Canon RF 100mm F2.8L MACRO IS USM Official Image Thread

[Mr Roboto]

I'm guessing that this RF lens on a R7 (with it's 1.6x crop) will effectively give a magnification ratio even higher than x2!

The effect is similar, but not really the same. Magnification is measured at the film/imaging sensor, regardless of the format used. Thus magnification strips out the "crop factor". Whether I use a FF, APS-C, or medium format (if the image circle was big enough - which it isn't), they would all have the same 1.4x magnification at the film/imaging sensor.

Magnification is not the same as angle of view.

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Lester Wareham]

Anyone who has this lens and used it with the Raynox DCR-250, can you comment on the maximum magnification achieved?

 

[Trespassers W]

 

[Dennis]

I went on a night walk in Lamington National Park and found a few macro subjects. This one is a Huntsman Spider.

Dennis.

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[MSH411]

​

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[MSH411]

 

[West Coast Birder]

View attachment 137106

Are those its antennae? Wow.....

 

[MSH411]

The image could have been sharper overall but I thought it would be fun to post the picture of this freakish little bug.

 

[Mr Roboto]

 

[shinksma]

The effect is similar, but not really the same. Magnification is measured at the film/imaging sensor, regardless of the format used. Thus magnification strips out the "crop factor". Whether I use a FF, APS-C, or medium format (if the image circle was big enough - which it isn't), they would all have the same 1.4x magnification at the film/imaging sensor.

Magnification is not the same as angle of view.

I understand what you're saying, from a pure "how much magnification compared to the real object" at the image plane. But I think the other poster was referring to the final result produced as a digital image. For the sake of undoubtedly overexplaining it to most folks here:

Using this lens at Minimum Focal Distance for the full 1.4x magnification on an insect that is say, 15mm long will result in an image on a FF sensor that fills about 0.58 of the image (linearly), because the 15mm gets "magnified" to 21mm, which is 0.58 of 36mm (using the sensor size stated on Wikipedia for the R5 or R6).

On an APS-C sensor, that magnified image size of 21mm will practically fill the frame, which is nominally just over 22mm wide (22.3mm for the R7, per Wikipedia). Assume the APS-C sensor has the same number of pixels as the FF, and they are of the same "quality" (that's a whole other discussion). So a print of each image at the same DPI on the same paper will result in the insect appearing larger on the print from the APS-C camera.

At least, that's how I was thinking about it: the APS-C sensor literally crops the FF image (to use the pejorative term), resulting in an apparently bigger "bug" as a print.

 

[Mr Roboto]

...
At least, that's how I was thinking about it: the APS-C sensor literally crops the FF image (to use the pejorative term), resulting in an apparently bigger "bug" as a print.

There is no standard sensor size. The only constant is the magnification.

I used medium format equipment to shoot both 6x4.5cm and 24x36mm and viewed countless film on the light table. It was easy to know how a 1x image would look on film and how it would be composed within the frame of the film being used because magnification didn't suddenly change. A 1x image of an ant would look like an ant crawling on my light table over my film - regardless of what format I was using.


We no longer handle the imaging sensor directly so people lose sight of how the image is being captured - that is where the confusion originates. People ask "Is 0.5x enough? Do I need 1x? Is 1.4x too much?" and I can sympathize if people haven't really looked inside their camera to know what their imaging sensor looks like.

What you do with the image afterwards (print it, share it, project it, etc.) will alter the subject size tremendously. That doesn't change the magnification that the lens provided.