Macro with 24-70 2.8 (Page 3): Went back to the site I bookmarded. Seems the boy has made a correction - the canon is $999 and the $500ish ones are Chinese third party. Though I had...

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

User ID wrote:

Thaz why I asked. I keep finding $1000. If it were really less than $500 Id be awaiting delivery right now. Ill be waaaay pleased for you to show me the sub $500 100mm lens ... which I will guess would NOT be the $1000 macro that I dont need but is all that I keep finding by searching :-(

Went back to the site I bookmarded. Seems the boy has made a correction - the canon is $999 and the $500ish ones are Chinese third party. Though I had another lens from one of them that was pretty good if a bit lightly constructed.

I just checked Amazon and here is today's results: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=100mm+macro+for+RF+mount&crid=6TKLYRQZ6GJC&sprefix=100mm+macro+for+rf+mount%2Caps%2C179&ref=nb_sb_noss

One below 500 and one above 500 (new model just released) are Tokina and every one of their lenses I have had was pretty good, and Japanese made with Korean and Chinese sub-contrated parts in some lenses according to a few people I know.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

A dedicated macro lens is best, extension tubes next, and axillary filters last. All work, only you can decide what is best for your use.
Tubes work on all lenses, and they usually come in sets of three, so you can use the amount of magnification that works with the lens that you are using. Yes, they work for all lenses, normal and telephoto. They are also only spacers for the lens, so you can get auto or manual, depending on how much you want to spend. I have used both, and with modern cameras, both work fine.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

topcat wrote:

A dedicated macro lens is best, extension tubes ne... (show quote)

Thanks all my original question was concerning the Macro switch on my old 24-70 f4. Paul answered that one.
Now, which lens is best? The ef 100mm or the newer rf 100mm? I have read some not so great reviews on the new rf 100 mm and some very positive ones? Any real owners want to comment?

MountainDave

junglejim1949 wrote:

Thanks all my original question was concerning the Macro switch on my old 24-70 f4. Paul answered that one.
Now, which lens is best? The ef 100mm or the newer rf 100mm? I have read some not so great reviews on the new rf 100 mm and some very positive ones? Any real owners want to comment?

I read the same reviews and opted to keep my EF version. The RF version is clearly sharper but the EF version is sharp enough. The issue with focus shift makes the RF version a non starter for me. Justin Abbott showed this issue clearly in his youtube review when photographing his cat. He also mentioned he's owned the EF version longer than any other lens! That's true for me too. I use mine mostly in summer on high country hikes to photograph alpine wildflowers. During these excursions, I've had occasion to also photograph my wife, dogs, landscapes and critters. It produces beautiful, compelling images in all circumstances. I would buy one used for around 500.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

MountainDave wrote:

I read the same reviews and opted to keep my EF ve... (show quote)

Thanks for your feedback.
Much appreciated

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

junglejim1949 wrote:

Thanks all my original question was concerning the Macro switch on my old 24-70 f4. Paul answered that one.
Now, which lens is best? The ef 100mm or the newer rf 100mm? I have read some not so great reviews on the new rf 100 mm and some very positive ones? Any real owners want to comment?

I have the RF-85 f/2 macro, and it is great, about $500.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

robertjerl wrote:

I have the RF-85 f/2 macro, and it is great, about $500.

MountainDave

Macro enthusiasts will argue that the 85's magnification of .5X is not a true macro vs. the 100's 1X or 1.4X in the RF's case. 0.5X is very good and makes the lens more flexible, just not in the same league as the 100.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

robertjerl wrote:

I have the RF-85 f/2 macro, and it is great, about $500.

Yes, I have seen BIG Imatest numbers on this lens ....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

MountainDave wrote:

Macro enthusiasts will argue that the 85's magnification of .5X is not a true macro vs. the 100's 1X or 1.4X in the RF's case. 0.5X is very good and makes the lens more flexible, just not in the same league as the 100.

How often does one shoot @ greater than 1:2 - me, hardly EVER .......but that IS the question to ask.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

CHG_CANON wrote:

The 'macro' idea of the old lens was marketing spe... (show quote)

The reason I am inquiring is that I was rear-ended in a car accident and am having a hard time standing and bending like I did before.
I was thinking Marco would be easier on my back.

MountainDave

junglejim1949 wrote:

The reason I am inquiring is that I was rear-ended in a car accident and am having a hard time standing and bending like I did before.
I was thinking Marco would be easier on my back.

What exactly do you want to do with it that you can't now?

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

MountainDave wrote:

I read the same reviews and opted to keep my EF ve... (show quote)

Do you mean Dustin Abbott ?

MountainDave

dwmoar wrote:

Do you mean Dustin Abbott ?

yes

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

MountainDave wrote:

Macro enthusiasts will argue that the 85's magnification of .5X is not a true macro vs. the 100's 1X or 1.4X in the RF's case. 0.5X is very good and makes the lens more flexible, just not in the same league as the 100.

Yeah, yeah, not a "TRUE" macro. It is close enough for me. I also have a 100 and a 180 that both do 1x.