Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 23 Apr 2012 (Monday) 17:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100mm macro or 135 2.0

 
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 25, 2012 03:56 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

Rahul wrote in post #14324807 (external link)
damn im soooo confused!

sell your 70-200f4IS and upgrade to the 2.8II....

135L @ f2 is no better than the mkII @ ~150-200mm f2.8...


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Apr 25, 2012 04:30 |  #17

I wouldn't get the 100L for just one shot ie the ring shot. I would get an extension tube if I had to. Heck if you can manual focus you can use a VERY cheap contact-less extension tube and get the shot just fine.

That leaves you to decide if you are lacking a lens for any other purpose. If I was shooting weddings I would want to do as little lens changes as possible. In fact with the IQ of zooms going the way it is, I would probably shoot with just two lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 II and either the 24-70 Mark II or the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. So they may both be good choices for you. I would keep the 35 and 85 handy for the reception or anytime you really need lower than f/2.8, but I struggle to get both eyes in focus with super wide apertures anyway. I think the 24-70 II/VC and 70-200 II are a match made in heaven for weddings


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rahul
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
551 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 25, 2012 06:09 |  #18

i really love shooting with primes! since i started i've switched from zooms to primes...i just prefer it... maybe if it is just for the ring shot i may get the 135mm as i love the images from there way over the 100mm, but literally was thinking 100mm for the macro on ringshots...but i guess i can just but an extension tube and use that instead!


BLOG (external link)
FACEBOOK (external link)
WEB (external link)
2x5D MKI // 5D MKIII - 24-70 2.8L / 70-200 4.0L IS / 85 1.2L MKII / 16-35 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dsit995
Senior Member
Avatar
527 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Danbury, CT
     
Apr 25, 2012 06:15 |  #19

If you set the focus limit to .5m to infinity the focus speed isn't that bad on the 100L.. But if you don't at least dabble in macro the 135 might be a better choice..... I have the 100L and find it very useful for macro and portrait shots


Canon 5D MkII | T2i | 35L | 24-105 IS L | 70-200L | 100L | 17-40L | 85 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 430EX II
5∞ (external link) | GEAR & FeedBack | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOX ­ 404
Senior Member
Avatar
574 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2006
Location: I'm a nomad
     
Apr 25, 2012 20:06 |  #20

I own 85L, 100L, 135L. Of all three, I mostly use 100L for macro and 85L for portrait. My 135L is sitting in the dry box; and I almost never use it. In my opinion, 135L is too long for portrait shot, unless if you take head shots.

If you mainly shoot weddings, perhaps you may want to think upgrading your 70-200 f/4 to f/2.8 II, rather than getting a prime lens which IMO is troublesome, you have to change lenses during the wedding ceremony, walk front/ back to get the right distance, etc. etc...


AJ
1 x Canon 5DSR | 2 x Canon 5D2 | 8-15L | 16-35L | 17-40L (dead) | 50L | 85L | 100L | 135L | 180L | 70-200 2.8L IS
Aquatica UW Housing | INON Z240 | Ikelite DS-161 | Sola 600 | 2 x Sola 2000
My Flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Apr 25, 2012 20:13 |  #21

Yep, my vote is for the 70-200 II. It even includes the 135mm at f2.8 and above.

Why do you prefer primes? Have you used the 70-200 Mark II? It has better IQ than most primes and it's 1 stop behind the 135mm.


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 25, 2012 20:22 |  #22

24-70 and 70-200 both work quite well with macro extension tubes. I'd recommend the Kenko tubeset for best value and quality. Sells for about $180 US.

Then you might have enough budget remaining to get the 135mm... It's a wonderful portrait lens, for those tight shots or standing farther off for more candid shots. It also can be used effectively with macro extension tubes, but takes a lot to get a significant degree of magnification.

Sure, 70-200/2.8 IS II is a wonderful lens, too. It had better be, since it's an additional $1000. But it also ain't f2.0. Sometimes that can make a difference.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLvision
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,766 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Western pot hole city, Massachusetts
     
Apr 25, 2012 20:25 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

Rahul wrote in post #14324807 (external link)
damn im soooo confused! i mainly shoot weddings...and at the moment im using 35mm 1.4 * 85 1.2 for portraits, but i love the shots from the 135mm. The only shot i don't really get without cropping in tight is the ring shot! which i've seen with the 100mm lens and i love!!

i really dont know what to do .. i could use the 24-70 cos that gets in quite close for a ring shot and buy the 135...but also with the 85 i just need to take a few steps closer too!!! arrghhh!!! or as gohokiesgo suggested is to buy a macro extension tube.

confused.com

LOL!
Here’s what I would suggest. Ditch your 70-200 f4 and pass on the 100mm/135L and get the 70-200 IS II. BEST 70-200 out there, especially for weddings! I use this lens 80% of the time at weddings. It’s just that great.


Ilya | Gear | flickr (external link) D800| 14-300mm f/1.4GL ED VR III USWM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rahul
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
551 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 26, 2012 04:46 |  #24

i prefer primes, cos i feel it makes me a better photographer, and with composition etc, i just feel better using primes! the 70-200 f4 i have, i don't use, infact i think my cousin has it and is using it!

plus 70-200 is a great lens, but its too big and heavy for my liking and when i borrow my friends, i always use a monopod with it. plus the 70-200 is way out of my budget! if i had that much i would be another mkiii body!

im swaying more toward the 135 i guess, i can stick an extension tube on it, plus i just love all the shots that are taken with this lens, probably use 135 for weddings and then the 85 for receptions.


BLOG (external link)
FACEBOOK (external link)
WEB (external link)
2x5D MKI // 5D MKIII - 24-70 2.8L / 70-200 4.0L IS / 85 1.2L MKII / 16-35 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 26, 2012 04:57 |  #25
bannedPermanent ban

Good luck with your decision.....

I'm one of those guys who recently sold the 135L for the mkII. I just dun think the 135L is practical especially for wedding. Doing wedding is to please your client, not self obsession with primes. Do you really think your client can tell the difference between a shot from a 135L to the mkII? You are just going to miss a lot of shots imo with the prime....

Like others have said, the mkII is better or at least as good as the 135L with the added versatility. Just sell the f4 IS and get the mkII, you won't be disappointed ;)


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rahul
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
551 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 26, 2012 05:25 |  #26

thats true, i know my client won't know the difference, but the mkii is out of my reach, maybe i'll put my f4 for sale too and see what i can get.

i just find the 70-200 2.8 too big of a lens though.


BLOG (external link)
FACEBOOK (external link)
WEB (external link)
2x5D MKI // 5D MKIII - 24-70 2.8L / 70-200 4.0L IS / 85 1.2L MKII / 16-35 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLvision
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,766 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Western pot hole city, Massachusetts
     
Apr 26, 2012 10:40 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

kin2son wrote in post #14331352 (external link)
Good luck with your decision.....

I'm one of those guys who recently sold the 135L for the mkII. I just dun think the 135L is practical especially for wedding. Doing wedding is to please your client, not self obsession with primes. Do you really think your client can tell the difference between a shot from a 135L to the mkII? You are just going to miss a lot of shots imo with the prime....

Like others have said, the mkII is better or at least as good as the 135L with the added versatility. Just sell the f4 IS and get the mkII, you won't be disappointed ;)

This^^!! Plus, you don’t want to struggle with your settings and then having to do some PP work using noise reduction because your 135L didn’t have IS. But when shooting the 70-200 IS II, you don’t have to worry about anything when shooting at 2.8 (already sharp) and having IS turned on.


Ilya | Gear | flickr (external link) D800| 14-300mm f/1.4GL ED VR III USWM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Apr 26, 2012 11:03 |  #28

Rahul wrote in post #14331335 (external link)
plus 70-200 is a great lens, but its too big and heavy for my liking and when i borrow my friends, i always use a monopod with it. plus the 70-200 is way out of my budget! if i had that much i would be another mkiii body!

im swaying more toward the 135 i guess, i can stick an extension tube on it, plus i just love all the shots that are taken with this lens, probably use 135 for weddings and then the 85 for receptions.

Everyone has made good points, but this is a legitimate reason- if you have trouble with the size and weight. I wouldn't like you to get it and never use it because of its weight. However, you do get used to heavier lenses. The muscles needed in your arms develop quickly. Seriously they do! I would think the weight and hassle of carrying the 135 and another 1 or 2 primes around would quickly add up to the weight of the 70-200.

Do you use something for the long end now? 200mm prime?

If the 70-200 is definitely out of the question, the 135 is a better choice than the 100 IMO. But I'd give the Mark II some more thought especially if I was doing weddings! In fact if I was doing weddings it would be no question, I would be using the 70-200.


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

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

3,102 views & 0 likes for this thread
100mm macro or 135 2.0
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kubo456
810 guests, 188 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.