24-105mm F4L or 100mm Macro f2.8L IS USM?

[Fedgrub]

Really confused here guys.

Trying to decide between the 24-105mm F4L and 100mm f2.8L IS USM? I know they're two very different lenses, but to be honest the 24-105mm ribbon issue thread I saw recently has put me off. Up until then, I had only heard praise for this lens.

Saw some shots of the 100mm macro, which looked extremely sharp. I read some reviews of both, and both seem great.

Anyone have some regular usage shots of the 100mm macro? I know they're not going to substitute for each other on all purposes, but I am wanting to spend my money on the most solidly performing lens.

So, how sharp are the shots on these lenses? If it helps, I am replacing my 24-135mm IS USM.

Thanks!

[Tannin]

Either is good. No - they are superb lenses. Your chances of trouble are very small.

I own both. The 24-105 gets a lot more action, of course, but they are both great. Zoom or macro - buy what you need.

(Shots reduced from full-frame to web size won't teach you anything.)

(But let's have one anyway.)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/10/100606-165759-c.jpg

In fact, let's have two. :)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/11/110520-145013-c.jpg

You can probably guess which one is which. :)

[James Axford]

As you said 2 very different lenses... they both serve different purposes.
If you don't have many lenses and you want something that can do a bit of everything so you can get to know what style. You'd like the 24-105.
If you're more into macro and portraits get the 100mm.
also when posting small jpg comparisons you really don't get a lot out of it, it's very hard to tell what lens it was taken with. There are heaps of full size examples out there to look at.
think you'll find the prime is sharper and the zoom is more versatile.
hope this helps

[jeffde]

Different lens for different purposes. I have 24-15 and use it alot - that said i'm looking for a 100mm macro to add some creativity to certain shots-

[larrywen]

I will be more catious with the 24-105 after knowing a number of people got problems with this lens.

[James Axford]

I will be more catious with the 24-105 after knowing a number of people got problems with this lens.

Many more people own the 24-105 because of the nature of the lens (it's the work horse), and the time it's been on the market. A fair bit longer than the 100mm. Thus you see more problems arising from it.
well that's my logic anyway :p

[Scotty72]

Many more people own the 24-105 because of the nature of the lens (it's the work horse), and the time it's been on the market. A fair bit longer than the 100mm. Thus you see more problems arising from it.
well that's my logic anyway :p

Apples and oranges:lol: The 100mm doesn't have a 'zooming ribbon' cause it doesn't zoom.

Having said that. I am one of those burnt (twice now) by the 24-105L's damned ribbon. Without this issue (actually, it is actually more about Canon's refusal to own the problem they MUST surely as day know about), I would have no hesitation in recommending this lens.

However: the issue has arisen; Canon is not owning the issue so, I have to say that I honestly couldn't recommend that lens to you.

So, maybe the 100L or the 24-70L.

[Fedgrub]

Apples and oranges:lol: The 100mm doesn't have a 'zooming ribbon' cause it doesn't zoom.

Having said that. I am one of those burnt (twice now) by the 24-105L's damned ribbon. Without this issue (actually, it is actually more about Canon's refusal to own the problem they MUST surely as day know about), I would have no hesitation in recommending this lens.

However: the issue has arisen; Canon is not owning the issue so, I have to say that I honestly couldn't recommend that lens to you.

So, maybe the 100L or the 24-70L.

Because you were not the only person with the issue, I am a little concerned. I love the sound of the 24-70 2.8 but it's so damn expensive. Is it any sharper than the 24-105 (other than the fact that it is in lower light) or just more reliable?

[Scotty72]

Because you were not the only person with the issue, I am a little concerned. I love the sound of the 24-70 2.8 but it's so damn expensive. Is it any sharper than the 24-105 (other than the fact that it is in lower light) or just more reliable?

I think it is a little sharper by virtue of the fact its focal range is less. Generally, the longer the zooming range, the more prone to barrel distortions etc.

There will be others who could provide a more detailed explanation.

Scotty

[Tannin]

Barrel distortion and sharpness are two quite different issues, not related to one another, but Scotty is correct nevertheless. Mind you, designing for a wider aperture also tends to decrease sharpness. Even so, under perfect conditions (tripod, MLU, all that) the 24-70 is said to be marginally sharper. Note, however, that this is a false promise most of the time: for most people, most of the time, the 24-105 will deliver sharper pictures because it has IS, and IS helps even at quite high shutter speeds. On the other hand, nobody ever said the 24-70 couldn't give you a great picture.

Two great lenses. Pick either one, you won't be sorry.

[Tannin]

One short paragraph:

... but ... nevertheless ... mind you ... even so ... however ... on the other hand ...
I should have been a lawyer!

[Scotty72]

I object!

[Tannin]

Overruled!