EF 100 f/2.0 or EF 135L f/2.0

[Thorrulz]

I am thinking about adding one of these lenses to my gear and am looking for some advice on which may be a better fit. I currently have the 50mm f/1.8 II, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as well as a kit lens from my XT days. Cameras are the 1DMII and 7D.
I find myself shooting less with my 70-200 everyday but still use it for football and baseball/softball. A better wide angle lens will be another purchase down the road but right now I would like to have some advice on one of these lenses, preferably from someone who has owned at least one of the aforementioned lens.
I will use whichever lens I purchase to shoot pics of the grandkids mostly outdoors and at the occasional school play. Also in the winter I shoot H.S. Wrestling and some college as well. I thought the 7D with its high ISO capabilities would be well suited for either one of these lenses.
How much difference in IQ is there between these two lens? From looking at the lens sample pages both of these appear capable of delivering sharp images so I am asking for some help from someone who has some experience with one or both of these lens.
Thanks for reading and hope you can help.

[JelleVerherstraeten]

I think you started a thread in the wrong forumdirectory...

[GeneMan88]

I agree that this has been posted in the wrong section of the forum... still, I will reply with some of my thoughts on the 135L.

It's my 2nd most favorite focal length... 35L being my favorite. IMO, the 135 deserves to be included as one of Canon's L's. It's sharp... very sharp wide open at f/2. In combo with my 5D or either of my 1D/1Ds bodies, I find the focus speed is quite quick and accurate.

I've never shot the 100 f/2, so I have no basis of comparison.

[Thorrulz]

I guess I lost track of which subsection of the forum I was in when I posted. Hopefully a MOD will move it to the appropriate section.
Thanks GeneMan88 for the response as I am looking in picking one of these up in the next month.

[GeneMan88]

Also wish to add... the 135L is one of the lower priced L lenses considering most list at or above $1200US.

[nightcat]

I have rented the 135mm 2.0 several times and own the 100mm 2.0. Certainly two of favorite lenses. you'll be happy with either. For high school & college wrestling, I would think the longer focal length of the 135mm might do you well. Either lens would work fine with the grandkids. The 135mm is known as one of Canon's sharpest primes. The 100mm may not have the IQ of the 135mm but it's not far behind. Both lenses have nice bokeh and do outstanding portraits, and the 100mm is just slightly easier to hand hold. You can't go wrong here. You win either way.

[TooManyShots]

I used to have the 100 F2. 135L has better bokeh, period. Even when shooting at F4, the background blur isn't distracting at all. The 135L tends do produce a "cooler" (talking about WB here) looking shot on a cloudy day, but with greater contrast.


The 100 F2 is a sharp lens but it does not have any unique characteristic about it.

[Thorrulz]

I was already leaning towards the 135l before posting, but I wanted a few opinions on the price vs performance of each lens. But image quality would really be the deciding factor. I am looking for a sharp lens that can produce better contrast so maybe the 135l will be the one.
Lucky for me I only have to drive about 100 miles to try the 135l out next week.
Thanks for the responses everyone.