bleirer

I think right now the best 1:1 macro is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro, so you would need the adaptor. You might start a new thread 'best rf mount 1:1 macro' to get some advice. This can be found used for a relative bargain at places like keh.com.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is true... some people insist that only lenses that can do full 1:1 are actual "macro" lenses. But the term has never really been defined and has been wildly abused over the years by many manufacturers. There have been quite a few "macro" lenses over the years that "only" got to 1:2 or half life size. There have also been a lot of zooms that really abused the term, fell short of 1:4 (one quarter life size or 0.25X) or even less magnification, yet were labeled "macro". 1:2, half life size or 0.50X magnification.... whatever you want to call it... really isn't bad.

There is a strongly rumored Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lens on the roadmap for next year... which will no doubt be able to do full 1:1 (as do both the EF versions). While now only a rumor and nothing official, I'd be surprised if Canon didn't introduce this lens in the near future.

Canon currently or relatively recently has at least 7 lenses that are 1:2 or not quite 1:1, that are called or labelled "macro":

EF 50mm f/2.5 "Compact Macro"... 1:2 or 0.50X (discontinued)
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM.... 0.70X
TS-E 50mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift... 0.50X
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 II Tilt-Shift... 0.50X
TS-E 135mm f/4L Tilt-Shift... 0.50X
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM... 0.50X
and of course the new RF 85mm f/2 IS STM

1:2 macro lenses were quite common in the past. I have a vintage Tamron 90mm that's 1:2 and now adapted for use on a mirrorless. I've had them in various other vintage systems too. One of the cleverest ones is a Konica Hexanon 55mm with a matched extension tube. Used by itself the lens is 1:2 with the magnification marked on the top. When it's installed on the extension tube to be able to do full 1:1, the lens is turned upside down, which positions an entirely different set of magnifications on top.

Full 1:1/life size/1.0X or higher Canon lenses include:

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM.... 1.0X
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM.... 1.0X
EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM... 1.0X
EF 180mm f/3.5L USM... 1.0X
MP-E 65mm f/2.8... 5.0X (min. 1.0X)
EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM... 1.2X

Any of the above EF/EF-S or MP-E or TS-E lenses can be used on an RF mount camera via an adapter. (The compact EF-S lens might vignette... but probably not badly, thanks to the adapter.)

If it were me (it's not... yet) I might buy the RF 85mm f/2 for general use and call it's close-up ability is a bonus that can be increased by putting a simple extension tube behind it. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=extension+tube+canon+RF&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&typedValue=&Top+Nav-Search=)

There are also a number of third party macro lenses being offered in RF mount. I think all of them currently available are manual focus only (as are the Canon TS-E and MP-E lenses). The lenses from 7artisans, Venus Optics, Mitakon Zhongyi, etc. are probably all also manual aperture only (the Canon TS-E and MP-E are not).

margaretnewell

Thank you. Decision made, if it had been 1:1 I would have been very happy to purchase, as the 85mm and being rf where perfect for me. I’ll have to wait for Canon to bring out a 1:1 rf macro.

margaretnewell

Thank you for all the time you have spent replying to my query. I really appreciate all the information you have supplied, it helps making the correct decision to get the right lens for the right job. I’m currently lying in a hospital bed and won’t be doing much photography until April next year so I’ll wait to see what Canon brings out in the next couple of months. Needless to say this is the time to do all the research.

margaretnewell

Thank you for your advice. I do have the adaptor. I live in South Africa where unfortunately the used market is very small.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Thanks for the lecture Dr Foto, I am sure that you were just trying to share your knowledge with the group but I have probably shot more macro than you have. The first "Macro" lens I purchased was the EF 50mm f/2.5, the second was the EF 100mm f/2.8, the third was the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM, the fourth was the Sigma 180mm f/3.5, the fifth was the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS, the 6th was the Canon 180mm f/3.5L, the 7th was the Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS, the 8th was going back to quasi vintage because I missed having it in the stable, the Canon 100mm f/2.8.

None of those lenses performed as well as an old 28mm Minolta Celtic reversed on tubes....

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I don't see how that can be possible?

bleirer

I've learned this user knows their stuff. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=11599800&t=666020

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I'm not so sure that I would agree with the post you linked, consider landscape photography where every thing in the shot is in focus. I think the post by Alan below the one you linked is more accurate. I can say that shooting at 1:2 and then cropping to 1:1 will not yield the same image quality that using shooting at 1:1.

bleirer

Proof in pictures here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58017853

If i understand it, depth of field runs with magnification, and cropping also magnifies the circle of confusion, so you have to consider the whole package.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

My Nikon Z7 does built in focus stacking. It won’t work without autofocus.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Interesting, I guess I am not so old that I can't still learn something new. Like the article says, it is not intuitive but a picture is worth 1000 words.

bleirer

It is interesting, because one tells oneself it is the same image how could the dof be different. If I read the DOF calculators right it seems to reflect the same thing, though. If you keep subject distance and viewing size and everything the same but just change the sensor to a smaller one (same impact as cropping in post?), the smaller sensor has less DOF.

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-advanced