EF-100mm or RF-100mm

[Zebbra47]

Looking at these two lenses. Have the R6 II. I have read reviews from photo store for both of these models. I will admit, I typically look at the "1" reviews. I think I do that because the first review on a new insurance plan, I will review what is not covered.  I found most of the low reviews indicate focusing issues on the RF model. But will admit many of the reviews are "5".   

Further research indicated if using the EF model some of the features on the R6 II are not available. Cost new appears to be similar. So, I am unsure what to purchase. 

I plan to use this lens mostly for landscape, flowers and bugs. 

[TomRamsey]

I understand that the RF has more magnification (1:4 vs 1:1).  Personally I would prefer the native mount over having to use an adapter, but cost can be a factor too and you may get a real bargain with the EF.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Buy the RF mount.

[ebiggs1]

"Greetings,

Buy the RF mount."

😁

[ebiggs1]

"I understand that the RF has more magnification (1:4 vs 1:1)"

There is no "magnification" in 1:1 which means it would be actual size or life size. No bigger, as 1:4 means it would be quarter size. Remember these are ratios. 1:1 is considered a true macro.

[Jkarl]

This was taken from a review link:

The Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, is the first true 1:1 and beyond macro lens for the new RF mirrorless system. It is also the world’s first 1.4x magnification macro lens with autofocus. The 1:1 life size magnification refers to the subject being life size on a full frame sensor. 1.4x magnification will make the subject 40% larger.

Wikipedia definition of magnification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

[JeffXB]

I own the RF and have owned the EF version. I’m also shooting with an R6 M2. In addition what others have posted going with the native RF mount you’ll pick up an extra stop of image stabilization; helpful in low light conditions as you can reduce shutter speed and not necessarily need to increase ISO (and possibly introduce more noise). 

Also, the lens coating in the RF has been improved to further help reduce lens flare and ghosting. The auto focus is faster and tracks better (helpful when acquiring and tracking small fast moving subjects like ants and bees). In addition, the RF lens sits closer to the sensor (as do all RF’s) so there’s some improvement in IQ / sharpness and better corner to corner resolution. 

Finally, although it may not happen yet for some time Canon will eventually drop support for the EF. Go with the RF. 

[shadowsports]

And...  With the RF version, you get the spherical aberration adjustment which allows you to vary the arc of your bokeh from soft dreamy melt away to more crisp cheerios.  It's more pronounced the lower the aperture.  

[SignifDigits]

Buying new - the RF, no question.  Bought used, I have both the EF 100mm and EF 180mm non-is macros with the R6 Mark II.  I especially love the EF 180mm.  AF is slower (I don't care as I'm focusing manually) no IS (IBIS has been adequate to compensate), and both fall out of support in fall of 2027 - got them both for less than the RF 100mm.  I am most likely to sell the 100mm and only keep the 180mm and pick up another one if mine breaks over getting a 100mm.

I just thought you should have a curve ball thrown in to consider.

Shot these last week handheld on a cloudy day with no flash.

[Zebbra47]

Thank all of you for your knowledge comments. The overwhelming majority of the response is RF. I will be looking at that direction.