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 13 Dec 2013 (Friday) 10:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

135/2L vs the 100/2.8 Macro (non-L) on FF

 
MEJazz
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Austin TX
     
Dec 13, 2013 10:29 |  #1

So i got the 100/2.8 Macro non-L USM lens and it is used not only for macros but also as a portrait lens. Its fantastic on my 6D where 2.8 is not as limiting.

I am tempted by 135/2L but at the same time i am wondering if the portraits from it are going to be THAT much better compared to 100/2.8M? I have read several threads on 135/2L vs 100/2.8L IS but nothing that compares 135/2L to the older/cheaper 100/2.8 non-IS USM.

Looking from purely IQ prespective, any thoughts from people who own/used both?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Down_Shift
Goldmember
1,314 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2006
     
Dec 13, 2013 10:37 |  #2

I've had the 100 Macro and sold it for the 135L.

IQ, they're both sharp enough for portraits (i honestly didn't pixel peep much of the 100mm). but the 135 just has more to offer on top of that sharpness...- color and bokeh.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MEJazz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Austin TX
     
Dec 13, 2013 10:57 |  #3

Can't sell the 100M - need the macro. Plus i had the 85/1.8 and loved its look/bokeh BUT felt the MFD of 3 ft was limiting for indoor portraits of kids (in the living room etc). With 100M, i can take a shot of person sitting next to me on the sofa without moving back. Granted it resulted in tight crop of face but that has its own interesting look. 100 is also a good compromise between 85 and 135 FL.

So if you have to keep 100M, would you still buy the 135L/2 - it has to make that much more impact compared to 100M as money does matter.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Dec 13, 2013 11:33 |  #4

I loved the image quality of the 135 when I rented it. Its a weird focal length for me though, so it would take longer than a weekend of usage to get used to the focal length.


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Dec 13, 2013 11:47 |  #5

If it's a choice of one lens or the other....

...If macro is a high priority, stick with the 100/2.8.

...If you do a little macro and a lot of portraits, you might consider getting the 135L and a set of macro extension tubes.

I use both.

To me, 100 macro portraits are a bit "clinical" looking. Most portraits don't need (or want) the extreme detail and crispness that the macro lens can deliver. It's a great macro lens, though, on either crop or FF cameras.

Wide open the 135L has a more dreamy look... something the macro lens really can't do at typical portrait distances and that's nice for some types of portraits. Stopped down, the 135L is very sharp, tho perhaps not quite as sharp as the 100mm macro. The 135L is also faster focusing than the macro. So it would be a better choice if you shoot from the hip a lot or do some sports/action work.

However, if the 85mm was too long for some of your work, then the 135mm is going to be just that much worse. (MFD can be improved by adding a short macro extension tube, BTW. I'd suggest you get a set.)


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
LeeRatters
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,005 posts
Likes: 2955
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Dec 13, 2013 11:59 |  #6

I have both. The 135L is used much more than the 100mm macro but then again I'm not really a macro shooter. I also had your same issue with the MFD of the 85mm & so I sold the 85mm [plus Sigma 70-200/2.8] to buy the 135L. As has been said, I don't think framing & sharpness will be much different between them.


>> Flickr << (external link)


>> Instagram<< (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MEJazz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Austin TX
     
Dec 13, 2013 12:14 |  #7

Good suggestion regarding the macro tube purely to cut down the MFD. 85 was not too long on my 6D, its the MFD i had problem with. That and also cause it was too close to 100mm in FL.

But then if i am throwing macro tubes on the 135; is it really worth it over just keeping the 100 Macro? Yeah i realized the portraits from 100 are less "dreamy" than the 135 but that look will be a $900 additional expense.Then there is lightroom to soften the "clinically sharp" photos from 100...


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Dec 13, 2013 14:55 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

For portrait use you can't beat the 135L.

100 macro doesn't come close. You simply need to decide your priority.


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
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,809 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1142
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Dec 13, 2013 16:49 |  #9

kin2son wrote in post #16524983 (external link)
For portrait use you can't beat the 135L.

100 macro doesn't come close. You simply need to decide your priority.

Why?

I have both.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Dec 14, 2013 06:08 |  #10

i dont know why i like the 100 f/2.8 macro lens non IS
i bought this lens three times
i sold my 100 f/2.8L IS twice
and i sold my 135L
but i will never go back to them
i think i will choose the 100 non IS
i like this lens because all my lenses had a 58 filter size :)


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Dec 14, 2013 07:02 |  #11

I have both versions of the 100mm 2.8, the 135mm f2, and I also have the 100mm f2. The best portrait lens of these is the 135mm f2 (of course). Next comes the 100mm f2, and third would be the 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. That said, the 2.8 macro is still a nice portrait lens. The best bargain here for portraits may be the 100mm f2, but if you go for one of the 2.8s, you then have a nice macro lens as well. Also, there is no difference in image quality between the IS and non IS versions of the 100mm 2.8 lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,159 posts
Gallery: 1633 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10247
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Dec 14, 2013 08:17 |  #12

Heya,

Do you do enough portraits to justify a $1000 lens compared to the 100mm f2.8? Really?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrackjr
Senior Member
481 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Georgia, USA
     
Dec 14, 2013 08:40 |  #13

Malveaux, it's just a matter of how much disposable income each of us have. No need for justification if you have the money. Plus, if your new lens doesn't work out you have the option of selling it (rather than sitting on the shelf collecting dust).


Jim
Gear List

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

1,396 views & 0 likes for this thread
135/2L vs the 100/2.8 Macro (non-L) on FF
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 Ellie.outram2002
950 guests, 235 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.