabs
Hey Gordon a correction here: EF lenses with IS cannot use optical IS with IBIS as they lack the connection pins to communicate and coordinate both systems. Ibis switches off when a lens with IS is mounted, unless it's native RF, which will allow both to work together as a linked system
From Canon:
"The IS Mode option will only show up in the menu when a lens with IS capability is not attached. If you want to reference the manual for that information it is in the caution note on page 238. The easiest way to see the option is to take the lens off, press the Menu button, go to the seventh page under the red camera icon, and when you go into IS (Image Stabilizer) Mode you will have the option shown on page 237. When you enable that setting the in body stabilization will work with any EF, EF-S, or RF lens that you attach to the camera. You do not need to re-enable it for each lens. Once it is on it stays on. "
Then regarding the downgrading of IBIS with EF lens, they wrote:
"From Canon engineer testing the EF lens do not cause the IBIS to be downgraded from 5-axis to 2-axis. In fact the camera's IS along with the lens IS work hand-in-hand when both are engaged."
its not a sony :DDDDD R5 ibis works perfectly with any of my EF lenses :) even 600 f4 IS I that is a pretty old lens :)
Not true, per the table on the page titled “8-stops Image Stabilisation” on Canon Europe’s website.
The limitation with EF is that the correction of pitch/yaw is entirely left to the lens, but the sensor still corrects x, y and roll.
As I was shooting with my EF 100 yesterday, I was wondering whether or not switching to the RF would be worth it. Your review is excellent and very helpful. Thanks!
Honestly, keep your EF! Focus shift is a real bummer with this lens.
@@MerlinX38 , RF ?
@@rui7773 The RF suffers from focus shift not the EF.
@@MerlinX38 , 👍!
RF 100 has 1.4x magnification. Can you compare it with RF 135 f1.8. It might be odd what i am asking but with 1.4x magnification will it be like 140mm vs 135? Just curious..thanks
At what distance? The RF 135mm will only focus down to 70cm for a maximum 0.26x magnification. Are you talking about comparing them at 70cm?
How would this lens work for macro using the new Canon R8 camera body (no IBIS) - I currently use the RF 100-400 (Not L lens) for macro which is quite good - what do you think ?
It would be great on the R8 if you want to get closer than your 100-400
Just purchased the lens and not tested yet - however my initial impression in handling is it could have done with a tripod ring as standard rather than the expense of designing that soft focus effect which few macro photographers will ever use. The Tripod ring is expensive
So I am an animal lover and I ended up getting the l series lenses to keep out any dust or animal here. Sad to say when I when I was changing lenses to this 100 mm macro I noticed a bunch of dust under my 24 to 70 2.8
Is that the RF or EF? Has it been in v dusty conditions? Which body was it on?
@@cameralabs It is the RF version and on the Canon R5C. 24 to 70 2.8L
@@PizzlesTechTime hmm, that is disappointing if it got in through the seal. Do you change lenses often, and is the environment very dusty?
@@cameralabs I only change lenses about once a month but I was leaving the camera out of the bag when I wasn't using it. I ended up buying an electronic blower and I'm thinking it might have possibly blew some dust through the seal. This was my first l series lenses so I definitely want to get it out but don't know the best way to do so.. other than be very careful pull off the label and unscrew it
@@PizzlesTechTime take it to a Canon service centre and ask them!
Thanks for the very precise review. I've had the RF 100 for about 6 months and it's become my favorite lens. So much so that I'm thinking of selling my RF 85 f2.0 macro. But I do like the look I get from the 85 mm as well. Not quite sure how this will play out. Keep up the great work Gordon!
Thanks!
Hi Dominic...how are you fairing with the 85 and the 100 in your bag? I'm having the same indecisiveness but I tend to favor the 85 a tad more.... both for size and rendering. Just curious on hearing any updates you have on your end and if you made kept both still.
@@michaelcitrigno3398 Hi Michael, I still have both macro lenses, the 85 f2 and the 100 f2.8. Not sure what to do, so I'll be keeping both for now. The 85 f2 is also a pretty good portrait lens.
I have the lens and I'm learning to use it. I don't understand why the focus limiter at its shortest position doesn't include the minimum focusing distance.
Do I understand correctly that the focus shift issue is present only when using auto focus at close range? If you use manual focus for macro - not an issue?
I gave this a like since you at least mentioned the focus shift which make the 1.4x feature worthless except when focus stacking and used 'gimmick' when describing the soft focus feature. In truth, this seemed more a review of a 100mm lens for portrait use with an additional feature of macro. Too bad you had to hype Helicon Focus without even mentioning that the built in Focus Bracketing works well with the free DPP4 software Canon gives to all owners of their cameras. You may not value macro but there are some of us who are interested in that feature more than infinity and portrait ranges. Being able to focus a lens at 1.4x wide open and then stopping down to a smaller aperture for depth of field seemed like a good reason to consider the lens but the focus shift makes keeping my old 100 macro lens seem a better idea. Will Canon correct this problem or will they decide that most owners, like you, really want a 100mm lens for portraits and care little about 'true' macro?
Doug, I did do quite a lot of macro tests in this review, but I always include near and far results for anyone who wants to use a lens at different distances. Also if I only did macro tests in a review like this, it would get far fewer views which sadly doesn't make it commercially viable, as this is my full-time job.
There is a sale on the rf 100mm f2.8L at $999.00 Do you recommend it or should I wait until Black Friday.
Good question. Historically, I've found some black friday 'deals' to be worse than discount a few months or even weeks earlier. But it's hard to say. You'd need to check Canon's history of lens deals before and during black friday to make an educated guess. Personally I'd be tempted to wait, and if the BF deal is actually more, I bet you'll find it at the better price within a couple of months. So it also depends how soon you need it.
I own several macro lenses, all EF or EF-S mount.
They are Sigma 150 mm, Laowa 100 mm 2X, Canon EF-S 60 mm, Canon EF-S 35 mm (very good and easy to work with and with inbuilt ringlight), Laowa 25 mm 2.5-5X (not to be confused with the 24 mm probe) and Laowa 15 mm. All are F2.8 except the 15 mm which is F4.
My favourite is the Venus Laowa 100 mm F2.8 2X CA Dreamer. Its optical quality outperforms any Canon lens, I'm told. Super sharp and no Chromatic Aberration at all. My EF version does provide in-camera aperture control as well as EXIF data. There is of course only manual focus, but that's what you'd be using for macro anyway. Of course it's a disadvantage for general purpose photography, but I have other lenses for that.
By the way, buying the 25 mm was in my case a mistake. It's a poor man's MP-E, and optically as good as the Canon 65 mm MP-E. But at 5X magnification F2.8 the depth of field is 0.04 mm, or one twenty fifth of a millimetre. Standard printing paper is 2.5 times thicker than that! So basically you'll have to stack. And with a manual focus lens a motorised rail pretty much becomes necessary.
And there's a much easier way: Get a microscope objective and adapt it to the end of an AF telephoto lens, and use your camera's internal focus bracketing.
Good tips! Ps I have more macro reviews at cameralabs.com
Thanks for a well done review! What program do you use for photostacking? I bought the RF and I´m glad I did it works very well. I also bought Canon ef 180/ 3.5 but don´t like it at all, have you tested that lens?
Helicon focus, I'm sure I mention it in the review
Great review. I'd love to play around with one of these, but I don't think it would work for what I do.
As for favorite macro - I might have a strange choice - the Canon EF-M 28mm macro. So weird, but a whole lot of fun. I still look for excuses to take it out.
Waiting Canon to refresh the non-L 100mm prime, just like the EF50/1.4, it's overdue for a update.
Could be a while
I will use my EF 100 Macro USM non-IS because it is compatible with RF and EF-M mount if the cameras are equipped with adapters. But: The new RF lens seems outstanding.
With the R7 I have some IS capability with the old non-IS macro so the "photographic value" has been increased ... with all my non-stabilized lenses and it works very well with wide angles and well with moderate tele lenses. Not so with the 5.6 400 which would need laaaarge actors on the sensor to compensate.
Thanks for another informative and well made comparison / introduction of a new equipment!
How you can describe IBIS effectiveness on 400 5.6 ? Do you have at least some difference ?
@@dima1353 Difference is on/off - small advantage.
200mm 2.8 on/off - large difference
10-22 on/off - gigantic difference
(all lenses do not have IS subsystems)
Man I don’t wanna switch to RF but this is beautiful 😮
Hi Gordon, great vid as always! Are you planning on review of Canon 24mm rf 1.8 ?
I'm wondering whether to get one.
Thanks, yes I will but not sure when. I plan to review every RF lens.
The two lenses looks identical in portrait rendition. With both lenses you need a shave. And with both lenses you need to loose the stocking cap. Actually we love your reviews and will accept you shaven or unshaven and with or without the cap. Guess it's all personal preference.😁
In my defence, the stubble and hat add extra detail to resolve and reveal differences between the sharpness and rendering of lenses, so that's why I do that. Plus I like to wear a hat.
Actually is same lens don’t trust canon just change the mount said that is new lens, save the world and save your money, skip this lens, and thank you for the video:)
Did you compare the optical formula?
Great review …very thorough. 👍
Thanks!
Great review as always, Gordon, especially clarity of visual examples in both stills and video. I think you could have been more critical of the stupid SA control gimmick; I have yet to see a review which valued it. A shortened version of the review excluding the EF comparisons could be made available; after all you point out there is a minimal price saving on what is essentially old technology.
I wouldn't use the SA control myself but as always I want to demonstrate what various features do so people can decide if its for them. I feel if a review is too opinionated, it becomes more about the person than the product.
Amazing how much faster the EF 100mm f/2.8 focuses on the R5 than on my DSLR.
Yes, the new models focus the old lenses very well
Wondering how it works on mft.
Is there an RF to MFT adapter?
Is there an adapter that will adapt Canon RF lens to a Sony Alpha a7C Mirrorless Digital Camera ?
I dont think so, but try searching Canon rf to Sony e converter
Gordon, TY for the SA demo. I finally see a use case after seeing several reviews on this lens… what I notice in your demo w/ the background is a subtle swirling effect as the background softens..sort of a petzval look, something I hadn’t noticed in other demos. Maybe you just had the right subject to BG distance, but either way finally I can see a reason to use it
Thanks, using video to demo SA worked well!
Gordon, aren't you late to the game with this review? Lol.
I didn't have time to do it when it came out. Lol.
Moved to SONY , lots of lens options from budget to premium and I am overall so happy with it 🙏 !! I wish canon shares their RF patterns and rights to third party lens maker like Sigma and Tamron I am sure they can make lenses that can outperform original RF , but sadly canon will not gonna do that yet , Because this is business after all
Because it is still early, Sony didn't let 3rd party start making AF lenses until 2016. Canon RF only started in 2018...give 5~6 years
I bought the RF 100mm Macro lens after looking at it and the EF version even though it cost more & I'm very happy I did. I even use it with extension tubes for even greater magnification than it's maximum of 1.4X. I was using an MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5X Macro for the most part and I still use it for magnification ratios greater than 2.5X.
Which tubes are you using?
At 5:35 you state that the older, 100mm f/2.8 L EF is compatible with telextenders. This may be the case if it is used with the EF to RF adapter which may provide enough air space behind the rear element such that an RF telextender will fit. However this is not the case when used on an EF mount camera. Per the lens's manual "The EF1.4X II/EF 2X extenders cannot be used with this lens." This is because the front elements of the extenders will strike the rear element of the 100mm lens.
Thank you for a very thorough and informative comparison review. It was most helpful.
An extender tube is not the same as an extender in Canon parlance.
The 1.4 and 2x extenders are more correctly tele-converters and contain optics (which are sometimes incompatible with some lenses for the reason you mention), whereas extension tubes are just that: tubes with no optical elements, just the electronic contacts. Extension tubes can be used with any lens actually (and make you lose infinity focus).
I meant the EF lens can be used with EF teleconverters.
Thank you Gordon for the excellent review and comparison. I have the older EF 100L which I purchased new when it was first released. I have been contemplating getting the newer RF version for my R6
The old lens is still excellent
Is the sharper than Sony? 90mm G
First, as always thank you for your video. So you rate this as Highly Recommended but so is the Nikkor Z 105mm f/2.8 VR S. Other than Canon’s 1.4x magnification which would you prefer? Would like your opinion on this.
Pros and cons to both lenses, but you'd probably choose based on which system you're currently shooting. Of course if you haven't yet bought an EOS R or Z body and are deciding based on this lens, it becomes more complex. As you may know, I didn't personally review the Nikkor lens on my website, so it's hard for me to make a direct comparison. I'd suggest downloading some of the sample image for both and seeing which you prefer the look of.
@@cameralabs On your site they have the same rating, highly recommended. Would end up using the Canon RF on an R5 and the Nikon Z on a Z9 since I have both bodies right now. Trying to decide which system to use for macro and portraits. So ...?
@@stevenwaldstein2249 ah, the website isn't always written by me. If you look under the title, you'll see the author of the Nikon lens reviews is Thomas, who's based in a different country and does his own tests which aren't comparable to mine. He does them as I can't get hold of the Nikon lenses myself. Even if I did them all though, they would be recommended within that particular system only. That said, you raise an interesting question for people who have both systems or are thinking of buying completely fresh, but I don't have the answer you're looking for, sorry. I'd suggest renting both lenses and making a comparison
I am missing the LoCA test, very important for macro lenses.
True but I can't do everything
looks like one one these days can make a bad lens,
the EF100 macro is a fantastic lens.
Wow, if canon added that SA feature for added cost to the consumer... I just can't understand why that kind of feature would make sense on a mirrorless digital camera.
again they had something similar on the old soft-focus 135 for DSLRs.
I sent RF back. Focus shift was very disappointing 😒
The best reviews.
The RF cooks the EF in these tests. A wonderful and professional review.
Actually it doesn't
Nice details
Someone stole/copied the defocus technology from Nikon - 30 years later.
Well, I had a Canon EF 135mm with the soft focus control in the early 90s and that was 30 years ago
The Ef lense i was looking at when looking to get into that genre .. decided to get the Sigma 105mm mainly brvause it was massively cheaper . Recently bought a new macro lense the laowa x2 100mm Vast improvement , Another channel i follow that does Macro he recently used the RF Version . He wasn't all that impressed on it as he preferred the EF ..
As i was kinda hoping that you would have used this shown it's moneys worth capturing insects small flowers sadly surprised you never did , Staged settings overlooks realworld conditions when capturing targets when Wind comes into play thus rendering the target O.O.F always garunteed where you have to wait for the wind to subside .
Are mirrorless RF lenses focus by wire?
Yes
I have been using it for macro and comparing it to my EF 100 F2.8 L lens - for macro. This lens is NOT worth the money in my opinion. You have some great images, but I find the focus shift to be too much and many shots just miss the mark. Lets see what Canon offers on the next version. My advice is to get the EF version, the Laowa EF of just wait. I do NOT like this lens - it is not an upgrade in any way.
Plus the EF worth a quarter of the price on the second hand market… My choice was quickly made too…
@@huexley 👍👍
thank you gordon
You're welcome!
Great review Gordon.
Thanks!
Спасибо за видео!!!
you're welcome!
I've seen it in the flesh and it's huge.
You're talking about the lens, right?
@@cameralabs 😅yes
Thanks for video. Like ask, did you test this lens in lowlight situation?
No, only what you see in the video
@@cameralabs Idea to test it?
@@lumixS5M2 under what kind of conditions?
@@cameralabs lowlight city?
@@lumixS5M2 you mean city views of buildings?
Great review Gordon, I currently use the EF100mm with my 5DSR and was wondering about adapting it when I eventually make the switch to mirrorless. The RF version certainly looks a step up in terms of sharpness wide open and the 1.4 x magnification is quite appealing, although I have my MPE-65mm with up to 5x magnification when I need to get REALLY close! Did you notice any appreciable difference in motor drive speed when focus bracketing? I shoot handheld a lot of the time so the faster the better in that regard.
Thanks for a great review of this lens. I'll definitely be considering this one now! Very well described and explained again. Thanks again.
When you say it like that! 12 years, time does fly. I love the EF version. Hybrid IS is excellent
Highly informative review as always, the RF version is made for those who demand the best, the EF should be still sufficient for most others.
Thanks!
When you are going to do comparison between New Sigma 20 F1.4 vs Sony 20 F1.8?
I am looking forward to seeing your comparison the most!!!!
Thanks! I'm unable to review this lens right now, but there'll be a test of it at cameralabs.com soon.