Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 30 Mar 2015 (Monday) 05:31
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

135 L or 100 L macro?

 
Sgt.
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Sgt.'s Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
Cambridge,Ontario
Mar 30, 2015 16:58 |  #16

FEChariot wrote in post #17498444external link
Plan on buying both becuase they are both great but different tools even if FL is similar. If you are primarily interested in macro buy the 100L first. Otherwise the 135 will be more versatile for focusing.

Can you explain why the 135 is more versatile for focusing?


Iain
7D MKII
Another minion in the Pondrader fan club

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MegBear26
Member
100 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Mar 30, 2015 17:31 |  #17

I will also add that I have never done macro before I got this lens. So I was a total newbie. I probably still have a lot to learn. The IS has been a tremendous help and it really does make a fantastic portrait lens. I bought mine over the winter so the fun hasn't even truly begun for me yet in terms of macro. ;)


Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 135 f/2L | Canon 100 f/2.8L Macro | Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art | Canon 50 f/1.8 | Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art

LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
FEChariot's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by FEChariot.
Mar 30, 2015 18:13 |  #18

Sgt. wrote in post #17498461external link
Can you explain why the 135 is more versatile for focusing?

It just hits better. Even when you use the focus limiter on the 100L it likes to hunt in low light scenarios where the 135/2 will lock on with no problems. When shooting stationary portraits using speedlights in umbrellas where the focus assist beam doesn't really help, the 100L doesn't do as well and can be frustrating. I don't have this problem with my 135/2.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Mar 30, 2015 19:08 |  #19

if you haven't done any macro yet, i would get the 135L...what other lenses do you have though?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sgt.
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Sgt.'s Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
Cambridge,Ontario
Mar 30, 2015 20:08 |  #20

DreDaze wrote in post #17498607external link
if you haven't done any macro yet, i would get the 135L...what other lenses do you have though?

I just sold my24-105 and 70-200 2.8
Currently I have my 400 5.6 and 40 2.8
My plan was to also sell the 400 and get the new 100-400 mkii
But it leaves me without something for portraits, etc.
I was throwing around the idea of getting a 10-22 for my 7Dmkii and either 135 or 100 macro instead of 100-400. I can just keep my 400 5.6


Iain
7D MKII
Another minion in the Pondrader fan club

LOG IN TO REPLY
dexy101
Goldmember
dexy101's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Scotland
Mar 30, 2015 21:44 |  #21

I owned both at the same time, the 135 for portraits and creamy bokeh and the 100mm for macro and insanely sharp photos.


Flickr (external link)
Gear List
1DX Mark II - 5D Mark IV - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - 100mm f/2.8L 135L - 17-40L 50mm 1.8 stm 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art

LOG IN TO REPLY
l89kip
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2010
Mar 30, 2015 23:30 |  #22

As others said, both are great lenses. I have both and love them both.

If I have to choose one, then I have to stick with 135L. For indoor portraits, 135mm is a little long. But the extra stop is enormously helpful. I have done some indoor portrait shots under normal light conditions. Shots produced by 135L wide open are excellent. The 2.8 aperture would not work as good as 2.

I rarely use flash. Indoor under normal light 135L wide open on 6D can produce sharp images with ISO 1600, 2000, or 3200. With 2.8, ISO would have to bump to 4000, 6400, or sometimes even high. Granted, 6D can produce nice images even with 12800 ISO sometimes. But when cropping, higher ISO images would not cut well.


Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
corndog ­ cabernet
Senior Member
corndog cabernet's Avatar
Joined May 2010
State of chaos
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by corndog cabernet.
Mar 31, 2015 00:10 |  #23

Sgt. wrote in post #17497678external link
which would you buy and why?

Well, I was considering both of these lenses. I bought the 100L.

The versatility swayed me. Macro and IS, specifically.

And lo, it is a very good portrait lens to boot.

One of the best lenses I've owned.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Dlee13's Avatar
Joined Apr 2012
Sydney
Mar 31, 2015 01:25 |  #24

I have the 100L and use it for the occasional macro shot, product/still life and portraits. I would also like to get the 135 for street and portraits. You can easily own and use both lenses so get both of them :-P


Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 17-40mm f4L ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
chexjc
Senior Member
chexjc's Avatar
Joined Sep 2014
Mar 31, 2015 06:18 |  #25

Why not get the 135L for outdoor portraits/fast action and the non-L 100mm f2.8 USM for dedicated macro-use. That's what I do. The lack of IS isn't a big deal most often when you're shooting macro and the sharpness between the L and non-L is very minimal. You'd save several hundred dollars that way too.


Canon 6D x2 | 17-40L | Sigma 35 ART | 50mm f1.8 STM | 85mm f1.8 | 135L
Website (external link) | Instagram (external link) | flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Trad59
Member
Trad59's Avatar
40 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Australia
Apr 01, 2015 02:54 |  #26

The 100L is hard to beat for its versatility, not so different in focal length to the 135 in framing, The image stabilisation is very good and can be used down to shutter speeds of 1/30 or so, hand held, you just can't do that with the 135 even with the extra stop advantage, AND you can move in and get close or shoot 1:1 macro when or if you want.




LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
yogestee's Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Joined Dec 2007
Australia
Apr 01, 2015 05:14 |  #27

Sgt. wrote in post #17498461external link
Can you explain why the 135 is more versatile for focusing?

Macro lenses are slower focusing than 'normal' lenses. This is mainly due to their longer focusing throw. I have 135L and it's lightning fast even in dim light.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sgt.
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Sgt.'s Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
Cambridge,Ontario
Apr 01, 2015 17:11 |  #28

Well, still cant decide...
However I am leaning towards the 100


Iain
7D MKII
Another minion in the Pondrader fan club

LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
wallstreetoneil's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Toronto Canada
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by wallstreetoneil.
Apr 02, 2015 07:33 |  #29

All of the differences have been mentioned.

I own both.

For me, the biggest difference is:

1) IS - you can handhold the 100 at 1/30, 1/40, the 135 I never shoot below 1/200 (I really care about tack sharp images) - that is 3 full stops difference!

2) F2 produces isolation that F 2.8 just can't and never will


I use my 135 for indoor sports when I don't want to bring a White lens - I've tried the 100L and it is no where near as fast at grabbing focus.

I use my 100L when I walk into a Bride's house to do close-ups and portraits - I hand hold the lens, I place it on a monopod and I also use a tripod.

While the lenses might appear similar they have nothing in common - there is no situation where I would be torn between which to bring - once you use them they are vastly better and worse at certain things.

A 135L and a 7D2 you can slip into a Pro-sports game (not white and just short enough) and capture images as good as any paying pro setup - I have done it.

I am generally shooting the 135L at 1/1000 and the 100L at 1/60 to 1 second on a tripod


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

LOG IN TO REPLY
ErgoSpacePig
Senior Member
ErgoSpacePig's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
St Louis, Mo
Apr 02, 2015 08:32 |  #30

why not check out the lens sample threads for both. yes the 100L is very sharp and has IS but the 135L is a very special lens that has its own signature and by that i mean produces a very unique image. i shoot my 135 at f/2 at least 90% of the time and not just during low light, the shallow depth is what produces the beautiful bokeh and isolation.

i will also repeat what has already been said that the focus speed and accuracy is top notch and hard to beat especially when you have moving subject such as street photography, parties or family photos. For me IS is not an issues at all and i can only think of a handful of times where i wished i had it.

but it really depends on the type of shots you are going to use it for as they designed for totally different applications, there is a lot of overlap as you can take beautiful pictures of flowers and such with the 135 and you an take gorgeous portraits with the 100 but you are compromising in both cases, missing IS on the one and lack of focus speed on the other.

bob


5D III | 5Dsr | TS-E 24 f/3.5L II | EF 35 f/1.4L USM | EF 135 f/2L USM | EF 85 f/1.2L II USM | EF 85 f/1.8 USM | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE
Speedlite 580EX II | Flash Point Streaklight 360 TTL | Feisol CT 3441T | Photo Clam PC-40NS | Domke F4AF pro | Click Elite Escape | Think Tank Airport Takeoff
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,386 views & 2 likes for this thread
135 L or 100 L macro?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00418 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is Ginn
987 guests, 456 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016