Canon 100 macro vs. 70-200 L IS

[justin_harris1]

<p ALIGN="left">I just bought a canon 100mm 2.8 macro and was curious to test the claims of

superior

sharpness so I set up a quick test and pit it against my 70-200 L IS. Both lenses were shot from F 2.8

to F

16 and the 70-200 was zoomed to about 135mm. I found that the 100 macro (wide open) beat the

70-200 at every apeture, from corner to corner. The center of the 70-200 came close @ f8 but it didn't

quite match the 100 macro @ 2.8. I know prime macros are sharp but is this normal? I have been

happy

with my copy of the 70-200 but this test left me wondering about the possibility of a bad copy. Should

my 70-200 @ f8 be matching or surpassing the sharpness of the 100 macro @ f2.8? Am I being too

meticulous in my analysis? All images were shot w/ a 5d on a tripod with a remote shutter release.</

p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">100 macro @ F2.8 full frame:<a href="http://photobucket.com"

target="_blank"><img

src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/1002.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing

and

Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">70-200 @ F8 full frame:<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img

src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/70-2008.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo

Sharing

and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">100 macro @ 2.8 center detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com"

target="_blank"><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/1002-1.jpg"

border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">70-200 @ F8 center detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img

src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/70-2008-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo

Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">100 macro @ 2.8 super-center detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com"

target="_blank"><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/1002-2.jpg"

border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">70-200 @ F8 super-center detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com"

target="_blank"><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/70-2008-2.jpg"

border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">100 marco @ F2.8 corner detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com"

target="_blank"><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/1002-3.jpg"

border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

 

<p ALIGN="left">70-200 @ F8 corner detail:<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img

src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Jharris8011/70-2008-3.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo

Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></p>

 

<p ALIGN="left">Let me know what you all think. Thanks.</p>

[terry_spade]

I?m going to buy the Conan EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens in about 3 weeks. I haven?t seen a bad review on it yet. Your little test confirms what a sharp lens this is. So thanks in that regard.

 

On your zoom, considering that it is a zoom, it looks pretty good to me. My 2 cents.

[colinsouthern]

I'd be interested to know if these were shot RAW, or in JPEG.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[justin_harris1]

Both images were shot raw then converted to an uncompressed tif. All details were pulled

from the Uncompressed tifs and only then were they saved as jpegs for the web. Aside from

the processing from raw to tiff to jpeg...these images are straight from the camera (no

sharpening, etc.).

[dogbert]

Well I don't own the 70-200/2.8 IS, but all I can say is my 100/2.8 macro is probably the sharpest lens I own.

[jwhite3.0]

Your shots demonstrate that the zoom is indeed a fantastic lens. I have yet to hear someone say that the zoom would equal the macro prime in sharpness wide-open or stopped-down. Why did think this would be the case or maybe I am mis-informed? A zoom stopped-down doesn't necessary mean it will beat a prime. In any case you proved that you have a good copy of the 70-200mm. That's definitely worth something.

[justin_harris1]

Thanks for all the responses!

 

I guess I figured that the 70-200 2.8L IS stopped down would at least match the sharpness of

the macro prime being that it is a lens with the "L" designation and has garnered so much

praise.

 

At first I was thinking that I over-estimated the sharpness of the 70-200 2.8L IS, but I am

beginning to think that I underestimated the sharpness of the 100 2.8 macro.

[keith_lubow]

Don't be surprised. You are comparing two different beasts. One is a purpose-built, fixed focal length lens. The other is a general purpose zoom lens. Even though it is an "L" lens, it is still a zoom. No matter how good they get (and they are damned good), they are still a much more compromised design than a fixed lens, especially one so specialized as a macro lens.

 

Imagine what the 180 L looks like!

 

Keith

[jwhite3.0]

Justin, the 100mm macro prime is one of Canon's sharpest lenses! The "L" label doesn't necessarily reflect sharpness. The L stands for things such as quality build, decent AF motor, usually high image quality, etc. For example, the 28-300mm "L" is not an amazingly sharp lens but for a 10X zoom it is damn good. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is sharper than a lot of Canon L lenses but it's build is kind of cheap and doesn't focus that fast.

 

Also, try your tests handheld @ 100mm focal length! Maybe the IS of the zoom in a handheld situation gets you an image as sharp as the non-IS prime macro. Sharpness is relative. You have two of Canon's finest lenses.

[ci_p]

It looks like the test shots were quite close which plays to the macros strength.

[mars c]

The macro was shot wide open while the zoom was at f8, But despite that, The macro still have more res. and contrast (i'm not surprised).

[colinsouthern]

It looks like it wouldn't take too much sharpening to bring the EF 70-200 F2.8L up to roughly the same level as the other lens.

 

For what it's worth, I've been testing the microadjustment feature of the 1D3 with the EF 70-200 F2.8L IS USM lens and ended up with pretty much the same results as these.

[ben_goren]

Actually, the ``L'' doesn't have anything to do with build quality, image quality, AF motor,

or the like -- though there certainly is a correlation.

 

All that the red stripe indicates that the lens has at least one ``special'' lens element: LD

glass, aspherical geometry, etc.

 

Compare the three TS-E lenses for an excellent example.

 

Cheers,

 

b&

[david_lau3]

You are also testing at the disadvantage of the zoom. You are testing shots in close focusing range which favours a macro lens. A normal lens is designed to perform better at normal range, not close focus.

 

I own the 70-200/f4 IS (the sharpest of all 4 70-200 zoom lenses) and the Canon 180/f3.5 L macro. At shooting targets like yours the macro beats the zoom hands down. However, at distant buildings the zoom wins.

[jwhite3.0]

True Ben, I meant a correlation rather than definitive but in any case it is a high correlation in comparison to non-L lenses. Is it true that the L is ONLY indicative of at least "one" special element? I didn't know that little piece of Canon fact.

 

However, the EF-S 17-85mm and EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM have one special element and are not designated "L".

 

I guess we don't know what "L" is yet

[lester_wareham]

Yes the 100mm macro is a sharp lens, but then most primes of 50mm and above will be very sharp. Although the 70-200 zooms are L lenses with a good reputation for sharpness most non-L primes will be sharper.

[dcheung]

Agreed with David Lau. If you ever find the time, take some test shots outside where the subject is far away from the camera. My copy of the 70-200 2.8 IS is sharper than my copy of the 85 1.8 at all apertures (only very slightly sharper but still sharper, and it's more noticable in the corners of a 1.6x sensor)

[dakotah_jackson]

Now try the comparison at 80 or at 200mm and see how the macro fares.

 

This test is meaningless guy. A waste of time and effort. Compare it to another macro lens and get some knowledge we can use.

 

Or, compare it at half life size where the macro is designed to perform well.

 

These two lenses were designed to do different jobs.

[justin_harris1]

Thanks alot to everyone who posted helpful answers to my question. I now see that I may

have been holding my zoom up to a ridiculously high standard.

 

 

Re: Dakotah Jackson, "this test is meaningless guy. A waste of time and effort."

 

Well Guy...lucky it was my own time I "wasted." Sorry to offend your sensibilities. I would

take your answer seriously if it actually referred what I was questioning--the sharpness of

the 70-200 L zoom. I hope you have better luck finding a who slew of "knowledge we can

use."

 

Best,

Justin (guy)

[marknagel]

This test confirms the 70-200 is a great lens. There was no doubt about the 100mm Macro.

 

m

[photographicsafaris]

Jstin,

 

Hard to judge from your shots, but having played around with the 100 macro, I have found

that you can see the fiberous grainn in a sheet of paper:

 

Are you sure the focusing is spot on? regardless, the Macro is in its element, and the 70

-200 is outside of the realms of normal usage. So in this unfair comparison, yes the 70

-200 is not as good.

 

But then its at 135mm, in the interests of comparisson, why did you not use it at 100mm?

 

also was the IS on or off?

[brett_cole]

L stands for "luxury," and means a lens has professional characteristics in both build and optics

[justin_harris1]

Graham,

I had the 70-200 @ 135 because I wanted to fill the frame with the chart and at the lenses

minimum focusing distance (4 feet) the focal length I needed to do that was 135mm.

Also, I wanted to test the lens with its optimal settings (135mm @ f8). The IS was of, as I

had the camera mounted on a tripod.

 

I'm pretty positive the focus was spot on, but I understand what you are getting at

reguarding seeing the grain in the paper. I'm pretty sure that, in order to see that kind of

detail you have to be focused down to at least 1:2 or 1:1. I was 4 feet back (my details are

cropped and blown up sections of the first two images).

 

On another note, I have also realized that the slight overexposure of the 70-200 shot

probably makes it image look less sharp than it actually is.