100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro

[birtembuk]

Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535

This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.

Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.

[charlesa]

Get the zoom first and the macro lens later.

[AudioGlenn]

Sounds like you're confusing extenders (aka teleconverters) with extension tubes. 

Extenders multiply focal length, and contain lens elements (meaning you lose some IQ).  Canon makes 1.4x and 2x, and they cost you 1 or 2 stops of light, respectively.  Those do multiply the max mag as well, so for example, the 70-200/2.8 with a 2x becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 with a max mag of 0.42x. 

Extension tubes contain no optics, just air. They move the lens further from the sensor, which 1) shortens the MFD, 2) shortens the max FD, i.e. you can't focus to infinity, and 3) costs you a bit of light (but not much).  Extension tubes are used with wide and normal lenses, and by shortening the MFD they allow closer focus and higher mag.  They're a lot cheaper than an extender, and unlike extenders where 3rd party brands are optically inferior to the Canon, 3rd party extenders are no different (to paraphrase Bryan at TDP, Canon air is no better than Kenko air...but you pay more for the Canon air!).

Thank you.  I didn't realize there was such a thing.  I'll look into it.

It sounds like the 70-200 first, then the 100mm Macro AND some extension tubes after that....  I'll have to record another album before I can buy all this gear!!! 

[heptagon]

Well, you could also go with the Tamron 90mm macro. It's much cheaper and does take 1:1 images at f/4 pretty well if you need that. Otherwise often you don't really need an 1:1 macro and the 70-200 with or without extension tubes will do the job.

[Andy_Hodapp]

Just an idea, I have a Sigma 105mm EX DG which gives amazing results, DxOMark.com gives it a rating higher then the 100mm 2.8L, I got mine for $300 used on Ebay in mint condition.  You might want to get that and then go for a used 70-200mm F/4L, two great lenses for the price of one.  I've used a 70-200mm F/4L for a couple weeks, some say it is even sharper then the 2.8.  Makes you think.

[skitron]

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?

[SiliconVoid]

I am sure it as already been answered, or possibly you have done some research in the time you have posted - but the 70-200 is not a macro lens. At its closest focus distance, at maximum focal length, it will not magnify the subject any more than 1:4 if I am not mistaken..

If you are really talking about macro photography the choice is obvious, the 100m macro, if however you are simply wanting close shots of things (dragon flys, reptiles, birds, etc) and are wanting to fill the frame with them as close as you can typically get to them then the 70-200mm will give you a lens with greater diversity, not to mention greater focal length options.

As was mentioned above if you are willing to sacrifice the focus range (no infinity focus) you can stack extension tubes to bring the minimum focus distance of the 70-200 to around 10inches - but a maximum focal distance of less than ~8feet. With the extension tubes you would be hard pressed to see any optical quality differences, it is a very sharp lens at native focus ranges, shorten that range so you are physically closer to the subject and you have a very useful 'close focus' zoom. You will also lose light stacking the extension tubes, but you typically stop down macro anyway, it will darken the viewfinder a little though. Curvature of the focal plane with the 70-200mm (soft corners) will not be all that relevant in the field, and you will probably not notice at all on a cropped sensor like the 60D. If your shooting flat objects like stamps or coins, and will be scrutinizing the corners of the frame, you may want to get the true macro lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?

See what you did - you went and opened the DxO can of worms...  Try comparing their measurements of the 70-200 II with their measurements of the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI - the MkI performs better in their tests.  In their tests, and no one else's.  Personally, I think they got a bad copy of the 70-200 II.  My 70-200 II is slightly sharper away from the center than the 100L, that's true for the tests on TDP (although there really close) and also on photozone.de (compare 70-200 II vs. 100L).

[skitron]

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?

See what you did - you went and opened the DxO can of worms...  Try comparing their measurements of the 70-200 II with their measurements of the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI - the MkI performs better in their tests.  In their tests, and no one else's.  Personally, I think they got a bad copy of the 70-200 II.  My 70-200 II is slightly sharper away from the center than the 100L, that's true for the tests on TDP (although there really close) and also on photozone.de (compare 70-200 II vs. 100L).

The 100L looks sharper in the corners to me on the TDP examples, obviously more vignetting, but slightly sharper. So that tends to make me reject both DxO and photozone testing.    But all of this also tends to make me want to buy a 70-200 II since I'll never spring for a 200 L f2...

[neuroanatomist]

The 100L looks sharper in the corners to me on the TDP examples, obviously more vignetting, but slightly sharper. So that tends to make me reject both DxO and photozone testing.    But all of this also tends to make me want to buy a 70-200 II since I'll never spring for a 200 L f2...

I do think what we're seeing is within the range of copy variability - if you look on TDP, he tested three copies of the 70-200 II (there's a popup menu so you can compare them).

I think the bottom line is that while there may be differences between the two lenses from a sharpness standpoint, the direction and magnitude of that difference is probably subject to lens copy variation.  Most importantly, both offer excellent IQ that's probably not distinguishable in real world shooting. 

So, IQ shouldn't be used as a distinguishing factor between these two lenses...it really comes down to whether you need to go to 1:1 magnification or not, whether you need the flexibility of a zoom, and what your budget will cover.

[Marsu42]

So, IQ shouldn't be used as a distinguishing factor between these two lenses...it really comes down to whether you need to go to 1:1 magnification or not, whether you need the flexibility of a zoom, and what your budget will cover.

...this might be not an issue to some, but imho it comes down to the weight (plus length = torque on wrist), too: 70-200L 1490g vs 100L 625g (my 70-300L has 1050g and that's really the limit for me if combined with a flash).

[AudioGlenn]

Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.

[neuroanatomist]

Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.

It's an awesome lens, I'm sure you'll be very happy with it. 

[brianleighty]

Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.

Just thought I'd give a little input on this since I've done some testing lately on this. I rented a set of extension tubes for my most recent wedding. I tried it on the vast majority of my lenses (both owned and rented for the weding). Of the zoom lenses I tested it on, the Canon 70-200 IS L II did very well. I actually ended up using it for some of the macro shots. I still like using the 40 2.8 better but I would highly recommend getting a set of KENKO extension tubes if you find the maximum magnification to be too small. After renting the tubes I went ahead and bought a pair. I'm sure I'll eventually get a true macro lens but I don't have the money for that right now and the extension tubes will give me even more possibility with a true macro lens. Hope this helps. Enjoy the lens. 

[AudioGlenn]

All I can say about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is WOW!  I got it in the mail yesterday.  I wasn't expecting it to be that fast.  I feel like I have a whole new AF system in my "old" 60D.  As far as magnification/macro, I haven't received my kenko tubes yet but I just wanted to update this thread with my progress.  OMG, this seriously is the lens of all lenses (at least in my bag).  I absolutely love it.  I really wasn't expecting this much more sharpness either.  If the 24-70 II is supposed to be this sharp, my 24-105 is about about to be replaced as well.