# EF 24-105mm F/4 L vs EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro



## Stelex (Feb 4, 2011)

I'm considering getting an EF 70-200mm F/4 L IS USM and I'm currently weighing up my options whether to go for it or not. Considering the price the only option would be to sell my 100mm macro to free up the funds ... you know how it all works. 

So I took a little test today, just to see how good 100mm macro lens actually is and whether it would be worth selling it or is it just too good to kiss it goodbye. 

I also have EF 24-105mm F/4 L and decided to compare the two lenses in identical conditions. 

I asked my wife and two daughters if any of them would like to help being a model, but since they were preoccupied with watching some Gossip Girl rubbish  on TV I had to find another girl. She was incredibly co-operative, didn't complain, didn't say a word and didn't even blink. I can't thank her enough! 

I was actually quite amazed when I saw the difference ... 

Both shots were taken from a tripod with Canon 5DmkII. I made 5 shots with AF and 5 shots with MF with each lens. Focus point was her left eye. There was no difference between AF and MF at all in either case, so I included MF shots here. 

The images you see below are 100% crops with no post processsing at all (Camera RAW with AWB / LR / Export to 90% jpeg / open in Preview on Mac / 100% zoom/ 800x600 crop)







EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM (non IS) - Settings: 100mm, f/4, 1/250 sec, ISO 100, manual focus, IS none. 

I took a few shots at f/2.8 and 1/640 sec and the sharpness is either the same or 0.1% better, so not much difference there (when it comes to sharpness only)






EF 24-105 F/4 L - Settings: 99mm, f/4, 1/250 sec, ISO 100, manual focus, IS off. 

As a bonus I took another shot with Lumix fz-18 at approximately 100mm equivalent at f/3.2 - jpeg. For those who wonder what's the value of DSLRs have a look at this, also a 100% crop ... or crap 






Lumix FZ-18 - Settings: 100-ish mm eq, f/3.2, 1/400 sec / ISO 100, auto-focus, IS on (hand-held)

By the way ,if someone could post a similar comparison between EF 70-200 f/4 L IS vs either of two lenses above at 100mm and F4 I would really appreciate it.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 4, 2011)

So what you are saying is that the EF 100 f/2.8 macro produced a better image than the EF 24-105 f/4 L.

Not knowing these two lenses ... I would have bet on the EF 100mm macro.
I generally tend towards any fixed focal length lens.


----------



## usayit (Feb 4, 2011)

prime > zoom 

in all aspects except ... well... the ability to zoom...   

I too prefer primes.


----------



## soylentgreen (Feb 7, 2011)

You really can't fairly compare a macro lens with a zoom; even if it's an L series lens. Macro lenses are a) prime (i.e. less glass to distort IQ) and b) uses a different focusing mechanism for accuracy. Try using the macro lens for telephoto work and it will be not compare favorably to the 24-105. Two completely different applications. 

The macro lens is great to have if you utilize it enough to warrant keeping it.

Here's an image that shocked the crap out of me when I took it a while back after having my 24-105 serviced. Shot wide open at f/4 at fairly close range with a 5D Mark II. 

Curious | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------

