[toni-a]

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-a...f-85mm-f18

they are patented and logically those are classic lenses so no doubt they are coming...

85mm f1.8 with a 1:2 magnification ratio and stabilization that's absolutely awesome, I would be ready to sell my 100mm macro and EF 85f1.8 to get it

[ioled]

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-a...f-85mm-f18

they are patented and logically those are classic lenses so no doubt they are coming...

85mm f1.8 with a 1:2 magnification ratio and stabilization that's absolutely awesome, I would be ready to sell my 100mm macro and EF 85f1.8 to get it

A 85mm with 1:2 magnification ratio technically ain't a macro lens. Extreme close up... yes. 


But it is nice to see them improve their primes with macro capability.

[toni-a]

Don't need a macro lens, that's an awesome portrait lens that can do close up macro very useful for babies, 1:1 is good but not a must, Canon 50mmf2.5 macro has only 1:2 if Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the magnification would be even better

[Brightcolours]

If Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the FOV will be much more narrow and you are not talking about a "85mm lens" in FF context anymore.
If Canon decides to launch a 1.6x TC, the same.
If Canon launches an extension tube set, you can reach the 1:1 magnification in 85mm in FF context.

Almost all macro lenses from the 1960s/70's/80's were 1:2 macro lenses, usually with an 1:1 extension tube or mixed TC + extension tube thing, like the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro and its dedicated "life size converter".

Macro photography has been "defined" as photography within the 10:1 to 1:1 range. Since the magnification is defined on the projected image plane, it is a pretty useless definition. It says nothing about the size of the subject in the resulting photographs (this is sensor/film size dependent).

[ioled]

If Canon decides to launch an APS-C EOS R, the FOV will be much more narrow and you are not talking about a "85mm lens" in FF context anymore.
If Canon decides to launch a 1.6x TC, the same.
If Canon launches an extension tube set, you can reach the 1:1 magnification in 85mm in FF context.

Almost all macro lenses from the 1960s/70's/80's were 1:2 macro lenses, usually with an 1:1 extension tube or mixed TC + extension tube thing, like the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro and its dedicated "life size converter".

Macro photography has been "defined" as photography within the 10:1 to 1:1 range. Since the magnification is defined on the projected image plane, it is a pretty useless definition. It says nothing about the size of the subject in the resulting photographs (this is sensor/film size dependent).

Yes all of the above are correct. Still the definition is the definition. What I can think of is that with 1:1 magnification the final reproduction in media will be larger than life size. Because the print media is always larger than the recording media in photography.

[toni-a]

1:1 is a domination from film era that says size of the subject on the slide/film is same as the size of the actual  subject

[Brightcolours]

1:1 is a domination from film era that says size of the subject on the slide/film is same as the size of the actual  subject

Do you have the idea that that is any different from what has been said above?

[ioled]

Off topic

Digital and film photography differ only in the nature of the exposure media.


On topic if it was a Pentax 1:2 "macro" lens you would be joking about it. By the way my first digital camera was a Canon G5.