Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

When I see the 135L images it makes me wonder if I even see these colors and sharpness in real life. Try and figure that one out.

lankforddl wrote in post #10538587
When I see the 135L images it makes me wonder if I even see these colors and sharpness in real life. Try and figure that one out.

Yeah, you are right.

hawking_0103 wrote in post #10535690
Squirrel model

I'll see your squirrel and raise you a chipmunk

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

AHHH! Adorable.

bahhh..... so I dont really find myself doing a lot of macro work like I thought I would. And even when I do I find my 35L allows me to get in pretty damn close to get macro like shots.

I think I am going to come back to the ever so loved 135L and give up my 100L for it. Even though I am seriously going to miss the IS on the 100L (which is why i got it to begin with). I cant justify having both... So the 135L makes more sense. For some reason though I cant get myself to make the FS or FT add for my 100L

I will say after having both lenses, the 135L has the better AF in terms of accuracy and speed IMHO.

Exactly why I sold my 100 macro a while back. Thought it would be fun to try and I knew the 100 made a good portrait lens as well but I never really took to chasing small things so the 100 went away.

(This was the non L version...)

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10539831
Exactly why I sold my 100 macro a while back. Thought it would be fun to try and I knew the 100 made a good portrait lens as well but I never really took to chasing small things so the 100 went away.

(This was the non L version...)

yah it makes sense though. If your not really doing a lot of macro stuff with a macro lens then why keep it or have it. In my case, however, I bought it because of the IS. Which make no mistake has been awesome on this lens. I can hand hold this lens to 1/10 without any blur. I cant say the same for the 135L. My safest I felt shooting with the 135L was 1/60 hand held.

I think im super confused right now, lol. I bought the 100L over my 135L because I wanted a lens that didnt make me push the ISO up and allow slower shutter speed shots in low-light conditions. But now that I have that I find I dont really find myself in those conditions with 100mm lens to begin with. I mean I dont know about you folks, but, anything over 85mm is pretty much outside territory for me unless your inside a large interior space or looking for tight framed shots.


Bah.... I dunno what to do. I hate deciding between lenses!

Both lenses have there pros and cons in my eyes.

JayStar86 wrote in post #10539848
yah it makes sense though. If your not really doing a lot of macro stuff with a macro lens then why keep it or have it. In my case, however, I bought it because of the IS. Which make no mistake has been awesome on this lens. I can hand hold this lens to 1/10 without any blur. I cant say the same for the 135L. My safest I felt shooting with the 135L was 1/60 hand held.

I think im super confused right now, lol. I bought the 100L over my 135L because I wanted a lens that didnt make me push the ISO up and allow slower shutter speed shots in low-light conditions. But now that I have that I find I dont really find myself in those conditions with 100mm lens to begin with. I mean I dont know about you folks, but, anything over 85mm is pretty much outside territory for me unless your inside a large interior space or looking for tight framed shots.


Bah.... I dunno what to do. I hate deciding between lenses!

Both lenses have there pros and cons in my eyes.

Just keep the 100L and buy the 135L when you can afford too, then your only problem is what one do I take with me today.....

bridge99 wrote in post #10539859
Just keep the 100L and buy the 135L when you can afford too, then your only problem is what one do I take with me today.....

just so im not the only one that thinks this, but, do you find the 135L has faster and more accurate AF over the 100L? Also, my eyes are saying that the 100L is sharper than the 135L?

sound about right to you?^^^

Unfortunately in my case I will have to decide between one of the lenses. I have other pressing camera needs in the form of lighting gear that is going to eat up a good chunk of money.

Karizmatik wrote in post #10539750
AHHH! Adorable.

I WANNA EAT IT IT'S SO ADORABLE!!!

Great job matt...

Macro lenses are flat field so they're generally sharper edge to edge which can give the impression that they're sharper overall than other lenses because of the lack of distortion around the edges, etc.

However, that doesn't mean they're absolutely sharper in the center-cut sweet spot.

JayStar86 wrote in post #10539871
just so im not the only one that thinks this, but, do you find the 135L has faster and more accurate AF over the 100L? Also, my eyes are saying that the 100L is sharper than the 135L?

sound about right to you?^^^

yep the 135L AF can be a lot faster but then the 100L is a macro and meant to really be used as a macro its just really good as a portrait lens as well, and I would say the 100 is sharper but it should be, its a macro, thats why you need both

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10539882
Macro lenses are flat field so they're generally sharper edge to edge which can give the impression that they're sharper overall than other lenses because of the lack of distortion around the edges, etc.

However, that doesn't mean they're absolutely sharper in the center-cut sweet spot.

bridge99 wrote in post #10539888
yep the 135L AF can be a lot faster but then the 100L is a macro and meant to really be used as a macro its just really good as a portrait lens as well, and I would say the 100 is sharper but it should be, its a macro, thats why you need both

ok so my observations are accurate between the two lenses. Assuming my only two other lenses are 35L + 85 1.8.... and if you had to decide between the two..... 100L or 135L.... which would it be?

and, how slow a shutter speed are you guys able to use with the 135L without blur hand-held?

JayStar86 wrote in post #10539913
ok so my observations are accurate between the two lenses. Assuming my only two other lenses are 35L + 85 1.8.... and if you had to decide between the two..... 100L or 135L.... which would it be?

Do you want to be able to shoot small things really closely? Get the 100... 100 makes a great portrait lens .. The 135 doesn't do Macro so well.

I'm the world's worst person to ask. I routinely hand hold the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4 down to as low as 1/60 in extreme cases (shooting helicopters) but I suck eggs at hand holding my 135.

I have a hunch it's becuase the 135 has the most mass out at the front element and once it starts to "swing," it's hard to dampen.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10539936
Do you want to be able to shoot small things really closely? Get the 100... 100 makes a great portrait lens .. The 135 doesn't do Macro so well.



I'm the world's worst person to ask. I routinely hand hold the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4 down to as low as 1/60 in extreme cases (shooting helicopters) but I suck eggs at hand holding my 135.

I have a hunch it's becuase the 135 has the most mass out at the front element and once it starts to "swing," it's hard to dampen.

nope.... not planning on shooting small thing really closely. This is going to be a tough one. Not sure If I want to give up my 100L for the 135L or not. Good thing is I have time to decide.