70-200mm F4 L(non IS) VS 100mm macro(non L)

Out of the two, which would you prefer?
Also, when shooting at F4 on both lenses, which has the better image quality?

For macro the 70-200 is crap, for shooting at 200m the 100 is rubbish. What are you wanting to do here? Since primes tend to be sharper than zooms, and lenses tend to be sharper stopped down the 100 macro is probably sharper but there are still many things to consider. So fill us in on what you actually want to do with the two lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15575745
For macro the 70-200 is crap, for shooting at 200m the 100 is rubbish. What are you wanting to do here? Since primes tend to be sharper than zooms, and lenses tend to be sharper stopped down the 100 macro is probably sharper but there are still many things to consider. So fill us in on what you actually want to do with the two lenses.

Im sorry, to be clearer, I'm curious when shooting a portrait at 100mm on both lenses @F4, which would be of the better quality? If the macro, would it be by a huge margin or minuscule?

gonzogolf wrote in post #15575745
For macro the 70-200 is crap

It's not so bad with an extension tube.

AAphotog wrote in post #15575761
Im sorry, to be clearer, I'm curious when shooting a portrait at 100mm on both lenses @F4, which would be of the better quality? If the macro, would it be by a huge margin or minuscule?

Both would be excellent. It would be your personal preference of color, clarity, bokeh, etc.

AAphotog wrote in post #15575761
Im sorry, to be clearer, I'm curious when shooting a portrait at 100mm on both lenses @F4, which would be of the better quality? If the macro, would it be by a huge margin or minuscule?

The macro would be a bit sharper. I'm not sure but the edge on the quality of the blurred area would be creamier with the zoom. The ability to blur the background is a tie, the extra stop of the prime is offset by your ability to use the zoom at 200 which gives some nice compression. The truth is both are plenty sharp for portraits as with modern DSLR's many portraits are too sharp, showing imperfections in skin that you wouldnt even see if you saw a person standing near you.

I own the 70-200 f/4L IS, and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro. Optically, they're probably pretty close to the two versions you mention.

My 100mm macro might be a tad sharper than my 70-200 @ 100mm. But it's very slight, and I almost have to pixel peep to see the difference.

So, if you might decide to shoot macro in the future, get the 100mm.

If one stop of light is important to you, get the 100mm.

If neither of those, for versatility, I'd go for the 70-200.

Sharpness is a wash.

Mark-B wrote in post #15575765
It's not so bad with an extension tube.

Yeah, but so are lots of other lenses.