I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf above and to the left of the flower in the first image shows sharp detail, while the other two images show it strongly blurred. That suggests that the point of focus was quite different, depth of field fall off occurring much sooner in 2nd and 3rd images, than in the 1st. It's a bit hard to tell comparing in this size, but due to the way DoF falls it appears the flower anthers in the 1st image are slightly soft, while they are sharp in the other two images.

In other words, the plane of focus is significantly different between 1st image versus the 2nd/3rd images.

Aside from that, there isn't any significant difference in the sharp areas of the images or in color rendition. All three lenses appear to be capable of making very usable images. I also don't see any chromatic aberration or distortion in any of these images... but the scene may not be prone to that.

I might have voted for #2 or #3 based upon their background blur. But because the plane of focus/DoF isn't the same, I am not ready to rule out #1. If it were focused the same as the other two, it might equal their background effects, too.

And I'd never judge lenses based upon just a single test shot like this. I'd also want to see a lot more images made with them... how they handle flare... shots at greater distances... unprocessing images to compare optical vignetting and distortion effects (turning off any auto lens correction in camera and software)..... shots of stars or lights at night to look for coma at the edges.... etc.

Plus, although image quality factors such as the above are important, there are other considerations with lenses... cost, size, weight, focus speed and repeatability, sealing for dust/weather resistance, features like focus limiters and image stabilization, availability of a tripod mounting ring (if lens is large enough to call for that), size and effectiveness of lens hood, size of filters the lens uses and more.

EDIT: I just read what lenses were used for the three shots....

Some more rather obvious stuff to consider....

The 100mm macro lens can't shoot at 24mm or 200, 300, 400mm, but it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and up to two stops faster than the 100-400.

The 24-105 can't shoot at 200, 300 or 400mm.

The 100-400 and 24-105 can't shoot anywhere near 1:1 magnification without additional accessories (i.e., macro extension tubes).

Hi All,

I will give you the big reveal about which lens is which after I get a few comments, but the gist of it is I shot the same flower using 3 different lenses all at 100mm and set to f8 1/100. The ISO was a little different because the sun came in and out a little. It is not a perfect apples to apple test because I adjusted each shot in post to get the best look to my eye, rather than doing everything exactly identically. I did turn on lens correction in lightroom for each lens.

Two of the lenses are already 'keepers' and the 3rd one I am trying out. I chose 100mm because it was the only focal length all 3 lenses had in common.

I am interested in image quality, particularly sharpness. If you could rank them from best to worst I would appreciate the feedback.

Hi All,

I will give you the big reveal about which lens is which after I get a few comments, but the gist of it is I shot the same flower using 3 different lenses all at 100mm and set to f8 1/100. The ISO was a little different because the sun came in and out a little. It is not a perfect apples to apple test because I adjusted each shot in post to get the best look to my eye, rather than doing everything exactly identically. I did turn on lens correction in lightroom for each lens.

Two of the lenses are already 'keepers' and the 3rd one I am trying out. I chose 100mm because it was the only focal length all 3 lenses had in common.

I am interested in image quality, particularly sharpness. If you could rank them from best to worst I would appreciate the feedback.