Thoughts on the RF 100mm f2.8?

Any thoughts, comments, experiences regarding the RF 100mm f2.8 macro? How does is comoare to the EF version?

I had EF, impressed with both, But decided to go mirrorless with RF version and extremely happy with it.

The RF version is 1.4:1 compared to the EF 1:1.

Cheers

Dennis

Yes, it goes to 1.4x. So does the EF lens if you use extension tubes, but with extension tubes it doesn't AF very well. My impression is that the RF version is better for AF at those magnifications.

Who uses AF for macro? I do, often. I find I can't focus critically in the viewfinder using MF when handholding. AF it isn't that accurate either but it tries. I take several shots to improve the odds of getting a good one.

I owned the EF version twice, just recently bought the RF. Everything about the RF is better with one unfortunate exception. There is a focus shift that begins to occur when you stop down to 5.6 and beyond. To compound the problem further, there is no full MF option, so it's not like you can hit AF and then make a minor adjustment when you see the focus shift. Similarly, no full time MF sort of forces you into using MF mode for all macro since you usually do need to make minor adjustments after the camera focus.

Perhaps what is most disappointing about all of this is it probably can't be corrected through a firmware update because apparently the shift is not consistent across all copies (in terms of amplitude of focus shift at each aperture).

Archibald wrote in post #19507215
Yes, it goes to 1.4x. So does the EF lens if you use extension tubes, but with extension tubes it doesn't AF very well. My impression is that the RF version is better for AF at those magnifications.

The other option for higher magnification with the EF is RF extenders. Both work and give autofocus. Can't compare to RF version, though. IBIS doesn't see the changed focal length, though. So it might not be optimal. That doesn't matter to me as I used it in the dark with flash.

Ditto. With traditional DSLR the focus was much easier ... though if you are so stable that you can used the focus aids, you can improve the odds a lot.

I just discovered a new "feature" of the RF 100mm macro. The rear element is nearly flat glass and sits very close to the sensor. It has to be kept VERY clean otherwise you will see every tiny bit of dirt in your photos, especially at narrower apertures.

I found this out after noticing what appeared to be sensor dust in my pics. But that's not what it was. It was a tiny speck on the rear element of the lens.

Archibald wrote in post #19516175
I just discovered a new "feature" of the RF 100mm macro. The rear element is nearly flat glass and sits very close to the sensor. It has to be kept VERY clean otherwise you will see every tiny bit of dirt in your photos, especially at narrower apertures.

Same applies to the RF TC:s.

I thought this might be a good thread to ask this question. If I use my EF 100mm f2.8 on my R7 with an adapter will the adapter act as an extension tube giving better than 1x magnification? I would love to buy the RF version but between the R7 and 4 other RF lenses I'm about done buying camera gear for a while.

AlbertD wrote in post #19518681
I thought this might be a good thread to ask this question. If I use my EF 100mm f2.8 on my R7 with an adapter will the adapter act as an extension tube giving better than 1x magnification?

No...

Thank you.

I am surprised how light this Lens is compared to the EF version and other Rf L glass. New purchase for me, still running it through it paces.

I love mine. Great for round the garden but also many other circumstances

I just ordered one to replace my EF version. I can't wait to use it.

AlbertD wrote in post #19523669
I just ordered one to replace my EF version. I can't wait to use it.

That's exciting! Remember that lighting is just as important as the lens.