New RF 100mm macro

Aether · Jul 15, 2022

I just got the RF 100mm Macro and wanted to test it out. First thing I noticed as I started taking just a couple shots close up was just how freakin dusty things are, even things that I use often. Or maybe it’s a testament to just how detailed this lens is. Anyway, here’s a shot of my in ear monitors. Not super close up, but just starting to have fun with it.

Aether · Jul 22, 2022

Took the 100mm macro out around my yard to try to get some more shots. Not perfect, but getting used to this lens. Still, having a whole lot of fun with this lens!

Kwazy · Jul 22, 2022

Yep. This lens is pretty phenomenal. The only struggle is the low depth of field when getting in close. This is where the R5 would come in handy to allow a slightly greater subject distance for the increase in DoF benefit, to crop later.

dougsmit · Jul 22, 2022

Macro has become more challenging in a way that not everyone realizes as result of increasingly high pixel density sensors and high quality lenses. Sharpness, increasingly, is limited by depth of field as shown in these examples. There are areas of great sharpness and areas where all those pixels and all that great glass conspire to show that things are not in as good focus as are the places that really are sharp. Depth of field is something of a myth since it is based on a definition of what is good enough and how far from perfect focus is defined as acceptable. Larger prints/files make it easier to see problems that were masked by lenses not capable of all that detail on sensors with fewer receptors. We have made it hard on ourselves now that we have to be even more careful to place what we want sharp on the sharpest parts of the picture. Depth of field scales as marked on lenses and the concept of hyperfocal distance once seemed like good ideas but no more. This post shows fine examples both of when the right thing is sharp and when we wish is was a millimeter one way or another. If it is any comfort, the worst in this respect is yet to come. Just try to get perfect macro at really close distances when you get your R1 (assuming a 100 MP sensor). I am learning this the hard way with the R7 (currently the smallest pixels in the Canon line). I'd say this set looks good but we all need to realize that we will have to throw out many photos for little technical flaws at used to be within tolerances by then current standards.

My example is R7 at f/11 which is pushing the limits of diffraction but still not having enough DOF to make both eyes sharp. I'd prefer the focus were a millimeter closer to benefit that second eye but add fuzz to the rear of the bee. We are challenged. We keep working in the hope we get enough better that we can deserve our more challenging equipment.

Kwazy · Jul 22, 2022

I think this problem will be alleviated with the advent of 100MP sensors. Below is an excerpt from a Depth of Field table for a 100mm lens and Canon R platform. Although, as dougsmit pointed out, the depth of field is a bit of a myth, for all intents and purposes let's treat it as "good enough" and not try to deal in absolutes. All units are in centimeters:

Subject distance (cm)	f/2.8	f/4.0	f/5.6	f/8.0	f/11	f/13
25	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.18	0.25	0.3
50	0.34	0.48	0.68	0.96	1.35	1.61
75	0.83	1.17	1.65	2.33	3.3	3.92
100	1.53	2.16	3.05	4.31	6.09	7.25
150	3.56	5.04	7.12	10.07	14.24	16.94
200	6.45	9.11	12.89	18.23	25.81	30.73

Here we can see that at 1.5m away from the subject, the DoF is roughly 10cm using a comfortable f/8 aperture. This is enough for most macro subjects, and if more is needed, only 2 or 3 focus-bracketed shots to be stacked later would cover a volume the size of a basketball.
100MP would allow us to crop the "distant" object and still have it in high enough resolution to print poster-sized.

At least that's in theory. Let's see if Canon delivers!

Aether · Jul 23, 2022

I know my shots aren’t perfect and to some of you more seasoned folks these wouldn‘t be keepers. Some subjects aren’t as in focus (razor sharp) as I would like, but I’m still learning for sure. Yeah, the concerns of diffraction at the smaller aperture range was something I took into consideration, but I also haven’t delved into focus stacking yet either, which maybe part of the reason why I was really going beyond f11. Still learning (always learning!!)… I’ll get there, but still was having fun and happy with these as a starting point!

Kwazy · Jul 23, 2022

I think they're great.
I have a soft spot for macro - always very pleasing to look at. They subjects, although usually common enough, are presented in a way we don't normally see them. And the high quality camera + lens really makes it special...

Hali · Jul 23, 2022

Aether said:
I know my shots aren’t perfect and to some of you more seasoned folks these wouldn‘t be keepers. Some subjects aren’t as in focus (razor sharp) as I would like, but I’m still learning for sure. Yeah, the concerns of diffraction at the smaller aperture range was something I took into consideration, but I also haven’t delved into focus stacking yet either, which maybe part of the reason why I was really going beyond f11. Still learning (always learning!!)… I’ll get there, but still was having fun and happy with these as a starting point!

I think they are great images, and the most important thing is that you have fun. All the other stuff is important but the most important thing is that you are enjoying doing it. Macro is hard. It seems easy at first, but then you get into the weeds of it like @dougsmit and @Kwazy are doing and it opens a whole other level of interest (and frustration!).

Aether · Jul 24, 2022

Hali said:
I think they are great images, and the most important thing is that you have fun. All the other stuff is important but the most important thing is that you are enjoying doing it. Macro is hard. It seems easy at first, but then you get into the weeds of it like @dougsmit and @Kwazy are doing and it opens a whole other level of interest (and frustration!).

I definitely want to dive further into the intricacies as I’m just getting started. Always been fascinated by close up and macro, so yes, I absolutely am having fun with it and look forward to having even more fun as I continue to learn and grow more!

dougsmit · Jul 25, 2022

Macro is a subject of great importance to a few of us and not at all to the majority. If I shot photos of people, those images might live a long time in the hearts of the subject and their descendants. I would love to have an image of my grandmother when she was 20 but the first I have seen was when she was over 60. When I am dead, my macro photos will return to the electrons from which they were made. Perhaps my daughter will keep a couple that were printed but most shots will be forgotten by me as soon as I get a better view of the subject or the antiquated hard drive they are on goes to Goodwill. . The 'hobby' is different for people whose hobby is selling photos of weddings hopping the prints get delivered before the divorce is filed. Each can decide which hobby or business is our choice. I enjoy doing photos a great deal more than having the photos. It is hard to throw out those prints from film days and early digital when I had many more printed than ever fit on the walls. Before you get into macro, it might be good to ask why. It is who I am. You?

Kwazy · Jul 25, 2022

dougsmit said:
When I am dead, my macro photos will return to the electrons from which they were made. Perhaps my daughter will keep a couple that were printed but most shots will be forgotten by me as soon as I get a better view of the subject or the antiquated hard drive they are on goes to Goodwill.

Well, that took a darkly existential turn rather quickly... When you put it like that...

So there's a service (or probably multiple) that can print your photos on metal, and they claim that an image preserved in such a way can stay intact for hundreds of years (theoretically. No proof yet.) You could print a few of your favorite ones using this method, and perhaps your descendants 10 generations later will be able to admire them. If they (the descendants) will still retain their physical forms by then, and not forfeit this tangible world for something more ethereal like a collective digital consciousness....

Aether · Jul 25, 2022

dougsmit said:
Macro is a subject of great importance to a few of us and not at all to the majority. If I shot photos of people, those images might live a long time in the hearts of the subject and their descendants. I would love to have an image of my grandmother when she was 20 but the first I have seen was when she was over 60. When I am dead, my macro photos will return to the electrons from which they were made. Perhaps my daughter will keep a couple that were printed but most shots will be forgotten by me as soon as I get a better view of the subject or the antiquated hard drive they are on goes to Goodwill. . The 'hobby' is different for people whose hobby is selling photos of weddings hopping the prints get delivered before the divorce is filed. Each can decide which hobby or business is our choice. I enjoy doing photos a great deal more than having the photos. It is hard to throw out those prints from film days and early digital when I had many more printed than ever fit on the walls. Before you get into macro, it might be good to ask why. It is who I am. You?

It’s not something I’m entirely used to yet, but even before getting any sort of professional or semi-professional camera I was also trying to get close to subjects, bugs and things, to see the intricacies and details. So, possibly a part of who I am? I do love it so far and have been studying up on it a lot since I’ve still got a lot to learn!

While it might be a little niche when it comes to a general need or desire, the macro shots got a lot of attention when I posted them on social media. So, I think there’s more admiration and appreciation than you might think!

dougsmit · Jul 25, 2022

Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the only early photography shots that retain a level of interest today are those that originated their genre rather than those who copied along years later. I collect old photos. The Egyptian landscapes of Francis Frith from the 1850's are highly collectible. So are the John Soule Kitty Series stereoviews or Edward Weston peppers. Neither of them would be considered even decent amateur snapshots by today's standards but we admire their originality. I have a stereoview with reverse notation explaining that the negative was processed six months after exposure in a day when dry plate was first allowing processing at home after you returned from the trip rather than taking along a 'dark tent'. I do wonder what taken in the 2000's will be admired and used to illustrate photography history books (or whatever format) in another century or two. I doubt it will be my macros. They are for me. That is why I say it is the journey and not the destination that matters. So far, perhaps the best use I have made of my RP has been copying old family photos in a format that allows sharing with other people who might care. Harrison Linn, my great grandfather from a full plate tintype made in the late 1860's shortly before he was killed standing on a railroad track they built across his farm. He was deaf, mostly blind in his good eye and ten years younger than I am now. I do wish we had a photo of that train. This is just another use of our cameras.

Suzq · Aug 25, 2022

dougsmit said:
Macro has become more challenging in a way that not everyone realizes as result of increasingly high pixel density sensors and high quality lenses. Sharpness, increasingly, is limited by depth of field as shown in these examples. There are areas of great sharpness and areas where all those pixels and all that great glass conspire to show that things are not in as good focus as are the places that really are sharp. Depth of field is something of a myth since it is based on a definition of what is good enough and how far from perfect focus is defined as acceptable. Larger prints/files make it easier to see problems that were masked by lenses not capable of all that detail on sensors with fewer receptors. We have made it hard on ourselves now that we have to be even more careful to place what we want sharp on the sharpest parts of the picture. Depth of field scales as marked on lenses and the concept of hyperfocal distance once seemed like good ideas but no more. This post shows fine examples both of when the right thing is sharp and when we wish is was a millimeter one way or another. If it is any comfort, the worst in this respect is yet to come. Just try to get perfect macro at really close distances when you get your R1 (assuming a 100 MP sensor). I am learning this the hard way with the R7 (currently the smallest pixels in the Canon line). I'd say this set looks good but we all need to realize that we will have to throw out many photos for little technical flaws at used to be within tolerances by then current standards.

My example is R7 at f/11 which is pushing the limits of diffraction but still not having enough DOF to make both eyes sharp. I'd prefer the focus were a millimeter closer to benefit that second eye but add fuzz to the rear of the bee. We are challenged. We keep working in the hope we get enough better that we can deserve our more challenging equipment.

I'm struggling with learning the best settings for subjects -- I tend to adjust the aperture and leave the others to auto, with hopes that I have the depth of field I want for that subject. And, as you've discussed I'm often still disappointed. Learning.... I use the R5 with the 100mm macro lens.

New RF 100mm macro

Aether

Newcomer

Aether

Newcomer

Kwazy

Well Known Member

dougsmit

Active Member

Attachments

Kwazy

Well Known Member

Aether

Newcomer

Kwazy

Well Known Member

Hali

Veteran Member

Aether

Newcomer

dougsmit

Active Member

Kwazy

Well Known Member

Aether

Newcomer

dougsmit

Active Member

Attachments

Suzq

Active Member

Similar threads

Latest reviews

New in the marketplace