Macro lens recommendations requested for R series

[VanDyck]

Hello,
For casual, enthusiast shooting, what macro lenses would you recommend?
Manual focus is ok, IS vs. non-IS is open for consideration as I mostly shoot with a tripod. And then, cost.

Options
- RF 85mm F/2. Benefits: native RF mount, light weight, reasonable cost
- EF 100mm F/2.8 L This one seems to get good reviews
- EF 100mm F/2.8 (non-L). This also gets many good reviews
- Laowa 100mm F/2.8 2:1 Ultra Macro. Good value, sharp images.

• Canon EOS 6D
• 180mm
• 180.0 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/20 sec
• ISO 1000

• Canon EOS 6D
• 180mm
• 180.0 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/25 sec
• ISO 1000

You talkin' to me?

An R8 has been pre-ordered. My lens line up includes
EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM
EF 16-35mm F/4 L IS USM
An RF 100-400mm is on the shelf waiting for hook up to the R8

 

[koenkooi]

The EF100 macro lenses are great, I used the non-L for more than a decade before upgrading to the EF100L. I didn't like how the in-lens IS in the 100L worked against the IBIS in my R5 and upgraded to the RF100L. Objectively speaking, the RF100L is not worth the price difference with the EF100L. But I have fun again, so for me it was worth it

The RF85mm f/2 is very sharp and contrasty and the IS works very well. The AF speed is glacial, especially in movie mode.

Comparing the 180L between the RP and R5, I was surprised at how much more stable the EVF is on the R5. The IBIS doesn't give me a noticeable improvement for the photo itself, but it does make composing and focussing a lot easier. So for your R8 I'd recommend looking at lenses with IS, like the EF100L and RF85.

By the way, your RF100-400 can do 0.41x magnification at the long end, which is very close to the RF85's 0.5x. I've been using the 100-500L (0.34x magnification) for larger insects like butterflies and dragonflies and I find it to work very well. For large magnifications (e.g. 1:1) and tight spaces you can't beat a 100mm, but for natural light macro I love the 100-500L. So give the 100-400 a try for macro, work out what you like and don't like and pick the additional macro lens.

If you ever decide to use a flash and want to mount it on the lens (e.g. ring flash, twin light flash), the RF85 can't handle that, its focus motor is only strong enough for the lens and a filter.

 

[RedCobra]

RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

 

[TonyB]

RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

I second this. It’s worth it. This has become one of my favorite RF lenses. Great for portraits, too.

 

[VanDyck]

Comparing the 180L between the RP and R5, I was surprised at how much more stable the EVF is on the R5. The IBIS doesn't give me a noticeable improvement for the photo itself, but it does make composing and focussing a lot easier. So for your R8 I'd recommend looking at lenses with IS, like the EF100L and RF85.

IBIS providing a more stable EVF for composing and focusing is good to know.
IBIS vs non-IBIS has been an ongoing internal debate. For many reasons, the R8 seems a better fit for me. But yes, IS lenses!

By the way, your RF100-400 can do 0.41x magnification at the long end, which is very close to the RF85's 0.5x. ...So give the 100-400 a try for macro, work out what you like and don't like and pick the additional macro lens.

This recommendation will cover me for the near term. Much appreciated!

If you ever decide to use a flash and want to mount it on the lens (e.g. ring flash, twin light flash), the RF85 can't handle that, its focus motor is only strong enough for the lens and a filter.

Again, very useful information! Most of the time I will shoot flowers, slow moving insects, and other objects of interest in natural light. Flash would still be a consideration. Recently, I've started looking at macro focusing rails so flash for indoor shooting would be a necesssity. The bottom line based on your information is that RF85 is now ruled out and the EF100 looks like obvious choice.

 

[VanDyck]

RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

I second this. It’s worth it. This has become one of my favorite RF lenses. Great for portraits, too.

No doubt this is a solid recommendation.

 

[RogerZoul]

You are getting an R8, nice and light in weight. If you get an EF lens, then you must use the adapter, which kills off the advantage of the r8. If you get an RF lens, like the RF 100L, you are much better off. You can later get a flash which can help in the lower light situations.

 

[VanDyck]

You are getting an R8, nice and light in weight. If you get an EF lens, then you must use the adapter, which kills off the advantage of the r8. If you get an RF lens, like the RF 100L, you are much better off. You can later get a flash which can help in the lower light situations.

Compared to my 6D, the R8 is smaller and lighter than I was expecting it to be. With the adapter and EF lenses, yes there is a heft factor which isn't an issue with a tripod. The RF 100-400 on the other hand is very light and I was able to produce some reasonably sharp hand held shots.

Since I currently don't have a macro lens, there isn't the question of how much of an upgrade the RF 100L would be. Initially, it wasn't a consideration because of cost, but long term, the RF 100L may be the best option vs. buying the EF L version new or used. Much to consider while otherwise getting up to speed with the fantastic R8.

 

[Frank Stellitano]

I have and endorse the 100 mm f2.8, Macro L IS USM. I shoot with the R6.

 

[Bert-63]

I own the non-L 100mm f2.8, the EF 100mm f2.8L, and recently purchased the RF 100mm f2.8L. I can tell you without a doubt the RF version is the best of the lot. It's better than it's predecessor in every possible way except price. At least it goes on sale regularly.