A dedicated macro lens for the RF mount is definitely needed and is obviously on the roadmap. Here we have an optical formula for an RF 80mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens.
I doubt we'll see an 80mm macro, but there will be multiple different macro optical formulas until we see a consumer product.
Patent: Canon RF 80mm f/2.8 Macro | ||
Focal length | 80.45mm | |
F value | 2.90 | |
Half angle of view | 15.05° | |
Image height | 21.64mm | |
Lens length | 123.69mm | |
Backfocus | 13.72mm |
Many companies offer employee incentives to produce patents. For example, a cash bonus per patent, with an extra bonus for first patent filed, and other bonuses for plateaus reached (x number of patents). Invention disclosures that don't get a patent (for whatever reason) can still be publicly disclosed so that prior art now exists, preventing another company from cashing in on the protections and benefits of a patent themselves (unless, of course, they have evidence of designing said thing themselves before the other guy).
Canon could also decide to patent a design (which does cost money and resource for the full legal process) to prevent another company from designing and selling the same lens themselves, even if they themselves never intend to sell it; or to get royalties from other companies wanting to use the design.
Companies also get bragging rights for being Patent leaders in their industry. This even extends to the depts. inside a company, where the Widget Dept. can brag about generating more patents per capita than all other departments in the company.
No doubt this’ll be like £2500 or something stupid though.. :rolleyes:
Frankly I think bragging rights go to companies that actually produce interesting lenses instead of just patenting them.
So Canon can patent dozens of configurations but when it comes to a new 50mm 1.8 they just warm-over the existing EF design. Not very braggable...
FWIW, both 100mm macro lenses from Canon are 70-ish mm at MFD, lots of focus breathing with those designs.
If you don't believe me: OpticalLimits review...or, on TDP, compare it with the 90mm f2,8 TSE.
If I could have my dream macro, it'd be a 150mm f/2.8L 3:1 macro. I can dream :)
I'll need to buy another pelican case if so, as my gear will increase substantially.
The 100mm L macro was released right at the beginning of the coatings revolution - one of the main factors for increased resolution development in the last decade. It was also released right when IS was going from a (realistically) 2-stop capacity to a 3-3.5 stop capacity. So it was a bonkers lens at the time. The first (and only) "hybrid" IS system Canon ever released. It added a whole new axis of IS.
That said, in a decade, some similarly-focal-lengthed lenses have come out that are sharper. A large number of 85mm options in particular. But I don't know of any lens that is macro and has decent IS at macro use that is as sharp as this lens. For hand-held macro, it's still unbeatable. I know because I continue to waste money buying alternatives, trying them, and selling them.
When I shot Sony, I found that adapting the Canon 100 L was the best option, even with super sharp lenses such as the Sigma (AF was pretty bad).
All that said, the Laowa/Venus stuff that has been coming out has been fantastic. The probe lens; the 15mm macro; etc. Totally innovative and useful stuff. But not a 100mm with as-good IS or AF.
When Canon does settle on a design, it'll sell a boat-load. When they launch a super-high-resolution body, that might be an auspicious time.
One last thing: I think the communication between lens and camera that allows canon to get 7+ IS stops is going to really be remarkable in the macro use case. Eager to see. -tig
I’m not saying the 100 L macro isn’t a good lens, it is nice enough, but just not a particularly special one.
Just curious (being the happy owner of an "ancient pre L 100 macro"): what, then is the point to the 100L? Other than image stabilization?
And I find it ironic/humorous that you mention f/5.6 since that's what I usually run it at!