100mm 2.8L Macro or 135mm 2.0L ?

Welcome to “the light side.”

I am fortunate enough to own both the 100L and 135L.

While they are both super sharp, the 135L seems insignificantly sharper at similar apertures. IMHO the 135L’s bokeh is smoother than the 100L, and of course since it can go to f2 and is 35mm longer, everything else being equal, the 135L can produce more background blur. This is not to say the 100L’s out of focus blur isn’t smooth. It’s very good; just not as good as the 135L’s. The color/contrast is equally excellent. The auto focus speed is equally fast at non macro distances. The 100L has a minimum focus distance of about one foot while the 135L’s minimum focus distance is three feet. The IS on the 100L works amazingly well and the 135L doesn’t have it.

Whether f2.8 is noticeable depends on the distance to and behind the subject. You will notice the difference in out of focus blur at short distances in the two pictures below. I haven’t noticed much of a difference at long distances, if the background is very bland, or the room is dark.

1Ds III/100L/f2.8:

• Low light sports. The need for aperture speed (double) trumps and makes IS irrelevant. The difference (if any) in focus speed is insignificant.
  
• Portraits. Especially head shots. Not only for the bokeh, but since it can go to f2, I have better control over the depth of field. In this type of photography I can replace the 100L’s IS with a flash and/or a tripod.

• Macro/close up. (duh…that’s what I got it for)
  
• It has replaced my 135L as my go to short telephoto walk around/event/street prime. Equal sharpness and color/contrast, and surprisingly good bokeh and auto focus speed. The amazing 100L IS trumps the potential inconveniences and problems of using flash and tripods. I generally don’t shoot as wide as f2 in this situation anyway.

billppw350z wrote in post #14211366
Welcome to “the light side.”

I am fortunate enough to own both the 100L and 135L.

While they are both super sharp, the 135L seems insignificantly sharper at similar apertures. IMHO the 135L’s bokeh is smoother than the 100L, and of course since it can go to f2 and is 35mm longer, everything else being equal, the 135L can produce more background blur. This is not to say the 100L’s out of focus blur isn’t smooth. It’s very good; just not as good as the 135L’s. The color/contrast is equally excellent. The auto focus speed is equally fast at non macro distances. The 100L has a minimum focus distance of about one foot while the 135L’s minimum focus distance is three feet. The IS on the 100L works amazingly well and the 135L doesn’t have it.

Whether f2.8 is noticeable depends on the distance to and behind the subject. You will notice the difference in out of focus blur at short distances in the two pictures below. I haven’t noticed much of a difference at long distances, if the background is very bland, or the room is dark.

1Ds III/100L/f2.8:

1Ds III/135L/f2:

As far as the 100L being sharp, the picture below is a 100% crop of the 100L portrait above. Note while the closest eye is tack sharp, the furthest eye is slightly out of focus even at f2.8.

Whether you should get one or the other depends on what you will be using it for.

IMHO…


The 135L is better for:

• Low light sports. The need for aperture speed (double) trumps and makes IS irrelevant. The difference (if any) in focus speed is insignificant.
  
• Portraits. Especially head shots. Not only for the bokeh, but since it can go to f2, I have better control over the depth of field. In this type of photography I can replace the 100L’s IS with a flash and/or a tripod.

The 100L is better for:

• Macro/close up. (duh…that’s what I got it for)
  
• It has replaced my 135L as my go to short telephoto walk around/event/street prime. Equal sharpness and color/contrast, and surprisingly good bokeh and auto focus speed. The amazing 100L IS trumps the potential inconveniences and problems of using flash and tripods. I generally don’t shoot as wide as f2 in this situation anyway.

You can’t go wrong with either since they are both great lenses.

Hope this helps and good luck with your purchase.

hi bill,

i see you have 17-55 too, i wonder the focus speed between 100L and 17-55?..i do have the same dilemma..100L or 135L..i have a crop body which is got worse bokeh than larger sensor like FF do you have any experience both with crop body?focus accuracy?

im planned to buy 100L mostly for portrait and litle bit for macro, but the cons is bokeh maybe not as smooth..and 135L seems to long for crop body

thanks before

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14209850
I also never use my 100L but I always think to myself, "I should use that 100L, it's awesome."

+1

All though it gets seldom used, it's double duty value holds its place in my bag. Argueably not the "proper" portrait lens but being able to do both at a very high caliber makes it the cheaper lens, 2 uses 1 price.

hendyadi wrote in post #14211603
hi bill,

i see you have 17-55 too, i wonder the focus speed between 100L and 17-55?..i do have the same dilemma..100L or 135L..i have a crop body which is got worse bokeh than larger sensor like FF do you have any experience both with crop body?focus accuracy?

im planned to buy 100L mostly for portrait and litle bit for macro, but the cons is bokeh maybe not as smooth..and 135L seems to long for crop body

thanks before

100L focuses slower than 17-55 as well. The focus throw is much longer than on the 17-55. I just took them out, on the 100L, the ring rotates almost 180 degrees from MFD to infinity, while the 17-55 rotes about 90 degrees. Interestingly for me, infinity to 1.5 ft is about 90 degrees on the 100L and .99 to 1.5 ft is the other 90 degrees, which is where the focus limiter also splits (0.5m).

As others have mentioned, when using the focus limiter i.e. 0.5 m to infinity or 0.3m to 0.5m, the focus is noticeably faster, since it doesnt have to hunt over such a wide range.

edit: great summary hendyadi!

Similar question for me, I've got the 100L and love it for portraits...like these 2. But also I'm seeing some fantastic shots with the 135 and wonder if it'd be worth having 2 so close together. What I'm wondering is twofold...I'm seeing great bokeh from the 100L even at smaller aperture's like 6.3 and even 9 or smaller. The shot here of the man I had to go to f18 to even begin to recognize some of the background! It would seem that at portrait focal distances you can't get rid of the bokeh. On the girl here (my daughter on her 16th birthday last August) even at shutter speeds as low as 1/20th I still get clear images, so I think the 135 would be a challenge in cases like these. Any thoughts?

Oops! Hit the button before attaching! lol

My daughter was shot at 5.6 with 1/20th at 200ISO, the other is 2.8 at 1/1250th at 100 ISO.

billppw350z wrote in post #14211366
Welcome to “the light side.”

I am fortunate enough to own both the 100L and 135L.

While they are both super sharp, the 135L seems insignificantly sharper at similar apertures. IMHO the 135L’s bokeh is smoother than the 100L, and of course since it can go to f2 and is 35mm longer, everything else being equal, the 135L can produce more background blur. This is not to say the 100L’s out of focus blur isn’t smooth. It’s very good; just not as good as the 135L’s. The color/contrast is equally excellent. The auto focus speed is equally fast at non macro distances. The 100L has a minimum focus distance of about one foot while the 135L’s minimum focus distance is three feet. The IS on the 100L works amazingly well and the 135L doesn’t have it.

Whether f2.8 is noticeable depends on the distance to and behind the subject. You will notice the difference in out of focus blur at short distances in the two pictures below. I haven’t noticed much of a difference at long distances, if the background is very bland, or the room is dark.

1Ds III/100L/f2.8:

1Ds III/135L/f2:

As far as the 100L being sharp, the picture below is a 100% crop of the 100L portrait above. Note while the closest eye is tack sharp, the furthest eye is slightly out of focus even at f2.8.

Whether you should get one or the other depends on what you will be using it for.

IMHO…


The 135L is better for:

• Low light sports. The need for aperture speed (double) trumps and makes IS irrelevant. The difference (if any) in focus speed is insignificant.
  
• Portraits. Especially head shots. Not only for the bokeh, but since it can go to f2, I have better control over the depth of field. In this type of photography I can replace the 100L’s IS with a flash and/or a tripod.

The 100L is better for:

• Macro/close up. (duh…that’s what I got it for)
  
• It has replaced my 135L as my go to short telephoto walk around/event/street prime. Equal sharpness and color/contrast, and surprisingly good bokeh and auto focus speed. The amazing 100L IS trumps the potential inconveniences and problems of using flash and tripods. I generally don’t shoot as wide as f2 in this situation anyway.

You can’t go wrong with either since they are both great lenses.

Hope this helps and good luck with your purchase.

Great summary and photos. Thanks very much. Seeing this, I am thinking the double duty abilities of the 100L makes sense !

wannabegood wrote in post #14211933
...On the girl here (my daughter on her 16th birthday last August) even at shutter speeds as low as 1/20th I still get clear images, so I think the 135 would be a challenge in cases like these. Any thoughts?

You just got lucky as she didn't move at all that time.

lilkngster wrote in post #14211733
100L focuses slower than 17-55 as well. The focus throw is much longer than on the 17-55. I just took them out, on the 100L, the ring rotates almost 180 degrees from MFD to infinity, while the 17-55 rotes about 90 degrees. Interestingly for me, infinity to 1.5 ft is about 90 degrees on the 100L and .99 to 1.5 ft is the other 90 degrees, which is where the focus limiter also splits (0.5m).

As others have mentioned, when using the focus limiter i.e. 0.5 m to infinity or 0.3m to 0.5m, the focus is noticeably faster, since it doesnt have to hunt over such a wide range.

edit: great summary hendyadi!

Hi lilkngster,

thank you...really helpfull for your answer ..i think when using 100L shooting portrait continuesly, focus speed may be wont be slow, considering the AF always lock-on not far away..except if you shot small distance...long distance..small distance..

i wonder how is the bokeh outdoor for portrait please on crop, (and sharpness perhaps) ..seems sample from sample picture POTN mostly by FF

nightcat wrote in post #14207298
This person said it well. If you need a macro lens the 100mm is the best. If you need a portrait lens, the 135mm is what you need.

And he's certainly correct about the wonderful 200mm 2.8 L.

+1. If you don't really need macro, the 135L is the best option. The f/2 aperture & the longer focal length will allow you more short depth-of-field possibilities.

Titi

135 lens; my favorite action lens as well. Taken yesterday on a fast moving sled:

This must be one of those places that the figures bely the results. The MTF charts from Canon do not indicate the 135 to be sharper than the 100L. In fact, it's the other way around. And from what I can gather of the indications of bokeh, the 100L should be the winner there as well....according to the MTF charts. These charts show better bokeh from the Macro lens, and sharper images wide open, across the frame. Corner sharpness is not an issue as we're all looking for bokeh, hence the corners will be soft no matter how they get there, but the charts show the Macro better here as well.

This being said, I've seen many many beautiful portraits taken with the 135, so many that I feel foolish for not having one in my kit.

I guess I will simply have to rent a 135 and find a pretty subject (did I mention anything about patience?) to do some extensive comparison shots with to get my own results with my own equipment (so to speak)

When that happens, I'll put the results here to show everyone what I've found.

In the meantime, I'm supposed to be going out tomorrow to get some portraits of a nice young lady (whose patience has not been questioned) using my (relatively) new 1DsMkII and the 100mm f/2.8 L IS.

Hope she shows, as tomorrow is supposed to be an awesome day!


As an aside to my own post here, does anyone else notice the older stylce in the 135 chart that is missing, or seems to be, the 30mm line sets? Hmmmmm......

wannabegood wrote in post #14283670
This must be one of those places that the figures bely the results. The MTF charts from Canon do not indicate the 135 to be sharper than the 100L.

100L is sharper @ f2.8 because it's a macro lens after all. However 135L is faster (f2 vs f2.8) and since it is 35mm longer, it renders smoother and creamier bokeh.

Also 135L focuses significantly quicker than the 100L. I have both (well just sold the 135L) and 135L is definitely a better lens for portrait.

Hahaha, I've always heard the proof is in the pudding....you sold the 135 but kept the 100? It would seem to me that faster focus is not really an issue with Portraits, as they're posed for the shot the majority of the time. But yes, I've seen some fantastic shots with the 135 and that proof is hard to argue.

The 100L is not that bad at focusing as long as your not going from macro to infinity.

This was shot with a 5D2 with them running toward me.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49877689@N04/5​677576447/