Is it fair to...

[aam1234]

compare the 24-70L with 100 macro in terms of sharpness?

[CyberDyneSystems]

All's fair in love and lenses....

Frankly,. I think the Macro at 1/3rd the cost will probably win... But thats just a guess.

[Scottes]

I'd also think that the Macro will win. But don't forget about wide-angle, speed of AF, versatility... There's more to a lens than just sharpness.

[eosster]

To my knowledge, primes like 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM will beat any zoom lens, this is just my opionion of course.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Scottes

There's more to a lens than just sharpness.

Do you know what, I've been thinking about that too. Had two cams, few L lenses, some thousands of pics, but I have never made a sharp photo. And that doesn't bother me.

[mdr]

It's fair, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever .

If I want to take macro shots of insects would I consider buying the 24-70mm L lens because it's sharper? Of course not!

If I'm interested in taking landscape shots would I consder buying the 100mm macro lens because it's sharper? Of course not!

You'd buy a ship to sail the waves or a plane to fly the skies. You don't buy a ship to fly to New York!

[Mogwyth]

Originally Posted by mdr

It's fair, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever .

If I want to take macro shots of insects would I consider buying the 24-70mm L lens because it's sharper? Of course not!

If I'm interested in taking landscape shots would I consder buying the 100mm macro lens because it's sharper? Of course not!

You'd buy a ship to sail the waves or a plane to fly the skies. You don't buy a ship to fly to New York!

Airship

To be serious I totaly agree, it's only reasonable to compare like with like, to what end are you comparing these two lenses.

[Jon]

I have to say that at 100 mm, the macro will win hands down. Anywhere between 24 and 70 mm, the L will be all over it. Anywhere else, it's a wash. :{)#

Like several other people have said, how and where you're going to use it is the determining factor as to which is "better". The 100 makes a lousy wide angle. The 24-70 is going to be a royal pain as a macro. If you're looking at portraiture (or similar) work, either will do just fine, and the size of your studio will be the critical factor (you'll need to back off further with the 100). And while my ex- and I got a 50 mm macro as the main lens with our first Canon (FTb; she kept the macro), that was because

1. a macro was better for the shooting we were doing at the time and
2. there weren't any reasonably priced (for struggling grad students) zooms in reasonable FL ranges at the time. If we'd had the money we would have gotten the F-1 then.

[aam1234]

Hi guys,

I already have both lenses, so it wasn't a question to base a future purchase on. The reason I asked is because only the 100 macro gives me sharp photos. And while the 24-70 is reasonably sharp, it's not the same as the 100 macro. However, there is a 99.9% chance that it's a user error / technique

Thanks for your replies.

[Eric DeCastro]

can't really compare them but you can if you want to. the prime will out perform the zoom in most cases.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Hi guys,

I already have both lenses, so it wasn't a question to base a future purchase on. The reason I asked is because only the 100 macro gives me sharp photos. And while the 24-70 is reasonably sharp, it's not the same as the 100 macro. However, there is a 99.9% chance that it's a user error / technique

Thanks for your replies.

You tested it for back-focus/front-focus? Also try manually focussing it with AF turned off, and try using a cable release with AF turned on and the camera on a tripod so you don't accidentally shift focus (remember, the 24-70 has full-time manual focus override).

[aam1234]

Thanks Jon,

Was planning on doing that. It doesn't seem it has back/front focusing, as the focus is where it should be. It's the sharpness that's a little of a worry.

Thanks again