Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2015 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

I would expect the prime to edge out the zoom, but if I'm reading that photozone.de site correctly they're roughly similar in the center and the 70-200 wins off center and on the borders. Does that sound right to anyone who's actually used the two? (I'm having that fun mental debate about whether or not the 70-200 is actually better than having a few primes , and if it's got better IQ then that's really going to be a feather in it's cap.... In the hypothetical lens fantasy games in my head)

Feb 14, 2015 at 09:58 PM

LCPete
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

Don't know the answer to your question I own the 100L and 70-200F4 but I bet that you would be pushed to tell the difference between real world shots taken with each lens as they are both top notch lenses

Feb 15, 2015 at 12:31 AM

sb in ak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

I would expect them to give very good IQ in the real world at 100mm. I think the question boils down to one of usability. The 70-200 is a little big and heavy and is somewhat conspicuous (and no macro) but it's a rock star of a lens. Hell, they are both rock stars in their own ways.

Feb 15, 2015 at 12:59 AM

jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

Yeah, I figure it boils down to the fact that even though the 70-200 is huge and heavy and expensive, it does a pretty good job of doing what all he primes in that range do. So I figure well it does those primes' jobs is a factor in whether you'd miss them if you went with the white one.

Feb 15, 2015 at 01:46 AM

ox0312
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

TDP comparison at 2.8. Prime seems better at the edges but zoom has less CA.
link...

Feb 15, 2015 at 03:10 AM

johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

ox0312 wrote:
TDP comparison at 2.8. Prime seems better at the edges but zoom has less CA.
link...

CA is that prime's 'prime' weakness, unfortunately; not that you'd use it wide-open for macro work.

Feb 15, 2015 at 06:00 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

I can get magnifications of 0.2 to 0.7 (i.e. 1:5 to 1:1.4) with a 500D on my 70-200/2.8L IS II, and so I don't need a 100/2.8L.

Feb 15, 2015 at 09:06 AM

RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

I'll add, too, that most macro lenses are sharper at close focusing distances and lose a little bit if you are testing at a longer distance. The results may well depend on what distance you are shooting at.

Feb 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM

Bruce n Philly
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

I own both. Honestly I was disappointment in the 100mm as it has chromatic aberrations and I just don't think it is as sharp as the 70-200 across the whole field. The 100mm is stupidly sharp in the center but so is the 70-200. Another disappointment is the 100mm has very noticeable vignetting wide open; something I am just not aware of with the 70-200.

For up-close work, I put extension tubes on my 70-200 and have been very happy with the results. Given that I do this quite a bit, I figured I would kick it up a notch and just buy a prime built for this closer-up work. I was very disappointed with the 100mm lens given the $1,000 price and my excellent experience with the ext-tubed 70-200.

Yes the 100 is way smaller and lighter.... so what. I am pretty close to selling this lens as it just was a disappointment.

5D MkII

See some of my macro 70-200 with tubes here:
http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mantis-eats-bee/

See some portraiture I took with the 100mm here... looks great but I could have used the 70-200 and got the same results:
http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/fred-jamie/

Peace
Bruce in Philly
http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mantis-eats-bee/

Edited on Feb 15, 2015 at 10:49 AM · View previous versions

Feb 15, 2015 at 10:36 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

+1 @ Roger ... at what MFD distance?

Depending on what subject distance we are shooting at varies the performance. My C/Y 80-200 is sharper than my M645 150/2.8 A @ near mfd and distance subjects. Meanwhile portrait distances, the M645 trumps the 80-200. Likewise, the 80-200 trumps the 80/4 Macro @ infinity, but the Macro trumps the 80-200 @ near mfd.

Lenses get optimized to different expected utilization. If you're a macro shooter @ mfd, I wouldn't place too much stock in a "general use" testing. That's not to say there isn't more than one way to skin the cat ... just don't be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Feb 15, 2015 at 10:47 AM

James Cripps
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ Roger ... at what MFD distance?

Depending on what subject distance we are shooting at varies the performance. My C/Y 80-200 is sharper than my M645 150/2.8 A @ near mfd and distance subjects. Meanwhile portrait distances, the M645 trumps the 80-200. Likewise, the 80-200 trumps the 80/4 Macro @ infinity, but the Macro trumps the 80-200 @ near mfd.

Lenses get optimized to different expected utilization. If you're a macro shooter @ mfd, I wouldn't place too much stock in a "general use" testing. That's not to say there isn't more than one way to skin the...Show more →

+1 for the two awesome expressions that you used

Feb 15, 2015 at 11:17 AM

kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Is the 70-200 f2.8 IS II sharper at 100mm than the 100 2.8L IS Macro?

We could sit and argue about which is sharper but to my eye, they look about the same wide open - with the 100/2.8 IS having more vignetting. Stopped down to f/4, the 100 L is sharper in the middle, while the 70-200 II has sharper edges. By f/5.6 they are identically amazing.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The thing is, if you don't shoot much macro, the 70-200 II is a significantly more versatile lens.

Feb 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.