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 03 Jul 2012 (Tuesday) 20:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

135 f/2L USM vs 100 f/2.8L macro IS USM

 
Skaperen
Member
232 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Wheeling, WV, USA
     
Jul 03, 2012 20:46 |  #1

If there was such a thing as 135 f/2L IS USM I'd be on it already. I've found IS does help for those carry around shots. This is why I'm tempted to go with the 100 f/2.8L macro IS USM instead. But I'd rather have 135 and f/2 if it could be had with IS. Is it worth waiting if I can only get one? FYI, it would be for a 7D now. I'll get the 5DM3 later.


7D, 450D, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 60/2.8 macro
Wish List: 5DsR, 16-35/2.8L,100/2.8L macro, 135/2L, LC-E6E

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hanjolee
Member
178 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jul 03, 2012 21:11 |  #2

I guess it depends on what you shoot.
I have 100L and no regrets so far.
IS does help, but it is a Macro lens so AF tends to hunt a little.
AF on 135L will be quicker than 100L
100L is generally a good portrait lens but I think 135L is better when it comes to portrait.
I like to shoot flowers and close-up photos so I got 100L but also satisfied with portrait use as well.


Sony A7
FE 55mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
Senior Member
Avatar
978 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 03, 2012 21:28 |  #3

I have both and on a 7D I would be very tempted with the 100mm 2.8L since its effective FL is 160mm which is getting a little long for portraits. IMO. On FF i love the 135L and will some time use my 70-200 if I need a little longer reach but for me portraits at 200mm are the ones I take when the target is not aware they are the subject. I prefer the 135L when I want to work with the subject on FF. it's been a few months since I had my 7D but on that I mostly used the 100L. The IS is always nice to have.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 03, 2012 22:37 as a reply to  @ swldstn's post |  #4

I have a 100 non-L and the 135L, they are both great lenses. They are both sharp and have great IQ.

If you want the IS get the 100L. If you want a great portrait lens get the 135. If you want to do macro work, it is a no brainer. Both will do general photography.

If I had neither (my 100 nor 135L) and could get only one of the lenses mentioned, I'd get the 100L. For its versatility - it can do most of what the 135L can plus macro and has IS with only a loss of one stop. Yes, I understand that one huge stop is what helps make the 135 so magical. But I'd still get the 100L. (Actually I'd eventually get both, but the 100L first.)


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jul 03, 2012 22:50 |  #5

I've had the 100/2.8 Macro non-IS for years and use it on both crop and FF cameras. I like it a lot. Don't really need IS on a macro lens, since I'm usually using it with some support anyway, and it's not good for much more than a stop of assistance at higher magnifications.

I didn't get the 135/2 until I bought my 5DII.... then I got it at the same time because I knew I'd want it.

Someone posted here a while back, put it into better words than me, that the macro lens is wonderful, sharp as a tack (either of the 100mm, take your pick)... but is sort of "scientific" in it's image rendition. It's never been my favorite for portraits and that's probably why. The same poster described the 135mm as a more "artistic/painterly" lens. I have to agree and love it for portraits and some other applications.

In other words, the 100mm macro(s) and 135mm have very different image rendition and character. So, I use both and plan to keep on doing so.

Yes, it would be nice to have IS on the 135/2.... but it also would add $300 or $400 to the cost, and I don't really have trouble handholding it. I have 70-200/2.8 IS, for those times i need IS, anyway.


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
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 03, 2012 22:52 |  #6

The close focus of the 100L is the main reason I chose it over the 135L - and the added bonus of an incredible IS system.

135L looks nicer with it's f2 separation and smoother blur, 100L focusses closer and has IS. 100L still does excellent blur mind you, if not as "artistic" looking as the 135L. 100L is incredibly sharp corner to corner at all apertures, and the 135L looks pretty darn sharp also.

You have to weight up what you will get more use out of - the f2 separation and (marginally but definitely nicer) background blur vs close focussing and IS. I wanted the latter personally.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davomate
Member
114 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 04, 2012 01:49 as a reply to  @ kobeson's post |  #7

I have the 100 f/2.8L macro and have borrowed the 135 f/2L. Image quality of both is excellent. The 100L is more useful as a general purpose prime because of its IS, plus its use for macro. I also found the 135L to be a bit long on a crop camera. Around that focal length a 70-200 is a lot more flexible, as long as you don't mind using a big white lens. The 135 is a discreet black, and the extra stop makes it a well regarded indoor sports lens.


Canon 7D / 10-22 / 17-55 / 70-200 f2.8L IS II / 100-400L / 100L Macro / Σ 30 f1.4 A / Σ 85 f1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 04, 2012 02:00 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

used to own both, use the 135L a lot more than the 100L. replaced the 135L with 70-200II and kept the 100L.

You didn't specify what you shoot...


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
little ­ canon
Senior Member
Avatar
279 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 35
Joined May 2011
Location: Woodland Park, CO
     
Jul 05, 2012 12:38 |  #9

I have both and use them both on a 7D and FF. I love them both, but I find myself picking up the 100 more because of IS and versatility. But when I need fast AF, I choose the 135. You really can't go wrong with either lens.
I would love to see a updated 135 with IS as long as it wouldn't slow the AF down. The 135 in low light can be tricky if you need a smaller f-shop for larger DOF.


I want lenses more than diamonds.
5DmkIII x2 | Canon: 100-400LmkII, 135mm 2.0L, 100mm 2.8L, 24-70LmkII | Zeiss: 100mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Warlock
Senior Member
Avatar
505 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2011
Location: Stavanger, Norway
     
Jul 05, 2012 14:21 |  #10

little canon wrote in post #14674122 (external link)
I have both and use them both on a 7D and FF. I love them both, but I find myself picking up the 100 more because of IS and versatility. But when I need fast AF, I choose the 135. You really can't go wrong with either lens.
I would love to see a updated 135 with IS as long as it wouldn't slow the AF down. The 135 in low light can be tricky if you need a smaller f-shop for larger DOF.

Looking to get the 135L myself, but the 100L stays.Because of this,

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8427/7509523340_4fb13193d9_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/the_warlock/7​509523340/  (external link) Hello, Butterfly (external link) by VassøyPhotoClub-Vidar (external link), on Flickr"]
(DUPLICATE IMAGE)
 (external link) Hello, Butterfly (external link) by VassøyPhotoClub-Vidar, on Flickr (external link)

I see you have both the zeiss 100 and the 100L, which gets most loved?
I think both the 100L and 135l has its place in a collection, choosing one, id take the 100L, very good IS on it.

Canon 60D, Canon 1100D , 17-40 4L , 24mm 1.4L II,Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 ZE,50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 IS L, 50mm 1.8II, 18-55 III, 430 exII,TT Retrospective 20, Lightroom 4.
Set a pen to a dream, and the colour drains from it.
R.H. Barlow and H.P. Lovecraft
"The Night Ocean"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
little ­ canon
Senior Member
Avatar
279 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 35
Joined May 2011
Location: Woodland Park, CO
     
Jul 05, 2012 17:32 |  #11

The Warlock wrote in post #14674584 (external link)
I see you have both the zeiss 100 and the 100L, which gets most loved?


Just like loving both the 100L and the 135L- I have a love for both my 100s. I know some people might think I am crazy for having two 100mm lenses, I use them both. They are so different, the colors each produce are different (although I like them both), the "look" of each is different. The macro ability is different (The zeiss is only 1:2 vs the canon 1:1 ratio). They both get used about the same. They are both my most used lenses. I use the canon more when I am lazy or tired. But the zeiss is something special. Both lenses will stay in my bag as I can't imagine parting with either of them. But when people as me if I could only have one... I usually pick the zeiss.


I want lenses more than diamonds.
5DmkIII x2 | Canon: 100-400LmkII, 135mm 2.0L, 100mm 2.8L, 24-70LmkII | Zeiss: 100mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
little ­ canon
Senior Member
Avatar
279 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 35
Joined May 2011
Location: Woodland Park, CO
     
Jul 05, 2012 17:34 |  #12

Nice shot by the way! I think bugs must be scared of me because they never let me get that close. I keep trying though.


I want lenses more than diamonds.
5DmkIII x2 | Canon: 100-400LmkII, 135mm 2.0L, 100mm 2.8L, 24-70LmkII | Zeiss: 100mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Warlock
Senior Member
Avatar
505 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2011
Location: Stavanger, Norway
     
Jul 05, 2012 18:17 as a reply to  @ little canon's post |  #13

Have seen many amazing shots with the Zeiss 100mm around here, and i do see the differance, would love too have the Zeiss. And Thanks :-)


Canon 60D, Canon 1100D , 17-40 4L , 24mm 1.4L II,Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 ZE,50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 IS L, 50mm 1.8II, 18-55 III, 430 exII,TT Retrospective 20, Lightroom 4.
Set a pen to a dream, and the colour drains from it.
R.H. Barlow and H.P. Lovecraft
"The Night Ocean"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Skaperen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
232 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Wheeling, WV, USA
     
Jul 07, 2012 23:20 as a reply to  @ The Warlock's post |  #14

I'm leaning to the 100 to start with, and get the 135 later. Maybe there will be a 135 IS before then. Or maybe not. While I am interested in macro, I can do some things with an extended reversed setup using 20mm, 35mm, and 55mm Nikkor lenses I have leftover from film days in the 1980's ... since I got an adapter. One of the things I'm interested in doing with the 135 is gigapixel panoramas. The 100 would still be fine, too.


7D, 450D, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 60/2.8 macro
Wish List: 5DsR, 16-35/2.8L,100/2.8L macro, 135/2L, LC-E6E

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

3,232 views & 0 likes for this thread
135 f/2L USM vs 100 f/2.8L macro IS USM
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 clippingxpertindia
844 guests, 209 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.