What's comparable to the 100mm Macro in overall IQ?

I have been wanting to get an L lens for quite some time. I've been seriously considering the 24-105mm, but I'm not 100% sure I can truly be happy with f/4. So then I look at the 28-70mm f/2.8, and I can't justify the price vs the 24-105. I use the-digital-picture.com's Lens Image Quality tool as my guide for IQ, and I see little to no increase in IQ between the two (certainly not $1k worth).

A few months ago, I picked up a first version EF 100mm Macro for dirt cheap because the switch fort he AF/M was missing (I use my fingernail). It is truly an amazing lens. Every image seems to have that '3D pop', there is zero CA/fringing, sharper then a sharp tack, and great colors and contrast.

My other lenses are the kit 18-55mm IS II, which is a great lens for the money, but it's a little on the slow side at 3.5-5.6. The 55-250mm, which is also a great lens for what it is, but the same issues (speed). The 50mm Mk I (I hardly use it, but have to have it). The 85mm f1.8, which I abhor. The CA/fringing kills anything positive about this lens for me, and I haven't touched it since I got the 100mm. So really, I have two good kit lenses, and three 'standards' in the 'better' quality. I also have the Wigma (10-20mm), and a Tamron 200-400mm (decent, but not the world's best). Then I have a slew of MF lenses that are just awesome (Super-Tak 1.4, Biotar, Helios, S-K Xenon, and others that are just for fun).

I have read enough times hear and elsewhere that the 55-250mm when processed correctly, can hold it's own to the 70-200mm L. I honestly see very little IQ increase between the 18-55mm and the 28-70 or 24-105mm's. These two considerations make it very difficult, for me at least, to jump into the L ring circus. What am I missing about these lenses?

If the 24-105 (or the 28-70), or the 70-200 give results like the 100mm macro, I wouldn't think twice, and get them. But from everything I see and read, I think I would be disappointed.

Is there a lens or lenses that can give me what I found in the 100mm? While price isn't the end-all be-all, I wouldn't want to go over $2200 per lens.

Heya,

I wouldn't stress so much about needing L-glass. Reading will have you think you need it.

If you're just doing this as a hobby, I would just get the highest quality optics you can, at a budget. If you want a red-ring, maybe consider it if it's vital for you to have a weather sealed lens. That would make tons of sense to me then. But honestly, there's a lot of newer non-L glass that is as good, and sometimes better per reports, than some L-glass. But just remember, a weather sealed lens is great, but the body needs to be pretty sealed too for it to really be something you focus on, if you shoot a lot in locations where it matters.

If the 100mm non-L is working great, I would suggest you stick with it. I don't think spending another $1000 is going to net you very much gain in real world pictures that you end up taking.

Very best,

I was probably a little misleading in my post. I'm not wanting specifically an L lens. I want lenses that will give me a jump in IQ iver what I have ow that is significant enough to warrant/justify the costs.

I have no problem with Sigma or Tamron, and have considered the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Weathersealing isn't incredibly important, but would be nice, as I do like to go out in the Tropical Storms and thunderstorms and see what I can get. I have a 50D (also will be upgrading in about a year or so), which has some weathersealing. The Tammy 24-70VC is also weathersealed.

Primes are of course always going to be better then zooms, but I would think there has to be a zoom or zooms out there that would give me what I'm looking for. Photographic lenses have been being made for a couple hundred years, so I would think by now... Although I also realize SLR zoom lenses have only been around since 1958 (Voightlander Zoomar, incidentally, just passed on one of those). But still, 55 years of SLR zooms is quite some time.

Few zooms will match the sharpness of a good prime, and the 100/2.8 is sharp, as most macro lenses are. That suggests that you may need to look at primes. This is reinforced by your comment that f/4 may not be fast enough for you.

The big question is though, what do you intend to use this lens you seek for?

xarqi wrote in post #16475564
Few zooms will match the sharpness of a good prime, and the 100/2.8 is sharp, as most macro lenses are. That suggests that you may need to look at primes. This is reinforced by your comment that f/4 may not be fast enough for you.

Exactly this.

You buy a zoom lens for versatility. Very few zoom (if any) can match the IQ of a good prime, especailly a macro prime.

The closest thing are 24-70II and 70-200II. Sure they are pricey, but great lens is always going go be expensive, that's just the facts of life

I became much happier with my zooms when I stopped looking at the IQ comparisons of sites like TDP. Now I look at the photos I take. That convinced me that I don't really need primes. The only prime I have left is the EFS 60mm f/2.8 Macro. Although, if I had the money, I'd get an EF 24mm f/1.4L II. And maybe a 600 f/4. Between the two extremes, zooms work nicely for me.

Part of me wants an awesome walk-around, hence the 24-105. I don't do sports or 'street'. But just about everything else I touch on. Portraits are probably my favorite, which was why I got the 85mm originally.

I may go back to my original plan, which was to keep my current gear except for the 85mm, and then get the 24-105.

xarqi wrote in post #16475564
Few zooms will match the sharpness of a good prime, and the 100/2.8 is sharp, as most macro lenses are. That suggests that you may need to look at primes. This is reinforced by your comment that f/4 may not be fast enough for you.

The big question is though, what do you intend to use this lens you seek for?

kin2son wrote in post #16475588
Exactly this.

You buy a zoom lens for versatility. Very few zoom (if any) can match the IQ of a good prime, especailly a macro prime.

The closest thing are 24-70II and 70-200II. Sure they are pricey, but great lens is always going go be expensive, that's just the facts of life

I concur with these pieces of advice.

Plus if you are not seeing a difference in the lenses you are comparing then IQ-wise then you do not need to upgrade. I personally see a difference. You possibly might want to borrow or rent one of those zooms you mention to compare your lenses. If you don't see the IQ difference then maybe the build quality, the weather sealing, the AF speed, and slightly better aperture would be enough for you. And if not, as was said there are the primes (at the cost of some versatility).

I've heard a lot of good things about the Tamron 24-70 VC. I considered it briefly, but chose to go with the Canon. You buy once, cry once...

For my needs, f2.8 is important. The Tamron is a good choice and so is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8.

People have good experiences with the 15-85 as a walkaround lens. For me, f5.6 at the long end is a non-starter for an upgrade lens. I have good experiences with my EF-S 18-200. Still my walk around lens (sometimes... the EF 24-70 is almost permanently attached to my camera now...).

Good luck with your choice!

My 70-200 f/4L is very close in sharpness to my 100 f/2.8L. Unless you really do some pixel peeping, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.

Of course you won't get true macro with it.

I really like the 24-105.
It's a professional lens that produces excellent photos.
Combine it with a good 50L and a 100/85, you have yourself an excellent setup.
To be honest, a lot of times I won't fully notice the difference between my zeiss lenses and my 24-105.. there are times where my zeiss lenses blow me away in iq, but then there are other times where I say the 24-105 is really all I need.

My only wish is that canon makes a newer version of the lens (with plastic to keep the weight down) that has razor sharpness similar to that of the newer 24-70.
I would pay $1000-1200 for that.

I have taken portraits with the 24-105 and it's excellent on a crop. You might want to try the canon 100 f2 for portraits.

Here's an example of a shot I took with the 6d/24-105 at a family baptism (5.6/55mm/iso 5000/no flash)

Full Size
http://imageshack.us/p​hoto/my-images/834/q5c2.jpg/

I'm going to recommend the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for you.
It's not going to be as sharp as a decent prime, and certainly not as sharp as the 100/2.8, but for a walk-around lens for APS-C that is faster than f/4, it's hard to beat.

Your other main option would be the 24-70/2.8L, especially if you are leaning more to portraiture, but it's not called "the brick" for nothing, and as "walk-around" lens, some could find it a bit heavy (some find it OK too).

If you REALLY need to get prime-quality sharpness, and you want a general purpose lens, then maybe consider the 35L, although you are likely to find it too short for portraiture without heavy cropping.
If you were able to add the 70-200/4L to that, and can put up with f/4, then you could cover that contingency too. Also consider that sharpness in portraiture isn't always something to crave: it's more about portraying personality than pores.

Ugh...

So today I had a job to shoot. Photography is not the job, it's an inspection, but I have to take photos. I used my Wigma and the kit 18-55mm. The Wigma was for the large buildings, and the kit was for a normal building which included interior photos.

I shot in RAW2, and I just pixel-peeped 277 photos from the day. On both lenses, everything looks sharp, almost no CA, and decent exposure (shot in P mode cuz it's not a photography job).

All in all, as much as I would like to have 'nicer' lenses, I'm really not seeing where my current stuff is falling short. Six months ago, I wanted the 24-70 and 70-200 set. I figured that would give me everything I could want and need. Then I moved over to the 24-105, as the focal length is a hair more versatile. I've considered the 17-55, and I know myself well enough to know that at some point i'll be going to full frame, so the EF-S lenses are secondary choices.

With that said, I may rent the 24-105L for a week, and see how I like it, and if it blows me away. I know it's the favorite lens of many many great photographers, but for some reason I hesitate. I wish there were still brick & mortar camera stores (that's a whole other thread), so I could try it out, feel it, etc.

If the rental doesn't blow me away, I think I'll start moving towards the prime route. The 35L or the Sigma ART 35mm would be the first I would look at. Also thinking about getting more macros - 60mm, and the 180mm, as I'm sure they would blow me away also. Wasn't there an EF 50mm macro not too long ago?

I really feel like I'm floundering about with this, and I apologize for bringing you guys into it!

KirkS518 wrote in post #16477573
Wasn't there an EF 50mm macro not too long ago?

EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro.
It's sharp too (as are maybe all "true" macro lenses).

KirkS518 wrote in post #16477573
Ugh...

So today I had a job to shoot. Photography is not the job, it's an inspection, but I have to take photos. I used my Wigma and the kit 18-55mm. The Wigma was for the large buildings, and the kit was for a normal building which included interior photos.

I shot in RAW2, and I just pixel-peeped 277 photos from the day. On both lenses, everything looks sharp, almost no CA, and decent exposure (shot in P mode cuz it's not a photography job).

All in all, as much as I would like to have 'nicer' lenses, I'm really not seeing where my current stuff is falling short. Six months ago, I wanted the 24-70 and 70-200 set. I figured that would give me everything I could want and need. Then I moved over to the 24-105, as the focal length is a hair more versatile. I've considered the 17-55, and I know myself well enough to know that at some point i'll be going to full frame, so the EF-S lenses are secondary choices.

With that said, I may rent the 24-105L for a week, and see how I like it, and if it blows me away. I know it's the favorite lens of many many great photographers, but for some reason I hesitate. I wish there were still brick & mortar camera stores (that's a whole other thread), so I could try it out, feel it, etc.

If the rental doesn't blow me away, I think I'll start moving towards the prime route. The 35L or the Sigma ART 35mm would be the first I would look at. Also thinking about getting more macros - 60mm, and the 180mm, as I'm sure they would blow me away also. Wasn't there an EF 50mm macro not too long ago?

I really feel like I'm floundering about with this, and I apologize for bringing you guys into it!

I'm willing to bet you weren't shooting wide open? At f/8 your not going to see too much of a difference, especially if your shooting buildings and interiors. You will however see a difference in distortion.


There is far more to a good lens than being sharp at f/8. . . . . . . . . .

Being sharp wide open is tough, doubly so for fast glass.

Flare control.

The rendering of out of focus elements (compare the "Bokeh" of the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.2 with bushes, grass, or trees in the background and you'll see what I mean).

Fast, quiet, and reliable auto focus.

Distortion control.

Vignetting.

Weather sealing.

Micro-contrast.

Color rendering.

Build quality.

etc.

You can't just look at a test chart and assume that it sums up everything you need to know about a lens. Unless you just really enjoy shooting test charts, then by all means go forth and shoot charts my son.