100 macro + 85 1.8 Vs 135L

[versedmb]

For the 5D, I'm consdering the above option.

I would use the 100 macro mainly for flowers and sometimes portraits and the 85 mainly for portraits or for when I really need f/1.8. However, I could get the 135L and use it with ext tubes, that I already have, for flowers.

I guess the question is, how much better is the 135L vs these two lenses? Is it worth it?

[blonde]

that is so weird, i am thinking about the exact same thing right now!!!!

[Mr. Clean]

I hate to muddy the water but how about the Sigma 150mm 2.8?

Otherwise, I'd go with the 85 and the macro. I hate extension tubes. I really can't stand them. A dedicated macro lens is the deal in my opinion. The Sigma 150 does portraits and macro very very very well, it just doesn't do low light very well as compared to the 85 1.8.
Another option is a different macro lens, there are so many options out there and none of them are bad.
I ordered up a Tokina 100 2.8 macro but I'm wondering if my 100mm f2 is redundant now.

[silvex]

I would go with the 100f/2.8 macro, since you have a 5D.

[timnosenzo]

I have both the 100 macro + 85 1.8 and really like both of them. I have never tried the 135L though, interesting option. I guess it would depend on how serious you plan on being with the macro. If you just want to get a flower closeup here and there, but use it as a portrait lens more often, then I would say you might be better off with the 135L + tubes option. If you're more serious about macro, you'd probably be better served with the dedicated macro lens.

[versedmb]

that is so weird, i am thinking about the exact same thing right now!!!!


I guess I'm not the only weird one. ;)

Thanks for the input guys.

[pepperoni]

I don't have the 100, but I do have the 85 and the 135 with a 5D. The 85 is great, but the 135 is just rediculous. It's in a whole 'nother league. You can make backgrounds melt away like creamy butter and get some of the sharpest subjects you've ever seen. It's such a cool lens.
MY $.02 :cool:

[TeeTee]

None of these lenses will be as sharp as the 135L. Yes, I've done a comparison and it's close but the fine details are either there or not. You know the type you can't see with your own eye unless you REALLY look?

Yeah those.

Beyond that the 135L has some supremely shallow DOF wide open, actually shallower than the beloved 85L. Beyond that everything else is up to L standards. The only question is how would the 135L do with tubes as a macro lens? That I can't answer.

Otherwise it'd be 135L all the way, and I'm not at all an L wh*re it's just a great piece of engineering. :)

[silvex]

None of these lenses will be as sharp as the 135L. Yes, I've done a comparison and it's close but the fine details are either there or not. You know the type you can't see with your own eye unless you REALLY look?

Yeah those.

Beyond that the 135L has some supremely shallow DOF wide open, actually shallower than the beloved 85L. Beyond that everything else is up to L standards. The only question is how would the 135L do with tubes as a macro lens? That I can't answer.

Otherwise it'd be 135L all the way, and I'm not at all an L wh*re it's just a great piece of engineering. :)

No doubt the 135L is a superb lens, but for macro work. The 100 is the king. Usually you shoot macro at f8-f11, since you are inches away from the subject. The 135L has a min 3ft focusing distance, whereas the 100 about 9 inches.

The macro is able to double as a portrait lens, whereas the 135L can't as a "true" macro.

[JeffreyG]

I agree that for dedicated macro, the 100 macro is the king. OTOH flower shooting tends to not need 1:1 much unless you are all into just stamens or something. I get by just fine shooting flowers with the 1:2 50CM and the 1:3ish 300/4+TC.

Outside of macro, the 135L is a better lens than the 100 macro or the 85/1.8.

TeeTee said: Beyond that the 135L has some supremely shallow DOF wide open, actually shallower than the beloved 85L.

Picking nits, this is not true in the general sense. If you shoot both the 135L and 85L wide open with the same subject framing the 85L will have shallower DOF. In fact, if you preserve subject framing (which is how most people shoot everything) then you can forget about focal length in the DOF equation because focus distance will compensate for it 1:1.

An aside - what I mean here is that if you back away from the subject steadily to compensate for using longer focal lengths then you are preseving the subject framing while changing the perspective.

In short, for constant subject framing the only variable that affects DOF is maximum aperture.

[AeroSmith]

How about the 135L and a set of extension tubes? The best of all worlds perhaps?

[versedmb]

How about the 135L and a set of extension tubes? The best of all worlds perhaps?

Please re-read my first post. ;)

[AeroSmith]

Please re-read my first post. ;)

Sorry. I guess the 135L really is that much better.

[versedmb]

I agree that for dedicated macro, the 100 macro is the king. OTOH flower shooting tends to not need 1:1 much unless you are all into just stamens or something. I get by just fine shooting flowers with the 1:2 50CM and the 1:3ish 300/4+TC.
.

That's just what I'm getting at.

I don't plan on doing true macro with the 135L, just flower close-ups.

Hmmm....what about the 135L...and the Sigma 50 macro for when I really need to get close.....too many decisions.

[AeroSmith]

....though, for true macro work, nothing beats the 100. ;)

[AeroSmith]

And I can tell you this: up until yesterday I owned all three lenses.

Yesterday I sold the 85/1.8.

I'd never part with my 100 mac or my 135L.....NEVER!

[versedmb]

And I can tell you this: up until yesterday I owned all three lenses.

Yesterday I sold the 85/1.8.

I'd never part with my 100 mac or my 135L.....NEVER!

Yea, that it would be nice to have the 100 macro and the 135L, but I'm not sure that works with the "wife-approved" budget. ;)

[blonde]

i made my decision and went with the 85 1.8 and Sigma 150 macro :)

[MaDProFF]

I have a 135L and 100 mm macro, and intend to add the 180mm macro to, if you want to shoot those really little things you need longer than a 100mm macro :(

[AeroSmith]

i made my decision and went with the 85 1.8 and Sigma 150 macro :)

I have to say, the Sigma EX 150 f/2.8 Macro is sweet!

[gardengirl13]

My suggestion? Save until you can do the 135 and the 100.