Good review, but since this is a macro lens i think it would be better to have macro comparison. The fact that the RF provides higher magnification matters to macro photography though.
I already have the EF version. I heard it's not worth the money to get the RF if you already have the EF because it's only slightly better, not amazingly better. Therefore I will just get an adapter for my R5.
The RF is now around 850-999 for Black Friday and from what I read, the Vignetting is better now? I dunno. But for a macro photographer wanna be like me, it's a no brainer to go RF with the extra magnification and sharper center, not to mention not having to dealing with converters all the time. I actually jumped to this from the macro 100mm NON IS so having this is so nice :)
Why the "rattle"? I never heard any lense sound like that, and I have owned about 10 different Canon L lenses amongst other ones from Sigma etc. I dont think it should sound like that, it sounds broken. Also are you using the EF version together with the adaptor? In that case the adaptor can clearly make it less sharp. I am not saying it definitly does to a meaningful degree, but it usualy does add some distortion and blur.
I saw no sort of thing in my tests that I gathered. Also, there is no extra glass in my adapter. I notice you said you own 10 different Canon glass and not the Macro 100MM EF which is a cult classic. You have more Canon glass to experience it seems. Cheers~!
@@theCameraVille I never needed it, but I am thinking of getting it now and thats why I am looking at reviews about it. perhaps, but its the lenses that I bought over the years starting with the obvious 24-70 mk II f2.8 and 70-200 f.2.8 IS mk II. Then I moved into prime 14 mm 2.8 mk II, 50 mm f1.2 and 85 mm f1.2. The the Tse 24 mm , 50 mm and 90 mm. And of course a tele 300 mm f2.8 mk II and 400 mm f2.8 mark II. Latest lense I got was the 16-35 mm f.4 IS
Mine rattles like that. Freaked me out the first time I heard it. Thought it spontaneously broke....always handled with TLC. Still behaves appropriately though so I fluffed it off. Glad to see that mentioned in this review. First I'd heard of it.
I ordered and paid for this this lens (Canon RF 100mm Macro Lens) almost a year ago now and understand that I had to wait 6-months to get this lens but I still don't have the "Tripod Mount Ring and Adapter" yet and Canon has refused to comment to B&H for an update. I believe that to be unacceptable customer service and therefore can't recommend "Canon equipment" to anyone.
What if the ef was $500AUD cheaper. That's about $360USD and you own a 15yr old fungas infected ef 100 2.8 non L. I'm leaning toward ef as I already have the adapter.
Thank you for the comparisons. One question: If we buy a MACRO lens to do MACRO photography, why are we so concerned with doing more than MACRO? If we want a lens that is a telephoto for birding are we concerned with it MACRO abilities? From what I saw, once you got to f/8 - f/16 the EF lens was sharper. I have a Sigma 05 MACRO lens and I am going to consider the Canon 100 as I am not getting the sharpness on the R5 camera body I would like. Will rent the Canon 100mm f/2.8 I L USM EF and make some comparison shots before I buy. Thank you again.
Some folks want the benefit of many other aspects such as doing macro in video at 2.8 to get that cinematic creamy look . Some folks may also want to shoot portraits. This will also for folks who are deciding to stay with similar focal lengths. (85, 105 etc) They want to have just 1 lens to do a variety of work. The lens is great in macro but can do other functions well.
Thanks for the video, saved me some money, I'm gonna get the EF version for sure! All the best!
Not to worry! I still own the EF version. Its more robust build for what I do.
Black Friday has the RF at 850 USD
Good review, but since this is a macro lens i think it would be better to have macro comparison. The fact that the RF provides higher magnification matters to macro photography though.
th-cam.com/video/_c0n2Mc0FUw/w-d-xo.html
I did in the past! Check it out, and cheers! Thank you for stopping by
I already have the EF version. I heard it's not worth the money to get the RF if you already have the EF because it's only slightly better, not amazingly better. Therefore I will just get an adapter for my R5.
I still use the EF. I dont think I want to upgrade. Perhaps the only serious benefit if its macro photo shooter and silent video AF.
I am liking the EF. This is a specialty lens I would go used on this one
Yup, Used one will be around $800ish depending on the condition. EF is amazing still. Love the build quality.
The RF is now around 850-999 for Black Friday and from what I read, the Vignetting is better now? I dunno. But for a macro photographer wanna be like me, it's a no brainer to go RF with the extra magnification and sharper center, not to mention not having to dealing with converters all the time. I actually jumped to this from the macro 100mm NON IS so having this is so nice :)
Yes, the closer macro is nice ~! The price has gone down since this video. Time flieS~!
Thanks... but why no macro photo tests?
You got to watch the whole video :D
Sorry i was searching through the video for the macro tests an didn’t see the mosquito 🦟
Thanks
@@matdha1484 Also
th-cam.com/video/_c0n2Mc0FUw/w-d-xo.html
cheers
thanks for the review but what about focus breathing so important its a macro lens majority of macro shooters do stacking
Focus breathing is very common in Canon glass. There new RF 100-500 tele lens ( $3000) also suffer from this.
@@theCameraVille thank you
Why the "rattle"? I never heard any lense sound like that, and I have owned about 10 different Canon L lenses amongst other ones from Sigma etc. I dont think it should sound like that, it sounds broken.
Also are you using the EF version together with the adaptor? In that case the adaptor can clearly make it less sharp. I am not saying it definitly does to a meaningful degree, but it usualy does add some distortion and blur.
I saw no sort of thing in my tests that I gathered. Also, there is no extra glass in my adapter. I notice you said you own 10 different Canon glass and not the Macro 100MM EF which is a cult classic. You have more Canon glass to experience it seems. Cheers~!
@@theCameraVille I never needed it, but I am thinking of getting it now and thats why I am looking at reviews about it. perhaps, but its the lenses that I bought over the years starting with the obvious 24-70 mk II f2.8 and 70-200 f.2.8 IS mk II. Then I moved into prime 14 mm 2.8 mk II, 50 mm f1.2 and 85 mm f1.2. The the Tse 24 mm , 50 mm and 90 mm. And of course a tele 300 mm f2.8 mk II and 400 mm f2.8 mark II. Latest lense I got was the 16-35 mm f.4 IS
Mine rattles like that. Freaked me out the first time I heard it. Thought it spontaneously broke....always handled with TLC. Still behaves appropriately though so I fluffed it off. Glad to see that mentioned in this review. First I'd heard of it.
I ordered and paid for this this lens (Canon RF 100mm Macro Lens) almost a year ago now and understand that I had to wait 6-months to get this lens but I still don't have the "Tripod Mount Ring and Adapter" yet and Canon has refused to comment to B&H for an update. I believe that to be unacceptable customer service and therefore can't recommend "Canon equipment" to anyone.
Sounds like a worldwide shortage problem. I'm sure other brands may have the same issue.
People don’t shake your IS lenses
Shake shake, shake shake
What if the ef was $500AUD cheaper. That's about $360USD and you own a 15yr old fungas infected ef 100 2.8 non L.
I'm leaning toward ef as I already have the adapter.
If you don't mind me asking what was the music used for this video?
Did you have lens corrections on in Adobe? Weird how Adobe didn’t correct it.
Perhaps it is what it is.
Would you recommend the best lens for photographing shoes from Canon lens 100
Must need a Macro. I would say this 100 MM Macro because you can get super close for detail shots.
You still rocking the R6?
Thank you for the comparisons. One question: If we buy a MACRO lens to do MACRO photography, why are we so concerned with doing more than MACRO? If we want a lens that is a telephoto for birding are we concerned with it MACRO abilities? From what I saw, once you got to f/8 - f/16 the EF lens was sharper. I have a Sigma 05 MACRO lens and I am going to consider the Canon 100 as I am not getting the sharpness on the R5 camera body I would like. Will rent the Canon 100mm f/2.8 I L USM EF and make some comparison shots before I buy. Thank you again.
Some folks want the benefit of many other aspects such as doing macro in video at 2.8 to get that cinematic creamy look . Some folks may also want to shoot portraits. This will also for folks who are deciding to stay with similar focal lengths. (85, 105 etc) They want to have just 1 lens to do a variety of work. The lens is great in macro but can do other functions well.
What camera body did you use for this test?
This should be the R6 . I believe my R5c came after.
Tx for test!
No problem!
i see rf sharp and ef isn t
Just got the EF to use on Blackmagic, R6, and A7IV. Way more versatile than RF.
Yes, I still use my EF. I can bounce between several systems and also its built very tough. The RF is very plastic.
“Slightly a lot better”. Lol
Sometimes I have to lighten the blow before I hurt someone feelings . Slight blow.... LOL
Nice thanks!
Ps: should cut the mic off the top of the video
thank you🤝🤝🔥