Your eye to compare the same shot with 3 different lenses (Page 2): I think that photo number 2 is sharper and seems more pleasing to my eye.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

I think that photo number 2 is sharper and seems more pleasing to my eye.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

#2 has very slightly better IQ, but you have indicated that each lens has a different range, and that only 100mm is common to all three. The slightly different IQ might just be down to a change in ISO or varying sweet spots. If you were contemplating the dumping of one lens, then I would not make a decision based on this questionable test.

Canisdirus

No one will ever notice the differences...except you.

bleirer

So pic one is the candidate lens, version i of the ef 100-400 at 100mm, pic 2 is the rf 24-105L at 100mm (this is my best lens so far), and pic 3 is the EF 100mm macro.

I am trying out the 100-400 to see if I want to keep it. This pic is the same hibiscus shot at 400mm from farther away but cropped in a similar way to the others.

(Download)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

To my eye, I don't see enough difference to make a difference. I wonder if it would make the choice better if they would have been posted SOOC

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

bleirer wrote:

So pic one is the candidate lens, version i of the ef 100-400 at 100mm, pic 2 is the rf 24-105L at 100mm (this is my best lens so far), and pic 3 is the EF 100mm macro.

I am trying out the 100-400 to see if I want to keep it. This pic is the same hibiscus shot at 400mm from farther away but cropped in a similar way to the others.

So, it would seem the older 100-400 cannot resolve fine details to the same extent as a dedicated macro and a mirrorless zoom. Before giving up on the 100-400L as a macro / close-up candidate, see how the lens looks at f/11 for the same shooting situations. I don't have any directly comparables to this hollyhock, but I do have several detailed animal close-ups from this lens. Also, an older lens like this will possibly have more lens to lens variation than newer equipment.

bleirer

CHG_CANON wrote:

So, it would seem the older 100-400 cannot resolve fine details to the same extent as a dedicated macro and a mirrorless zoom. Before giving up on the 100-400L as a macro / close-up candidate, see how the lens looks at f/11 for the same shooting situations. I don't have any directly comparables to this hollyhock, but I do have several detailed animal close-ups from this lens. Also, an older lens like this will possibly have more lens to lens variation than newer equipment.

Good idea. I accept that as a test it is flawed in many ways. The only lens to lens controlled test images I've found use different cameras so I find it difficult to draw a conclusion.

It would be cool to see a couple of those images if that was an offer.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not see a big difference at this size.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

"Not a nickel's worth of difference" as per my monitor.

pila

sumo wrote:

All look alike to me.

Not far from my perspective. Number two had a slight edge.

pila

cameraf4 wrote:

"Not a nickel's worth of difference" as per my monitor.

Looks and sounds about right.
Pila

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

bleirer wrote:

Good idea. I accept that as a test it is flawed in many ways. The only lens to lens controlled test images I've found use different cameras so I find it difficult to draw a conclusion.

It would be cool to see a couple of those images if that was an offer.

I don't have all the old images from using the 100-400L out on flickr. Here's one linked and one embedded. The lily is at the full resolution, so have a look at the details in the center clicked to the 1:1 pixel-level.

Salmon crested cockatoo by Paul Sager, on Flickr

Lily at f/8 and 400mm, cropped slightly

(Download)

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

#1 for me ....they're all very similar and would all be acceptable.....hard to distinguish any definitive differences.

nmw1004 Loc: Dresher PA

I think the colors in # 1 are more saturated.

bleirer

CHG_CANON wrote:

I don't have all the old images from using the 100-400L out on flickr. Here's one linked and one embedded. The lily is at the full resolution, so have a look at the details in the center clicked to the 1:1 pixel-level.

Salmon crested cockatoo by Paul Sager, on Flickr

Thank you, those are very sharp indeed.