Canon 135 2L or 100 2.8L MACRO IS for portraits ?

bobbyz wrote in post #15050613
Why on your wish list then? Money to burn.

It's an amazing overall lens, don't get me wrong. But if I was just shooting portraits professionally, I'd rather primes.

ZachOly wrote in post #15051535
It's an amazing overall lens, don't get me wrong. But if I was just shooting portraits professionally, I'd rather primes.

Most professionals I know/seen using 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II over primes.

bobbyz wrote in post #15051562
Most professionals I know/seen using 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II over primes.

If I spent all day every day shooting portraits, even in a studio situation,, I wouldn't use a 70-200mm f/2.8. You'd end up with arms like Arnie.

A 85mm would be perfect.

Just dip up some old post for you, good luck!

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.

yogestee wrote in post #15051874
If I spent all day every day shooting portraits, even in a studio situation,, I wouldn't use a 70-200mm f/2.8. You'd end up with arms like Arnie.

A 85mm would be perfect.

I am small handicapped person and I shoot two football games with two bodies 1dmk2 and 300mm f2.8 IS and 5d with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. Man I just don't know what to say about able bodied folks complaining about little weight.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15050260
Did the 100 2.8L IS Macro replaced the 135 2L actually ?
It's only 1 stop less fast but has hybrid IS.

A macro lens is normally supersharp.
Would the bokeh be +- the same ?

Are there any clear comparison tests between the two on fullframe ?

Don't own either have used both and both are sharp as a tack.... Personally.... I would use the macro if shooting studio portraits and the 135L/85L if outside....

I think I just really want to try a 135. The sample image thread makes it that much more tempting but its very close to the 100L so I have resisted so far.

I had both the 135L and 100L together for a year. Over the course of a year, I like the result from the 135L a lot more. Now I didn't go out and do any test. I just shoot both. The 100L is nice for portrait and work very well but I prefer the 135L results more. Also I like the focusing on the 135L more. It's a lot faster based on my experience. Again no testing comparing so don't ask me to show anything. I sold the 100L few months ago.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15050662
Well I tend to have to much purple fringing at f1.8 like you have with most lenses that are too fast
I think this will be less the case with a 100 2.8, bokeh will be less dreamy then at f1.8, but a slice more advantage cause of 100mm instead of 85mm.

Maybe a dumb question but wouldn't stopping down your 85 to 2.8 reduce the purpke fringing?

There's a slider in Lightroom to fix the purple fringing. Zwuiiiip! disappear!

Well that's the thing, if I need to stop the 85 1.8 to 2.8 to reduce the purple, I can as well buy the 100 2.8L Macro which has no purple at f2.8
+ I have the macro function as an extra (and can sell my Raynox M-250 macro lens). I still have the 35 1.4L if I need faster glass.

StarBlazer wrote in post #15052986
Maybe a dumb question but wouldn't stopping down your 85 to 2.8 reduce the purpke fringing?

pf happens when shooting is backlit or strong light situations. You rarely need wider apertures then. Folks make a big deal of the fringing. Can you show me one of your bad shots where you din't like it due to pf?

Here is an example shot at f2.5. Wish I had at f2.0. Strong backlight but purple fringing isn't bad. It is there if I zoom in at 100% but why care.

135L hands down... one of Canon's best.

I had both of them, 135L is a better lens for portraits, because of the bokeh it produces, but i would rather take 100L macro, simply because it's far more versatile. You will not blur the background so nicely as with the 135, but with the 100L you can shoot everything from full-body to eye close-up.