Canons 135 2.0 L versus 100 Macro 2.8 L?

Can anyone offer a comparison? Particularly for portraits? I have a feeling that the 135 just edges in quality, but the 100 sure gets amazing reviews -- and it's a two-fer.

For portraits, both would be exceptionally good if you can nail the pinpoint focus in the eyes. I have been using both for portrait for quite sometimes and the critical sharpness hit rates with 100L is much much better than the 135L, probably thanks to the IS.
I also found that 100mm focal lengh is a bit more versatile than 135mm.

I own both but can't compare. Not until Christmas when my father actually lets me use the 100L he got me

Can't wait to see how it perform. I absolutely love the 135 for portraits.

I have both and will say that the 135 is sharp wide open while the 100 is not as sharp at f2.8 for portraits. the 135 bokeh can't be touched.

TheRedfishCo wrote in post #15331087
I have both and will say that the 135 is sharp wide open while the 100 is not as sharp at f2.8 for portraits. the 135 bokeh can't be touched.

I agree with the above. I have them both and the 100 L is great, but the 135 is simply outstanding.

I went through this a few months back and ended up with the 100L because of the IS. It's a great lens but I still lust for the 135L.

Are you planning on doing any macro work? If not,, check out the EF 100mm f/2.

I'm using the 100L mostly for portraits and the images are quite amazing. AF is great and the keep rate is quite high on a 5dii after +6 MA. Also, for tight head shots I think 2.8 is actually on the limit of DOF, so I wouldn't use f/2 for these. Half body shots is another story though.

Very interesting feedback. I started by wrestling between the 70-200 2.8 V 135 2.0 -- and now the 100 L is a new wrench thrown in! I am interested in macro to some degree (I love botanicals), so that made it more tempting (and the cheaper price.) Much to ponder . . .

Kristin, as superb as the bokeh is with the 135 there's something about having IS that makes up for it. Now if you're a tripod user or even monopod then maybe that's not such a big deal. But the 100L will get shots, clear shots, that are just very difficult to get with the 135.

I rented the 135 for a wedding and used it a lot. Had a lot of misses. I can chalk a good bit of that up to the learning curve that the 135 at f2 requires, but I still gravitate to the 100L and it's ultra closeup abilities. Maybe one day I'll have to choose between them on a regular basis, but for now I'm enjoying the Hybrid IS on the 100L Macro.

TheRedfishCo wrote in post #15331087
...the 135 bokeh can't be touched.

The 200 1.8 can touch it.

Seriously, the 135 is a great lens.

I think maybe some of you had issues with focus on the 135L because it's minimum focusing distance is much longer than the 100L's, which obviously, being a macro lens, focuses much, much closer. The 135L is ridiculously accurate and snappy at focusing. With proper technique and at the appropriate distance, the 135L would be my hands down choice for portraits vs. the 100L. But if you need the 'versatility' of a macro lens, then the choice is obvious.

I loved the 135, but just sold it and replaced it with the 100L because I needed macro. I haven't had a chance to do many portraits yet. If it is 90% as good as the 135 was, I will be happy.

wannabegood wrote in post #15332218
Kristin, as superb as the bokeh is with the 135 there's something about having IS that makes up for it. Now if you're a tripod user or even monopod then maybe that's not such a big deal. But the 100L will get shots, clear shots, that are just very difficult to get with the 135.

I rented the 135 for a wedding and used it a lot. Had a lot of misses. I can chalk a good bit of that up to the learning curve that the 135 at f2 requires, but I still gravitate to the 100L and it's ultra closeup abilities. Maybe one day I'll have to choose between them on a regular basis, but for now I'm enjoying the Hybrid IS on the 100L Macro.

Great point about IS -- and, no, I almost never use a tripod. Thanks for the feedback.

wannabegood wrote in post #15332218
Kristin, as superb as the bokeh is with the 135 there's something about having IS that makes up for it. Now if you're a tripod user or even monopod then maybe that's not such a big deal. But the 100L will get shots, clear shots, that are just very difficult to get with the 135.

I rented the 135 for a wedding and used it a lot. Had a lot of misses. I can chalk a good bit of that up to the learning curve that the 135 at f2 requires, but I still gravitate to the 100L and it's ultra closeup abilities. Maybe one day I'll have to choose between them on a regular basis, but for now I'm enjoying the Hybrid IS on the 100L Macro.

That's exactly the point. I hardly ever missed with my 100LIS but I missed a whole lot with 135L. I just shoot the other day here when there was a first snow in the region, I chose 135L for the session. Not a wise decision when the outside is cold. About 1/3 of the pics are usable but only about 1/10 got the critical sharpness I demanded.