Focus tested wide open- 135L, 100macro, 85 1.8, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS

I decided to kill off an afternoon by measurebating , yes...it's fairly sad. One reason was that I just got the 5D adjusted along with the 135L and the 85 1.8, so I wanted to see how they compared to the other lenses that didn't go in for adjustment.

These were all shot on a tripod with MLU + remote shutter. Pointed at a 45deg angle...or as close as I could get. Shot in raw, converted to jpg, USM @ 250, .3, 0.

Disclaimer: This is by no means anything scientific, so take it for what it's worth.

135L F2 @ F2

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Thanks for sharing. I like the way that 100 2.8 looks wide open.

why does the 24-105 look so FREEKING soft compared to a 400$ 100mm macro!?!? scarey!

greenxeyezz wrote in post #3803778
why does the 24-105 look so FREEKING soft compared to a 400$ 100mm macro!?!? scarey!

It's a prime lens. There is only way focal length to calibrate. AND it's a macro lens. They're made to be super sharp.

it makes me wanna cry! =)

EDIT : also the 135L looks softer than the 100 as well

Woogie wrote in post #3803793
It's a prime lens. There is only way focal length to calibrate. AND it's a macro lens. They're made to be super sharp.

And the 24-105 is used at the long end, not in the middle of it's focal range (where it should be better).

greenxeyezz wrote in post #3803802
it makes me wanna cry! =)

EDIT : also the 135L looks softer than the 100 as well

It's a full stop faster and if stopped down to 2.8 it would likely look different. The DOF will be shorter due to both aperture and focal length.

The 135L is a very sharp lens will shallow DOF wide open, this comparision shows the lenses wide open but it's a difference in what wide open is between the lenses.

The Macro and 7-2f4IS are smokin'...

greenxeyezz wrote in post #3803778
why does the 24-105 look so FREEKING soft compared to a 400$ 100mm macro!?!? scarey!

Not only is it a prime lens it is a macro lens. Macro lens make ordinary primes look a bit sad.

Plus the test was probably at a fairly close focus distance, that might give the macro a bit of an edge over ordinary lenses, but I would still expect it to be mega sharp at longer distances.

Wow @ the aberration with the 85...it looks like a totally different color!

Depth of field and photo distance, I think, are factors in the viewing of the faster primes. Had you backed up a little for the 135L (it was shot at the longest FL of all the lenses) I think the photo would have looked different.

The macro is sharp (no doubt, I used to own it), but it's a macro and they are built for close focusing. MTF charts that I have seen rate the 135L at 2.0 sharper than the 100 at 2.8. But it has a very shallow DOF.

Thanks for posting.

Mrvile wrote in post #3806384
Wow @ the aberration with the 85...it looks like a totally different color!

Main reason why I got rid of mine. I hated the CA at f/1.8 and f/2.

kidpower wrote in post #3806444
Depth of field and photo distance, I think, are factors in the viewing of the faster primes. Had you backed up a little for the 135L (it was shot at the longest FL of all the lenses) I think the photo would have looked different.

I have the 70-200@135 as well (I think), I'll see if I can post it tonite.

BugEyes wrote in post #3804612
It's a full stop faster and if stopped down to 2.8 it would likely look different. The DOF will be shorter due to both aperture and focal length.

The 135L is a very sharp lens will shallow DOF wide open, this comparision shows the lenses wide open but it's a difference in what wide open is between the lenses.

I have the 135 @ 2.8, will try to post later. I don't recall specifically, but my guess is that it'll be very equal to the macro.

I expected the 85 1.8 to be sharper than that, but then again it was shot at 1.8.

I wonder how they would all do at the same aperture.