IQ is pretty much the same when shooting macros (stopped down). The cheaper mounts ovalize the (polycarb) tube somewhat. The RF is a bit bigger, and more expensive. But with the RF version that stability is even further extended (ie I can stop the lens down further, or shoot in dimmer light). With the EF lens in available light, I could just get by with shooting handheld in the shade, or at dawn/dusk. ![]() For instance I find that the improved AF speed nets me a higher keeper percentage when shooting the afternoon “crazy bees.” This also applies to using the AF on breezy days (every macro shooter’s bane).Įven more of a benefit is the improved image stabilization. The differences are indeed fairly subtle, but subtle in the world of Macro can make big differences in one’s results. I’ve owned the (excellent) EF 100L twice, and sold the second copy a couple of years ago to finance the new RF 100L (also excellent). I assume you’re talking about the L grade lenses. I have the EF and it is my only macro lens. Constantly having to manually rack is annoying. I just hope Canon figures out a way to enable the lenses to find focus even when its starting from far off. With 1.4x, that will happen less since I will be able to focus right past 1:1 if needed. But one of the issues that comes up is when I am photographing at full 1:1 magnification, I can be a smidge too close and the only thing I can do is move backwards. This is especially an issue with long telephotos and macro lenses as the DOF is shallow. It may not for others.Įasily the biggest - maybe only disappoimtment for mirrorless over DSLR is its refusal to find focus when its too far off. But, like I said, that extra magnification really matters for me. That alone is enough reason for me to want it, given there isnt a loss in IQ and, of course, there isnt - Canon slapped the ol red ring around it afterall. The RF goes to almost 1.5x vs just 1x magnification with the EF. I often add a Raynox 250 to the lens for added magnification and its really good, but IQ is certainly a little better without it. I currently shoot the EF L and have for a few years. I cant offer a 1st hand comparison but Ive recently spent time comparing reviews and discussing to see if I want to upgrade. Much better results are possible when more effort is applied. This kind of thing is very easy to do - obviously, the EF 100 will not be drastically worse than the RF, but the improved stabilization makes it even easier.ĭone on the R6 + 100 RF Macro, stacked with Photoshop in just a minute, no corrections or anything applied. Two examples I took today, just a snapshot. That's why I didn't get a Laowa manual lens - it's very workable shooting handheld. What works really good is focus stacking. The IS gave me about 1 extra stop compared to the EF. The blazing fast AF is such a joy to use, and everything else seems just sooo slow. But it's an amazing package to use and really feels like a next-gen lens in virtually aspect. Objectively, the RF doesn't give enough features that I could say I *need*. AF seems very slow once I got used to the RF. I also tested the newer version with OS, which is even better. It only really loses when the backlight is strong. ![]() Even the ultra affordable Sigma has very good IQ. Wanted to post it, but wasn't sure anyone was going to care But once it’s mastered, lovely effects are there for the taking.I actually have done quite an extensive review of these three. Setting this control is going to be all about practice, experience, and personal preference, with each photographer likely to find their own preferred look. So it’s important not to get distracted by watching the background go all buttery smooth, and end up taking things too far, but instead apply the effect in moderation. At the extremes of the control ring’s range, this softening is acute, particularly at f/2.8, although it diminishes on stopping down. Moving the SA dial also softens fine detail, which can be flattering when photographing people, but probably isn’t what you want for macro shooting. With this being a mirrorless system, you can clearly see what’s going on in the viewfinder. Move the dial the other way and the lens smooths foreground blur instead, at the cost of ‘soap bubble’ effect in the background – you can see this in the video below. But rotate the SA Control ring towards the left, and it smooths the background even further, giving lovely soft bokeh. Shoot with the spherical aberration control set to its neutral position, and it delivers really attractive background blur I suspect most users would be perfectly happy with it. Curvilinear distortion is essentially nonexistent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |