Canons 135 2.0 L versus 100 Macro 2.8 L?

Does this all mean that the 100 2.8 L really outshines its non-L counter-part? BOTH get 5 stars on Amazon! Wow.

Optically, there isn't a lot of difference between the 100/2.8 Macro USM and the 100/2.8L IS. The differences between the two are mostly functional... and price.

If you need top quality macro, either will do fine. IS gives a little bit of assistance at higher magnification, but not a great deal. IMO, it mainly makes the L more dual purpose, a bit more useful for non-macro purposes, especially if using a crop sensor camera. But I tend to use a tripod or at least a monopod most of the time for macro shooting anyway, so the lens without IS works well for me (and is half the price). Both lenses can be fitted with tripod mounting rings, both have focus limiters thought the L's is more sophisticated, both are top quality build and have USM focus, which helps but they still aren't as fast focusing as non-macro lenses.

If your main purpose is portraiture, I'd choose the 135/2 (or the 100/2). An extra stop of speed can be the difference between getting the shot or not. Focus is faster than the macro lenses, which might not matter for posed portraits, but can make a difference if shooting candids.

I am just not a big fan of macro lenses for portraiture... They can produce too sharp, too "scientific" or too "cllinical" an image. It's hard to explain, but IMO portrait lens gives a more "painterly" or "artisitic" or "lyrical" result. Ultimate sharpness isn't necessarily a good thing in a portrait lens. Not every portrait subject is an 18 year old model with a $200 an hour make-up artist to prep them for their portrait session. So for portraiture, I prefer a portrait lens over a macro lens a lot of the time... expecially for female subjects.

The 135/2 is a fairly long portrait lens for a crop camera, but one of the "ideal" focal lengths for portraiture with a full frame camera. I had used some superb 135s in other camera systems years ago when shooting film (i.e., "full frame"). After switching to digital crop cameras in 2004, I didn't even own a 135 for a number of years. But the day I ordered my 5DII, I also ordered a 135/2 because I knew I'd want it.