# EF 70-200mm f/4L vs EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens



## jamesino (Apr 23, 2008)

Which is the sharper lens at 100mm?


----------



## soylentgreen (Apr 23, 2008)

No zoom is sharper than a prime. Plus the 100 macro is probably the 3rd sharpest lens in Canon's line-up. Just behind the 180 Macro and 60 macro.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 23, 2008)

soylentgreen said:


> No zoom is sharper than a prime.



Except for the Nikkor 14-24 which at 14mm is sharper than pretty much any 14mm lens made by anyone.


----------



## usayit (Apr 23, 2008)

bah.. nikkor people always sticking their heads in...

I guarantee you that a similar focal length and quality prime will outperform that zoom.  

<ok here it comes... ready..  link to the review on a site by one Mr. Rockwell>


----------



## Mav (Apr 23, 2008)

Both of those are professional top notch lenses.  I think it'd be tough to tell.


----------



## 250Gimp (Apr 23, 2008)

While I don't have either....I would assume the macro lense would be sharper.  Not only because it is a prime, but because macro lenses are made to be brutally sharp!!

As an aside, the 70-200 will be a faster focussing lense if used for sports.


----------



## jamesino (Apr 23, 2008)

Just to clarify, I can use the 100mm macro for like portraits and landscape shots too right?


----------



## Mav (Apr 23, 2008)

usayit said:


> <ok here it comes... ready..  link to the review on a site by one Mr. Rockwell>


:mrgreen:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-macro.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm


The best "non reviews" by a guy who hasn't actually used any of the lenses in question I've ever read! :lmao:


----------



## RacePhoto (Apr 24, 2008)

jamesino said:


> Just to clarify, I can use the 100mm macro for like portraits and landscape shots too right?



Yes, that's why I bought the 100 to fill the middle range. If you have a cropped sensor remember the field of view will appear to be that of a 160mm lens. Nice short telephoto.

Warning. It will make you want to sell all your other lenses, because they will look soft after using this super sharp lens.

Macro lenses are a normal lens, that has the ability to focus closer than a standard lens. The 100mm is a true 1:1 macro lens.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=47&sort=7&cat=2&page=1



> Autofocus lens for macro photography up to life-size (1x) magnification. Inner focusing affords a long working distance of 5.9in. (149mm) at 1x. A 3-group floating system results in excellent delineation at all focusing distances. Ring USM for silent and high-speed AF, and full-time manual focusing also provided.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 24, 2008)

Race
Does Shutterstock work?


----------



## usayit (Apr 24, 2008)

If you like portraits, may I also suggest you consider the 85mm f1.8.  Also a wonderful lens in a similar league to the 100mm macro.  Simply suggesting it because for my tastes the 100mm focal length on a cropped body is a bit too long.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 24, 2008)

The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is extremely sharp for me.  Here's another review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

As a portrait lens on a 1.6x FOVCF camera, the 160mm equivalent is a bit long, and requires backing away from your subject.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee120/JustAnEngineer/Family/Pets/IMG_0294.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee120/JustAnEngineer/Family/Pets/IMG_0292.jpg


----------

