A great deal of macro users never use autofocus or stabilization, or shoot at maximum magnification. Studio users won’t appreciate several of these factors. With the R5 having more than two times the resolution of a 1DX, and the lens having 40 percent more magnification, with autofocus compensating for the greater difficulty in keeping things in focus for the run-and-gunners, and improved stabilization thrown in on top, the lens does feel twice as good in that use case. That the new RF version can provide 40 percent more magnification versus the EF version is very significant for many users. To confirm this theory, we turned tracking off and found that the EF lens did indeed work about as well as it used to with DLSRs. Now that the RF version is much faster (roughly 3-4 times faster to rack focus) and more confident, tracking actually works. In retrospect, and in light of the RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro lens performance, we believe this was due to a vastly more ambitious autofocus system that had autofocus speed demands that simply couldn’t be met by the EF version of the lens. Where the older R cameras seemed to have about the same autofocus as the 1DX and 5D Mark IV cameras, the newer RF mount models seemingly took a step backward. Having used our trusty EF version for more than a year on R, RP, R5 and R6 bodies, it seemed that the new tracking system introduced with the R5 actually made the autofocus performance of the EF macro lens worse. This leads to an interesting observation. We were able to use object tracking to keep up with flitting insects on extremely busy backgrounds on the RF version, and the same task was next to hopeless on the EF version. We shot the RF and EF lenses together at the same time on two R5 cameras, the EF mount version using Canon’s ring adapter. This is not something that will be obvious to people conducting indoor chart tests, but if you’ve snagged a bumble bee in tracking mode, it means the world. What surprised us was how fast and confident the autofocus was. This is consistent with what other reviewers have found, and Canon’s own MTF charts. On sharpness, the center of the frame isn’t noticeably better than the EF mount 100mm L lens, but the edges are night-and-day better on the new RF lens. In fact, we believe best general macro lens in the Sony E mount and L mount ecosystems remains an adapted Canon EF 100mm L lens. But for a general run-and-gun macro lens the Tamron, Sigma, Laowa and other brands never equaled the original – especially in sharpness and image stabilization. There were third parties that introduced innovative alternatives for other use cases, like the Laowa 24mm “snoot” lens designed for underwater shooting at a distance, and the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro. The upshot: it beats the EF version in across-the-frame sharpness, AF performance and handling.Ĭanon shooters back in the EF mount days were spoiled by the EF 100mm f/2.8 L lens, which was never surpassed over its long life. We took it out into a field rife with wildflowers and insects within minutes of the UPS man coming and dropping it off yesterday evening. For many of these use cases, the new RF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM is going to be far and away the best for R mount shooters. Which macro lens is the best for you depends a lot on what sort of macro work you do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |