100mm macro ef vs rf

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Messages
3
Reaction score
6
Location
cozumel
# of dives
1000 - 2499
I have a canon r7 aspc with a 60mm macro lens, but lately I've been looking into the 100mm macro lens and I'm wondering if there is a point in buying the rf mount vs the ef mount. I already have the ef to rf adaptor, and I'm a scuba instructor so not a lot of money to spend
 
Definitely go with the RF100.
I switched 2 years ago to a R7 after all sorts of Canon dSLRs (5D, 7D, 70D), I was using a EF100 USM then purchased the RF100. There's a world of difference especially if like me you're into supermacro, focusing is so fast and easy with the RF.
 
I still use the EF 100mm IS USM. I found no reason to "upgrade". Here is a good thread from DPReview. There are two EF 100mm's. If you go that route, make sure to get the IS version. The non-IS is old and slow to focus.

 
I used the old EF 100 macro non-L lens (like $600ish new I think) for many years on my 5D. Great lens, no complaints. I never used the EF 100 L IS macro, but I do currently use the RF 100 L IS macro and it's amazing. Definitely a notch above the old non-L macro in quality (and size/cost), but probably very comparable to the EF 100 L IS. The native RF lenses tend to focus a bit better though.

So I guess to summarize, RF 100 L IS is best and most expensive, but the EF 100 L IS isn't far behind (but requires an adapter). The older non-L EF 100 macro is a cheaper option if money is tight, and should work ok with the RF adapter.
 
I still use the EF 100mm IS USM. I found no reason to "upgrade". Here is a good thread from DPReview. There are two EF 100mm's. If you go that route, make sure to get the IS version. The non-IS is old and slow to focus.

Are you comparing the EF 100mm IS USM to the previous USM only (goldish ring) one? Or an older one? I’m not using mirrorless and wondered if the L version with the IS would focus faster and better, I’ve read the image quality is the same
 
This is the one I recommend.


I have used the USM and the L IS USM. L USM is better, faster and sharper. This was with and 80D

I have used the L IS USM and the RF. I found the RF to be a little faster, but the same in sharpness. This was with an R5.

If I was just starting with no lens and a mirrorless, I would just get the RF. If you have the EF L IS USM, just keep it. If you have nothing and no mirrorless, get the EF L IS USM.

My 2 cents YMMV.
 
This is the one I recommend.


I have used the USM and the L IS USM. L USM is better, faster and sharper. This was with and 80D

I have used the L IS USM and the RF. I found the RF to be a little faster, but the same in sharpness. This was with an R5.

If I was just starting with no lens and a mirrorless, I would just get the RF. If you have the EF L IS USM, just keep it. If you have nothing and no mirrorless, get the EF L IS USM.

My 2 cents YMMV.

Thank you for sharing. Currently I have the older USM non-L lens and shooting a 5D mkiii. If it was in my budget to go mirrorless I would be looking at the RF version. In the meantime I’m just trying to decide if it’s worth the upgrade to pick up a used 100mm IS USM L over the non-L I have now. Sounds like it would be
 
I've known people happy with both. If price isn't an issue may be good to go with RF but you can find some EF for pretty good deals and it performs well.
 

Back
Top Bottom