New RF 100mm macro

[Aether]

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.

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 800

 

[Aether]

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!

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 100

• Canon EOS R3
• RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Kwazy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?