I used the EF version for years-absolutely loved it. But when I bought my R5, I just had to get the RF version, as I wanted the 100% match between my R5 and the lens. In addition, the RF has the latest technology (image stabilization-8 stops with the R5). It was a no-brainer for me.

Refreshing to see honesty that is not afraid of upsetting the Canon Mothership! Respect!🙏🏾

It is nice to hear an “honest” review of a product. I did buy this new lens, but I did not have the older version.

I’d like to add three missing things. 1 The RF has a way better AF. (Dual Nano USM. Quieter, faster, smooth as videographers like it) 2 The RF-System can show the focus distance, and in this case the magnification, in the finder & display. 3 Sperical Aberration is ”used” in the oldest, most traditional soft focus lenses. This kind of soft focus can not be achieved using filters or in post processing. The bokeh also changes, but as a side effect only. It’s a bit sad that very few people know about this. In my opinion it would have been better to title this ring ”Soft Focus” instead of ”SA”. The SA control in this RF lens does not need any additional optics or other expensive affords other than the control ring itself. It's achieved by misaligning of the two independently nano USM driven lens groups.

I have been debating this exact question. I was coming to a similar conclusion and your review was very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks Katelyn! I just purchased the RF version because I never owned the EF version. I am in love with the lens as I also do toy photography and it has been a game changer for that. I will never use the SA control but this is a great lens for weddings (and portraits).

Great video, I totally agree it's not worth the upgrade as a wedding photographer. But for my aquarium macro shots, which isn't the focus of this video, it's quite a nice upgrade, definitely not worth 2x the price, but not having to use extension tubes for super close ups and I found the focus to be quote a bit faster and more accurate. Can't wait for the next video but my next lens for vlogging will be the rf 16mm. That's an exciting lens should be at my local store in 2 weeks!!

Great video!!! I searched youtube for Canon 100 macro EF vs RF, and only found a few videos that actually talked about both! A lot of those sort of brushed over the differences - I think one spec you missed is that the RF lens actually gives 1.4x magnification, while the EF gives 1:1 ... hoping for some decent black friday sales but ... feels ambitious

I love your candid take on this! I’m new to macro, so I went ahead and bought the RF version. I’ll be following you going forward. And I agree: the 28-70 is AMAZING! I love that lens.

The new lens has also some serious focus shift issues, causing the plain of focus to shift when using smaller apertures (f5.6 and smaller). This will cause the images to look softer where you want the focus to be as the plain of focus shifts slightly.

I came here for the lenses but I stayed for the humor, the facts upfront, and the edits! Such a great video 🤣

Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to hear :) I was thinking should I upgrade or not

I value your integrity KJ. You made a practical business decision about how to spend your money. You get it better than most. The budget only has capacity for purchases in the kit that will create images and drive results that help a photographer’s business. I love Canon gear and I’m thrilled they’re serious about mirrorless glass and mirrorless cameras. I also love that they’ve made it possible to keep shooting with EF glass. For now, I’m with you on the RF 100. All the best and thanks for sharing your analysis.

Hi Katelyn. Good video. I agree with you telling it as it is. I shall be testing the EF version real soon. Thank you.

0:12 you funnnnny! I just upgraded my EF 85 1.2 and got the new RF 85 1.2 and love it (and think it's totally worth the upgrade!), and so naturally started thinking about upgrading my 100 macro. It's like you read my mind and shared this video LOL. thanks!

I’m holding on to my EF 100 2.8L too since it gets the job done and my clients can’t see and don’t care about the difference (I don’t care either, especially if I have to pay $800 assuming I sell the EF to buy the RF). For weddings and events, my RF 28-70 2.0L has displaced my EF 24-70, 24/35/50/85 L primes, and is only complemented by the RF 15-35, RF 70-200 and EF 100 macro. That’s all I need, probably for at least for another decade.

What an honest review! Thank you, I respect that!!

I own an EF 100mm macro lens that I bought used for $600, some years ago. My EF 100mm macro lens is my go to lens (paired with my Canon 5D Mark ii) for flower and foliage photos. Super awesome you can change the bokeh look on the RF mount lens. Thank you for this valued comparison of the RF mount verses the EF mount version of this 100mm macro lens. Now I solidly know that I am happy with my 100mm EF lens if I upgrade to mirror-less camera.

omg you guys are cracking me up! Thank you so much for leaving that in there!

😂 you guys are great !👍🏼 thanks for your review. I just bought it with the R6 and it’s my first camera ever. I love macro photography so I really hope I have some fun with it😅 God bless 🙂

Hi! Love your videos. I do weddings, events, portraits. I have the R6 with the Rf 28-70 f2 always, and I have a eos rp as a B cam or back up. I've been trying to decide between this 100mm f2.8 or the Rf 70-200 f4. Which one would you recomend for my long distance shots? Thank you in advance 💪🏽📸🔥

Always love your down to earth heart to put it out there with out all the techie stuff though sometime it can be useful and your techie guy handles it fine. I would agree with your review if you have the budget or the EF lens as on a budget I might just lean more to the RF 85 F2 or the RF 35 to do macro as does the bride really look at the macros shots that close as I would say she's more interested in the other wedding shots. But just love your down to earth videos and the joy you bring with them. Even the little behind the techie shots like in this one that makes me laugh of your down to earth stuff. Be safe and techie guy too and thanks for the great info too.

Nice review. Seems like your main point is that if you own the EF L 100mm, switching to native RF does create a material difference to your workflow. I looked at the RF version and am sticking with the EF. I personally found the SA adjustment to be too easy to accidentally move which could unintentionally negatively impact photos. For me, the EF 100mm L is so good that the financial cost to a change didn't work for me either. PS - I shoot with an R5 as I enjoy wildlife photography and often need to deeply crop.

Thank you for sharing your experiences :)

The EF100 L macro is one of my favorite lenses, and I own most of the EF and RF lenses below 200mm. I don’t own the RF100 L, but I am not surprised it has a hard time casting shadow on its EF brother.

Thanks for the video! What are your thoughts on using the 85mm f/2 for those close up macro shots vs the 100?

On my R5, the RF version is crazy, crazy, CRAZY sharp. Like insanely sharp. I can zoom in to 200-300% and it not even look zoomed in further than 1:1. It'll be insane to see it work on the upcoming 90 megapixel R5s camera body that's not out yet. I've never used the EF model, but I 1,000X know without a doubt it can't even begin to compete with that. But on an R6? I doubt there's much (if any) difference. I would definitely think the upgrade would be MORE THAN worth it if shooting at 45+MP. But I can 100% agree with you that for people like you and tons of your followers who prefer smaller file sizes with cameras like the R6, the EF is probably more than enough and at no loss compared to the new one!!

@5:50 the problem you might have ran into was having your focus distance set to FULL, instead of having it at 0.5! Love the Video ❤️

I'm a food photographer and this video helped me make the decision to keep my EF 100mm L after watching other reviews, especially since most also have no clue why there is a SA ring. Thanks!

Thanks for a frank honest review. My takeaway, if you have ef 100 2.8 macro, you need not upgrade otherwise, it is a as fine lens.

Hey Katelyn, thanks for the candid review :)

Love this! Thanks for being honest!

how about the servo AF motor noise when shooting videos? which is smoother and quieter?

Hey Katelyn and thanks again for another interesting study :) I just wondered whether you'd since had any experience or thoughts about the RF 85mm f2 'macro' as a companion macro/portrait wedding tool combining the need for a 'ring' lens as well as something just a little longer than your beloved 28-70mm f2... I realise that it won't have quite as much smooth blur as the f1.2 whopper, or be quite as close-up as the 100mm L macros, but a decent compromise? Many thanks in advance for your thoughts 🙏🙏🙏

I have been wondering this for months. I have a non L series 100mm 2.8 that is old (got it used myself), so I’m going to assume the the RF will be better than what I have?

Don't ever change, every review can't be Fantastic.

I've been thinking about getting the ef 100mm for my canon rebel t7 body for skincare and portrait photography. I've heard great things about it - but would you recommend the ef 100mm over the 28-70mm? I've been wanting to look into the 28-70mm lens too, but in your opinion, what do you recommend for crisp, professional photography? I've also not seen a 28-70mm for EF mount.

If I’ve missed it I apologize but have you tried the 35mm RF macro? I’d love to see you opinion vs the EF 100 macro since it’s so affordable!

Could you do a video on what a 100mm macro lens is used for? What situations lend themselves to using the 100mm macro lens for portrait photography?

very honest review!!! I thing lenses (and everything else) are tools, I still have a 90 mm f2.8 macro tamron lense that bought in the 1990´s and I see no reason to replace it. I think we should have what we need and not spend the money just for fun. Thanks!

The RF 85 f/2 macro feature is more than enough for me to do details/ring shot on a wedding day 😁

Do you think an RF 35 1.8 that has macro could just fill that need for detail shots?

Bought the EF right before the rumor sites started to mention the RF version. Felt a little silly at the time, but honestly the old one is really good. Just bought the 135 f2, but I suspect it’s replacement at the rumor f1.4 will be three times the price.

I think people who need the extra 40% magnification will appreciate it - the only other reason I've considered is that I don't like shooting mixed EF-RF, having to go between w/adapter and without adds just just that much more when I have to remember the differences in feel when changing lenses, when I change EF-EF or EF-RF/RF-EF.

The interruption at the 1.20 second mark made me lol 😂

finally a video comparison about both of this lens!!! thank you @katelyn James for making this video!

My biggest question is where you found one! I've been trying to purchase the rf 100 macro for months and it's out of stock everywhere.

The SA ring on the the rf lens messed me up at a wedding a few weeks ago! I had no idea what it was, or that I had accidentally adjusted it, and I thought my lens was broken. I had to borrow the ef lens version from my other photographer. It made my photos sooooo fuzzy, like there was oil on my lens. Anyway, if anyone figures out what the SA ring is good for, I’m interested in learning! But for now, I’d be happy without it.

"Not Impressed"??? Okay.... Well, I've been photographing weddings, portraits, wildlife and macro since the '70's, yes I'm that old! I loved my 180mm macro and then when the EF 100 came out I got that and found myself using my 180 for macro more often than the 100mm. Fast forward to the R6 and the EF and RF comparison and the RF wins hands down. The EF is good but the RF is better. If you can't afford it, that's one thing but if you can... go for it!

I use canon ef 100mm f2.8 is usm L on canon eos r6 mkii😊

I like how you buy your own gear to review. Great work!!!

Thank you! For anyone looking at this lens, you can get it on Amazon in installments and pay over time but get it now. I don't have a need for this lens, but I'm hoping the RF 135 1.4 becomes a reality in the near future. That would be an insane lens, no doubt...

I need the technical details as I use it for product photography. It's not about feelings. Closer distance is essential because I can get more of the product in the frame with means more resolution and more detail. Great review though and tanks for including the option.

Does the EF 100 mm make a noise on your R6?

I can’t lie. I loved the sticker of your initials on the EF version! Where did you have that made!

Ty coming in is hilarious.

Thanks You again! Katelyn

So cool to see tech stuff pupping up as fancy content 🤣 …especially as I am a German engineer 🙈 …just great 😊 👍

Thanks so much for the honest review! One question: Have you noticed a difference in focusing speed between the RF and EF versions? (Less important for macro shots as for street photography)

i need this lens 😁

Are you going to keep the RF macro? If yes, which do you think you'll continue using?

Well done

I'm here to watch your heartwarming smile.

You've convinced me, a second had EF 2.8L in Australia is around $800 the RF is $2000 - enough said really.

Have you used the RF 85mm f2 Macro lens? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Yep. For a use case focused more on portraiture/wedding/etc this lens might not make sense. The added size, isn't really welcome if you are coming from the EF mount version for folks rarely doing macro shooting deep dives. But still...it's an awesome bit of kit, on the cutting edge optically, and....now that it pops in mind...it's also an "available light" shooter's dream. A combined 8 stops of stabilization when used with an IBIS image stabilizing sensor bodies means more dramatic low light shooting. I dunno. The question mainly revolves around budget considerations for working pros and passionately slaving amateurs. I can say that if you exercise reasonable caution with a lens of this quality...it will last many decades of use. And the used market for Canon glass is always pretty strong. You could use the thing for a year and sell it for a few hundred less than you paid for it. To be clear I've never owned or shot with this lens. But the numbers are in regarding the optical tech and the evolutions of tried and trusted Canon tech like USM, optical stabilizers, the perennial, "how sharp is it?) question. Well, the numbers and the images out of this lens are better than the previous generations. On paper. The quality differences are only discernible by people who live spending hours pixel peeking in Lightroom and the like. But wait! There's one more thing. A 1.4x magnification factor? Not 1:1...like in the most serious macro lenses of the past? Yes. It is true. The light bouncing off a single ladybug 🐞 is 40% larger when it hits the imaging sensor. And with a big and pixel dense 35mm sensor, that could be an eye poppingly detailed 2'x3' print. I've shot close to 25,000 frames through macro lenses and if the tiny and fascinating excite you, well....buy this lens. If you own the EF mount? All I can say is that I'll never part with mine!

Now you can get .the rf100mm macro for 999 on Amazon. Knowing that price would you upgrade. Thanks tom

You should compare it to the RF 85 1.8 and 35 1.8 macro because a lot of us are using those in place of a true macro.

You should try the new lens for portraits and trust bokeh ring.

The best way to upgrade an EF lens is to put it on an RF body! I think there are reasons to upgrade to the RF 100mm macro, it is just that it won't apply to quite a lot of people, and come on £240 [so similar USD) for the collar!

Are you gonna return it then?

You gained a new sub just by being an HONEST reviewer - a very rare species here on YT. Congrats!

Totally get the “I don’t care” part. It either works for me or doesn’t 🤷🏻‍♀️

Gotta have the tech specs!

0:10 that's it, I'm out 🌚 - For real, the RF System for Canon is genuinely making me think about what I want to do next. The images they produce are insanely good

Agree 100%.

I own both lenses. I have not found that the RF is sharper or better in any way than the EF. The only thing that is better is the spherical aberration control ring. If you make images with bokeh you can create some amazing bokeh light spheres. Otherwise I find the two lenses to be equal so far as image quality.

I’m on budget and thinking to get the rf 85mm f2 stm instead buying ef 100mm macro as the 85mm also can be a macro lens. Is it a good idea to get that 85mm for the ring shot? I just can’t spend another $1000 aud for a 100mm for just a ring shot :(

Not sure who these type of videos are for. I would say, buy this friggin lens! I've had it for 8 months now, and it was the best investment of all my gear. Yeah, they wasted money on the SA control ring, and it could have a focus shift issue, but all of these are moot points to most macro photographers, product photographers, and maybe even portrait photographers. You shouldn't be relying of AF for great shots anyways. It's got excellent optics.

I haven’t seen anything special about any of the new mirrorless cameras or the lens, sure they may be a bit better but not nearly enough for gear change.

Note: I ordered and paid for this this lens (Canon RF 100mm Macro Lens) almost a year ago now and understand that I had to wait 6-months to get this lens but I still don't have the "Tripod Mount Ring and Adapter" yet and Canon has refused to comment to B&H for an update. I believe that to be unacceptable customer service and therefore can't recommend "Canon equipment" to anyone.

Regular viewers will understand that your use case for this macro lens is wedding portraiture and not macro at all. I think it would have been a stronger video if you had actually stated this. (Maybe I missed it.) In this context, everything you say makes sense. It also would have been nice to have one of the two of you understand and experiment with the SA control, as it can have a significant effect on the look of the bokeh for portraits as well as macro subjects. Yes, an attempt was made to explain it but it's not clear that either of you actually tried this feature. It certainly differentiates the RF model from the EF model. This may not have changed your conclusion but it would have been a more informed conclusion. None of this is to suggest I disagree with where you ended up but it does leave the analysis feeling a little incomplete.

2:22... I think he means "focus distance" not "focal distance".

Because of you, I bought the RF 28-70mm (amaaaaazing lens). Because of you, I will not buy the RF 100mm macro 😉 I will keep my EF version.

I agree with your assessment of the lens, and I think the spherical control doesn’t really add any value for my use. However, if you have the EF version, you can sell it for in good condition for about $800, so really the question is whether the new lens is worth $600. The increase in magnification (plus the added benefit of having all my lenses RF so I don’t have to use the adapter) makes it worth it for me.

You can get the RF100mm Macro for $1K right now

For that matter having owned both the EF 100L is no sharper than the EF 100 but does have IS

Hi Katelyn. You read my mind about the new lens. I currently shoot 90% of all my content on the EF 100mm lens and it's fantastic. Great for portraits, covers, products, etc. Unfortunately, the new RF 100mm lens has a Spherical Aberration Control Ring and that was the deal breaker for me. After watching examples of this lens and control ring feature, I noticed that the Spherical Aberration makes adjustments to the whole image and not just the bokeh background. I don't like what the control ring has to offer, and it's too big of a risk in my mind, to use this lens on a paid photoshoot. I think it would be too easy to adjust the control ring by accident and risk ruining the whole photoshoot.

I bought the RF version for my wedding details and I can say right now that I will never use the SA control, I’m not blown away on the focus with it and I’m also not crazy about the amount of focus breathing that goes on with this lens before it latches on to where you told it to focus. All in all, it’s not one of my favorite lenses and I paid too much to be saying that. 😏

looks like that 1400 is going into the r7 lol

I made the “upgrade” just because the ef 100mm was such a staple in my work flow for years (commercial/product). I agree and this lens is pretty underwhelming. I’ve moved to all RF lenses other then the 35mm L ..because that still doesn’t exist and both this and the 70-200mm are just “meh” when it comes to image quality compared to the EFs they replaced.

So you don't shoot macro and your reviewing a macro lens with special macro features. Not one that you've owned a long time and have a lot of experience with, one you just bought for this video. I don't think I'll pay any attention to your recommendations for shooting macro with this lens.

Just buy RF 85 f2 Macro IS STM would better then 100 f2.8 Macro

I watch videos at 1.75x speed... so... talk fast, please! Haha

Or you can buy used EF for $400 and save $900

Its better than the EF. If you have the EF, the upgrade wont be THAT MUCH WORTH IT. If youndont have ANY just do the RF. its totally wprth it frpm having nothing. To say that this lens sucks is a blantant lie. Would you rather have $1000 or $10,000. $1k is nice...but im give me the $10k. Its just like that.

I wouldn't buy any macro lens. I use extension tubes which convert all my lenses to macro. A macro lens is bulkier, heavier and less versatile when compared to extension tubes. Do they have RF extension tubes? My 85mm 1.4 is an amazing macro when fitted with extension tubes. If I want more magnification I use my 50mm or even wider. Sometimes I use my 70-200 so I can stand back a bit if it's a bug or something that I don't want to scare off.

Who listens to her ?