Serious question, which lens 100 or 135?

In all seriousness, which lens? 100L or 135L if both are the same price? I want to say the 135 but am I missing anything with the 100L?

Edit:
I shoot mainly portraits.

Hi Rivas - what sort of work do you do?

I've never used the 100L but I do own the 135 which is a wonderful lens. The DOF though at f/2 is razor thin and it does take a little getting used to. Is the 100 you're considering the macro? The 135 won't do that without tubes, but from what I've heard they are both fine lenses.

sapearl wrote in post #16603556
Hi Rivas - what sort of work do you do?

I've never used the 100L but I do own the 135 which is a wonderful lens. The DOF though at f/2 is razor thin and it does take a little getting used to. Is the 100 you're considering the macro? The 135 won't do that without tubes, but from what I've heard they are both fine lenses.

Portraits more than anything. And yes the macro.

Portraits?

135L no question.

sapearl wrote in post #16603556
Hi Rivas - what sort of work do you do?

I've never used the 100L but I do own the 135 which is a wonderful lens. The DOF though at f/2 is razor thin and it does take a little getting used to. Is the 100 you're considering the macro? The 135 won't do that without tubes, but from what I've heard they are both fine lenses.

Ditto.

I'll add that I'd consider swapping for the 100L. I might not bring myself to actually relinquishing my very best art lens, but sometimes (even on FF), 135 is a little too long and I'd guess that the 100L is similarly beautiful.

I have the 85 f1.8 and it's also beautiful, but too short (for portraits) on FF.

Macro lenses tend to focus slower so (for portraits) that might be a con.

If you're shooting mainly portraits, then 135L.

The 100L does portraits as well. It also does macro. You get the best of both worlds.

For wedding photography, the macro function might become useful when taking detailed shots of the bride/groom, rings, and so forth.

DID I mention it also has IS?!

You're definitely missing out on it!

135 + extension tubes

I might sell my 100L because I want a 50L soon...

What price would you offer me?

No hood or box. Just lens and f/r caps.

For portrait 135L hands down...

Kanye wrote in post #16603600
The 100L does portraits as well. It also does macro. You get the best of both worlds.

For wedding photography, the macro function might become useful when taking detailed shots of the bride/groom, rings, and so forth.

DID I mention it also has IS?!

You're definitely missing out on it!

You make a good point about the IS on the 100L Kanye - I hadn't thought of that. The 135L is a great art lens as NB mentioned, but you have to hold it rock steady at lower shutter speeds.

I have the 100L and I think it's great, but that is because it fills my needs for macro work. If I were as keen on portraiture instead of macro, I'd certainly have opted for the 135L instead. I think that is what would suit you better.
(I use a 6D.)

sapearl wrote in post #16603670
You make a good point about the IS on the 100L Kanye - I hadn't thought of that. The 135L is a great art lens as NB mentioned, but you have to hold it rock steady at lower shutter speeds.

It's at a bit of a cross-roads though. For portraiture, you probably don't want to go much slower than 1/100 anyway to avoid softening due to subtle subject movement. That's close to the 1/FL rule of thumb for shooting 135 on FF anyway.

I am assuming that the OP would be using the 135 on the 5DII for portraiture; maybe a different story with the APS-C body, where extra enlargement may be needed due to the crop sensor.

xarqi wrote in post #16603686
It's at a bit of a cross-roads though. For portraiture, you probably don't want to go much slower than 1/100 anyway to avoid softening due to subtle subject movement. That's close to the 1/FL rule of thumb for shooting 135 on FF anyway.

I am assuming that the OP would be using the 135 on the 5DII for portraiture; maybe a different story with the APS-C body, where extra enlargement may be needed due to the crop sensor.

Yep, typically shoot 1/125 for people, which would work with the 100L, but I shoot the 135 @ 1/200. 1/FL is just not consistent enough. If I'm hurting due to high ISO's then I'll double or triple snap 1/125.....

rivas8409 wrote in post #16603546
In all seriousness, which lens? 100L or 135L if both are the same price? I want to say the 135 but am I missing anything with the 100L?

Edit:
I shoot mainly portraits.

Heya,

Look at the lens archive, or look for a Flickr page (search it) dedicated to the lens. Specify portraits in the search. See examples of portraits done on each lens at their maximum apertures. Go for the one that looks like your style.

The 135 has 8/10 (groups/elements), the 100 has 12/15 (groups/elements). This effects bokeh and affects certain looks when stopped down from wide open (such as a blurred circle of light going from a circle haze to an octagon, etc). Amongst other things.

It's best to just look at example photos though.

The 100L has a lot of very nice features and is the more versatile lens with it's length, macro ability, IS, etc.

The 135L has it's own character.

Again, you be the judge, look at example photos by each lens.

Very best,