Ef 100mm macro vs RF 100macro

[kandchka1]

Hello,

I have a Tamron 90mm macro EF mount which I use on my R5 and 5D4. The lens is starting to show signs of failure and I am looking for a new one.

Is the RF 100mm much better than the EF version ?

Thank you for your advices !

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

If you are unlikely to purchase another DSLR, investing in EF glass does not offer the same return on investment as an RF lens.  The 5D mk IV is about 9 years old now.  It's still a great camera. 

One other thing, the RF version has going for it is it's spherical aberration adjustment ring.  This actually shifts the entire lens group inside the lens allowing you to shift emphasis between background and foreground.

If continuing to use your 5D mkIV for macro photography is imperative then your only option is EF.  If you are okay with relegating your macro photography to the R5, Then the RF version is a better investment option.

[Ron888]

I went to look up that spherical adjustment feature.Found lots of info about adjusting fore or aft bokeh but nothing about whether it changes the shape of the focal plane.Do you know if this is the case?

[ebiggs1]

I wouldn't buy any more EF glass. Go with the RF series.

[March411]

I would have to agree that with you owning an R5 the transition to RF glass would be the best way to go right now. I went through a similar struggle knowing that the EF lens could be mounted on my 5D Mk IV and my R5 with an adapter. It was a difficult decision going with the RF since it meant I was moving away from my EF bodies. 

The RF100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM is an excellent lens and performs well on all my R bodies. Here's a sample image on the R50.

[p4pictures]

The RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM is the best choice optically and for the future, though I still prefer the feel of the manual focus ring on the EF version, and I use manual focus more often when doing close-up work. 

[FloridaDrafter]

I have both the EF and RF versions of the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro. I used the EF on my R5 and R6 cameras for a few months and then bought the RF. Not that the EF was bad or didn't perform well, I just thought it a good idea to use a native RF lens. It turned out to be the best option, and in essence, is the "mark II" of the series. First off, the RF sits closer to the sensor as does all RF glass, so there is improvement in sharpness and better resolution corner to corner which is a big deal when filling up a FF sensor. The RF is 1.4:1 so a bit larger than life size. This might not seem like a big deal, but it gives you the advantage of where to start focus, particularly when focus stacking. I take a lot of macro shots "hand held" and the 1.4:1 helps there as well and gives me a cushion so I will at least get 1:1. The RF is faster to focus and track, when needed for a moving subject, be it an ant or wind blown flower.

Honestly, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ, but it is noticeable. However, the RF is more responsive so I liked the upgrade.

Here are some comparisons between the EF and RF versions using an R5, all shot hand held. These are 25% zoom/crop and reduced to forum guidelines. The flowers are very tiny

EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.

RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro. Note the slightly better magnification (1.4:1).

EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.

RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.

Newton

 

 

 

[EvangelionAdams]

How does the magnification compare between the RF and an EF+adapter? Would the extra magnification of the adapter make it comparable to the 1.4?

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@EvangelionAdams wrote:

How does the magnification compare between the RF and an EF+adapter? Would the extra magnification of the adapter make it comparable to the 1.4?

---

If you are referring to the RF > EF adapter, then there is no change. The adapter only puts the EF lens to its propper distance from the sensor, so you still get 1:1. If you mean the EF X1.4 extender, it won't fit the EF 100mm macro lens.

Newton