135/2L vs the 100/2.8 Macro (non-L) on FF

So i got the 100/2.8 Macro non-L USM lens and it is used not only for macros but also as a portrait lens. Its fantastic on my 6D where 2.8 is not as limiting.

I am tempted by 135/2L but at the same time i am wondering if the portraits from it are going to be THAT much better compared to 100/2.8M? I have read several threads on 135/2L vs 100/2.8L IS but nothing that compares 135/2L to the older/cheaper 100/2.8 non-IS USM.

Looking from purely IQ prespective, any thoughts from people who own/used both?

I've had the 100 Macro and sold it for the 135L.

IQ, they're both sharp enough for portraits (i honestly didn't pixel peep much of the 100mm). but the 135 just has more to offer on top of that sharpness...- color and bokeh.

Can't sell the 100M - need the macro. Plus i had the 85/1.8 and loved its look/bokeh BUT felt the MFD of 3 ft was limiting for indoor portraits of kids (in the living room etc). With 100M, i can take a shot of person sitting next to me on the sofa without moving back. Granted it resulted in tight crop of face but that has its own interesting look. 100 is also a good compromise between 85 and 135 FL.

So if you have to keep 100M, would you still buy the 135L/2 - it has to make that much more impact compared to 100M as money does matter.

I loved the image quality of the 135 when I rented it. Its a weird focal length for me though, so it would take longer than a weekend of usage to get used to the focal length.

If it's a choice of one lens or the other....

...If macro is a high priority, stick with the 100/2.8.

...If you do a little macro and a lot of portraits, you might consider getting the 135L and a set of macro extension tubes.

I use both.

To me, 100 macro portraits are a bit "clinical" looking. Most portraits don't need (or want) the extreme detail and crispness that the macro lens can deliver. It's a great macro lens, though, on either crop or FF cameras.

Wide open the 135L has a more dreamy look... something the macro lens really can't do at typical portrait distances and that's nice for some types of portraits. Stopped down, the 135L is very sharp, tho perhaps not quite as sharp as the 100mm macro. The 135L is also faster focusing than the macro. So it would be a better choice if you shoot from the hip a lot or do some sports/action work.

However, if the 85mm was too long for some of your work, then the 135mm is going to be just that much worse. (MFD can be improved by adding a short macro extension tube, BTW. I'd suggest you get a set.)

I have both. The 135L is used much more than the 100mm macro but then again I'm not really a macro shooter. I also had your same issue with the MFD of the 85mm & so I sold the 85mm [plus Sigma 70-200/2.8] to buy the 135L. As has been said, I don't think framing & sharpness will be much different between them.

Good suggestion regarding the macro tube purely to cut down the MFD. 85 was not too long on my 6D, its the MFD i had problem with. That and also cause it was too close to 100mm in FL.

But then if i am throwing macro tubes on the 135; is it really worth it over just keeping the 100 Macro? Yeah i realized the portraits from 100 are less "dreamy" than the 135 but that look will be a $900 additional expense.Then there is lightroom to soften the "clinically sharp" photos from 100...

For portrait use you can't beat the 135L.

100 macro doesn't come close. You simply need to decide your priority.

kin2son wrote in post #16524983
For portrait use you can't beat the 135L.

100 macro doesn't come close. You simply need to decide your priority.

Why?

I have both.

i dont know why i like the 100 f/2.8 macro lens non IS
i bought this lens three times
i sold my 100 f/2.8L IS twice
and i sold my 135L
but i will never go back to them
i think i will choose the 100 non IS
i like this lens because all my lenses had a 58 filter size

I have both versions of the 100mm 2.8, the 135mm f2, and I also have the 100mm f2. The best portrait lens of these is the 135mm f2 (of course). Next comes the 100mm f2, and third would be the 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. That said, the 2.8 macro is still a nice portrait lens. The best bargain here for portraits may be the 100mm f2, but if you go for one of the 2.8s, you then have a nice macro lens as well. Also, there is no difference in image quality between the IS and non IS versions of the 100mm 2.8 lenses.

Heya,

Do you do enough portraits to justify a $1000 lens compared to the 100mm f2.8? Really?

Very best,

Malveaux, it's just a matter of how much disposable income each of us have. No need for justification if you have the money. Plus, if your new lens doesn't work out you have the option of selling it (rather than sitting on the shelf collecting dust).