topic Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness? in Gear Guide

How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

avicci — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 12:56:35 GMT

Does anyone have experience shooting with EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS USM and it's successor, the RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS USM?

The RF is famous for top of the line sharpness and I am curious if that's the case with the EF as well?

Thanks everyone for your input in advance

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

jrhoffman75 — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:08:45 GMT

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1554&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

shadowsports — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:30:12 GMT

Greetings

Many have asked this question. Both lenses are at the top of their game, fantastic IQ and sharpness. The RF version adds spherical aberration adjustment taking it to the next level. Either lens is Best in Class for macro.

Use John's link above for comparison.

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

jrhoffman75 — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:20:51 GMT

Not related to your question, but the RF version allow 1.4X magnification.

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

FloridaDrafter — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 07:26:36 GMT

@avicci wrote:

Does anyone have experience shooting with EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS USM and it's successor, the RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS USM?

The RF is famous for top of the line sharpness and I am curious if that's the case with the EF as well?

I've shot extensively with both the EF and RF version on the R5 series (classic and mark II) and some on the R6 series. Both are sharp and render nicely, but I have to give the nod to the RF simply because it is designed for the EOS R system. It sits closer to the sensor and transmits/receives data much faster via 4 more contacts than the EF version.

Think of it this way... The RF version is the "Mark II" of the new age 100mm macro series of lenses, but that is the case for most of the new RF glass, which I have quite a few of. I've replaced all of my EF L for RF L and have a few consumer RF lenses as well.

This is a focus stack of a dime sized fleabane bloom using the EF 100 adapted to the R6 (click to enlarge). Note the thrips feeding on the pollen.

DC_R6S_0620-1Sb.jpg

Cropped in to one of the thrips.

Thrip-1a.jpg

Another focus stack of a dime sized flower, Evening Primrose, but shot with the RF 100 and R5 mark II. This is the full frame.

Cut-Leaved Evening Primrose-2a.JPG

Crop of the same flower.

Cut-Leaved Evening Primrose-2b.JPG

Just plain hand held macro with the RF 100 on the R5 mark II. Green Bot Fly.

Green Bottle Fly Macro-2-2-a.JPG

Not macro shots, but who says you have to always shoot macro with this lens?

Ruby-throated Hummingbird MAL-0002Sa.jpg

Robber Fly -Ommatius floridensis-2Sb.jpg

Newton

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

SignifDigits — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:54:42 GMT

I have only used the EF. RF is better, without a doubt, and there is no way I would consider buying an new EF version for an RF body. So if your decision is between those two lenses I would recommend the RF version. End of story, full-stop.

On an tangential and more personal subject I wanted to dabble with macro shots and got both the 100mm and 180mm macros used for about the price of the RF 100mm macro used. I wind up using the 180mm macro more than the 100mm because distance from subject and just shooting handheld. Of course I give up focus stacking with that approach and lose focus depth but I can lose the tripod for the walk.

Another downside with all EF lenses is that Canon will drop support for them much sooner than the RF lenses.

Here are some examples of images taken in cloudy conditions with the 180mm. Clearly a tripod and focus stacking would improve them, but I was others and needed to keep up

_Z5A7000reduced.JPG

_Z5A7289brighterReduced.JPG

_Z5A7102.JPG

And again, who says the lens has to only be used for macro?

_Z5A7128reduced.JPG

_Z5A9339.JPG

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

jrhoffman75 — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 19:24:28 GMT

Fully agree. If money is not a hindrance the RF version of a comparable lens will be superior to the similar EF version just like the V2 and V3 EF lenses were superior. Technology advances. The newest EF lens design is probably 10 years old or so.

But for some money is a constraint; the highly regarded EF lenses are still excellent performers on RF bodies.

it is my understanding that some of the long single focal length RF lenses are EF lenses with an adapter.

Re: How does this EF 100mm lens compare to its RF successor, particularly in sharpness?

FloridaDrafter — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 23:20:23 GMT

"it is my understanding that some of the long single focal length RF lenses are EF lenses with an adapter."

John, I read that as well on "The Digital Picture" site. It's an old post from 4/2021 and has no reference to where the author got the info, not that it's wrong, I just like to see references 🙂

It did make sense as the lenses mentioned were the $14K+ RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. It made sense to me because the EF mark III versions were only 3 years out of the gate and, as the article mentioned, were probably designed with the EOS R system in mind. It's Canon after all, and they knew what was on the horizon when updating these two EF mark III lenses.

Newton