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

I'm not sure how you'd compare the two, but for portraits where I'm not struggling for light, the 135 would be my go-to. Bokeh is awesome. I think I agree with everyone here.

If I want to shoot at 1/60-1/100s and thus need IS, then the 100L is nice for sure, but I don't see why it would be better then the 70-200 except perhaps weight.

BTW you can fix purple fringing in gimp with a plugin (both free) if you don't have LR.

OK it's clear, I keep my 135L (even on top of my 70-200 2.8L II)

I think i'll replace my 85 1.8 then with 100 2.8 macro, this one I can use for portraits + macrowork, it's not so much longer than 85 1.8 and not so much more expensive either.

135L. Amen.

135L. No contest.

Owned all 3 lens and still own two of them. 70-200 II, 135L, and 100L. The truth is you can't go wrong with either one. They all have their pros and cons and that's the way Canon wants it.

if you have the room .. rack it out to 200mm .. and if you don't have the room, work it down to your desired FL either 135, 100, 85, it will all produce ass kicking portraits

IMO, 100L cannot replace 135L and that is why I need to carry both of these lenses when I go out for photography.
For portraits I will chose 135L.

best regards......

SaS photography wrote in post #15134689
IMO, 100L cannot replace 135L and that is why I need to carry both of these lenses when I go out for photography.
For portraits I will chose 135L.

best regards......

I have two months old baby. Once she is awake, she does't like flash at all.
Nor she likes to have camera close to her. So, my 90 2.8 makes nice portraits, but I have to keep it at 1/100. With 135mm I would have to keep it the same at F2. But it is not always enough to get right exposure without flash and DoF might be too shallow.
So, my only option is 100L because of IS.

135L.

I bought the 135L and sold it for 7-200m2. Now I'm getting the 135 again. I was also contemplating the 100L but I don't shoot macro much plus I have kenko tubes. 135 just so magical. I missed its bokeh. I read it screams on 5dmk3 so I can't wait to try again.

kf095 wrote in post #15135610
I have two months old baby. Once she is awake, she does't like flash at all.
Nor she likes to have camera close to her. So, my 90 2.8 makes nice portraits, but I have to keep it at 1/100. With 135mm I would have to keep it the same at F2. But it is not always enough to get right exposure without flash and DoF might be too shallow.
So, my only option is 100L because of IS.

f/2.8 is relatively slow - having a faster lens will minimise the need to use flash and keep ISO as low as possible. IS will not help you get sharp images with a fidgeting kid - its a faster exposure that you are after and again without flash a faster lens is preferable.

see the size of the filter for the 2 lenses and you will know
100L 67
135L 72
and look at the size of the lens glass from the front
the 135L is a great lens

I guess you've already made up your mind, but I have both of these fine lenses and have done many comparison shots. The 100 L does a fine job, but the 135 L is just plain amazing. If you only have the budget for one and are interested in macro photography, you can't go wrong with the 100 L. If macro isn't your thing and you just want to do outdoor portraits, the 135 is the clear winner IMO.

I have and love both these lenses, but I would say the 135L if you have enough space for that long of a lens. The 100 is quite beautiful and for me is more of a good "all purpose" lens, but the AF is slower on the macro. I enjoy having IS, but it really only comes a big difference in low light and I don't "need" IS as much as I thought I would.

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 ?

Both rock!