new RF zooms much better at MFD / magnification than old EF zooms

.
One thing I am noticing about the new RF lenses that is markedly different from the EF lenses ...

In the wide angle and middle length zoom ranges, several of the new RF lenses have really short minimum focus distances, compared to EF lenses in similar focal length ranges.

For example, the RF 24-105mm (the cheap slow version) focuses at just 5.16 inches away, and yields 0.5 magnification.

In comparison, the EF 24-105 L v2 focuses at 18 inches, and yields a magnification of only 0.23 ... which totally sucks for close-up work.

As I look at the specs for the new RF zooms, I am seeing that several of them offer maximum magnification of 0.5 ... which is great for a lot of close-up work with small subjects. . This was never the case with the EF mount zooms. . I wonder if Canon is just now beginning to prioritize MFD / magnification in zoom lens design, or if the new mirrorless mount somehow enables closer MFD than the EF mount would allow for.

This is of great importance to me, as I am regularly and frequently using my 24-105mm, 50-200mm, and 100-400mm EF lenses right at their MFD, and I am often not at all happy with the degree of magnification they provide. . I get close enough to my subject that it is framed exactly the way I want, and then the lens simply won't focus because I am closer than the MFD. . When I move back a bit, so that I can focus, then the scene isn't framed at all the way I want it to be framed. . I am forced to settle for images that are not what I really want, because of the limitations of my EF zooms. . Frustrating.

Yes, I have a true macro lens, but that is a fixed focal length, and I normally want a different focal length than my macro lens.

The flexibility of a zoom is really what I prefer, as it fits my shooting style much better than prime lenses. . Yet my EF zoom lenses don't focus close enough for much of the zoom photography I do. . But the new RF zooms that are similar in focal length look like they would be very useful because of much improved MFD / magnification.

This alone is what is going to get me to finally switch to mirrorless, so that I can use these RF lenses with the improved close-up capabilities. . When you're shooting tiny little critters that are as big as your thumb, but demand the flexibility of a zoom lens, it is really important to be able to get just a few inches away from the critter and still be able to focus sharply on it.

Have any of you RF users been enjoying the markedly improved close-up capabilities of your zoom lenses?


.

The RF 100-500 is a little longer at 100mm than the EF 100-400 II and gets an even longer MFD at 500. The 100-400 was a constant MFD. However it is close, but is longer in the RF version than EF.

RMyers wrote in post #19409904
.
The RF 100-500 is a little longer at 100mm than the EF 100-400 II and gets an even longer MFD at 500. The 100-400 was a constant MFD. However it is close, but is longer in the RF version than EF.
.

.
Yes, you're quite right, the new 100-500 is not as good for close up work as the EF 100-400 v2 is. . That is the reason that I was specifically talking about wide angle and middle length zooms; because it is different with the longer zooms, as you pointed out.


.

I won't pretend to fully understand the physics and geometries, but I assume this has something to do with the decreased distance between the sensor and the lens now that the mirror is taken out of the equation. I've also noticed the MFD to be much better on many of the RF lenses.