[wim]

My Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not IF, it extends a lot. It has an MFD of 29cm. It extends 51.5mm. That makes it have less working distance than all those IF lenses..

I actually forgot to mention that a lens may actually protrude well beyond its optical FL, because that often tends to be around the midpoint of a multi-element lens which is not retrofocus {WA) or telefocus (telelens} by design.

Even so, an MFD of 29 cm at 1:1 indicates an effective FL of 72.5 mm at that magnification. This means it still does something internally, othrwise it would extend by 90 mm to get from infinity focus to 1:1. So it may well be of a telefocus type of design.

Kind regards, Wim

---

I saw a review of the Canon 100mm RF macro demonstrating the de-focus control ............. the minus end softened the entire image including the subject ........ the plus end brought out strong "bubble bokeh" in the background ......

  "Goldielocks's choice" was where the focus control was at zero and the lens was neither "too hot, nor too cold and not too sweet or sour ................

....... the natural bokeh is good on the lens !!

I believe you, but it is in the eye of the beholder. I'll check it out, though.

I never liked the bokeh of the EF 100 mm macro lens designs at close focus distances. Just too restless fo rmy taste.

It could well be that this one is a lot better, but I would not buy it for macro, because it is not a 100 mm lens at 1:1 or anywhere else in close focus areas.

I do like the 100 and 105 mm FLs for portraits, generally speaking, as to me they look more natural than they do with 85 or 135 mm lenses.

In addition, I do have plenty of macro lenses and other lenses I can use for macro too .

I used to have an SMC Takumar 105 F/2.8 back in 1974, and I loved it, for portraits, landscapes and candid photography. When I went K-bayonet I got the 100 F/4 Macro instead, however, and that just was not the same - used it really mostly for macro .

Kind regards, Wim