100 f/2 on 1d mkiii vs 135 f/2 on full frame

Curious about this comparision.

Heya,

What do you want to compare? The final product which may or may not be distinguishable, or the numbers that lead up to it (plus the subjective stuff)?

Very best,

Should have been more specific. I am most interested in how the image quality and bokeh compare. but didn't want to limit feedback to just those two factors

mikexlt wrote in post #17705758
Should have been more specific. I am most interested in how the image quality and bokeh compare. but didn't want to limit feedback to just those two factors

The bokeh is a property of the lens. The 135L has arguably better bokeh, but it's entirely subjective.

IQ will be dependent on the camera & lens combination. You were specific about the 1D3, but not about what full frame you're talking (Canon, Sony?). Regardless, I think you'll find the IQ to be the least different honestly of all unless shooting at extremely high ISO, in which case, you may find a modern full frame pull ahead significantly. But both shooting at low to moderate ISO with the same user, probably not much of a difference.

The only real difference to me, would be depth of field rendering, and bokeh quality. The full frame field of view will have you closer to your subject, than a 100mm on APS-H's field of view, for the same exact composition. That difference in distance will equate to a difference in depth of field. Essentially, you can get slightly thinner depth of field on the full frame and 135 than the equivalent APS-H and 100. But it's going to be very insignificant frankly, less dramatic than something like an 85mm on an APS-C (less than 1 stop's worth of DOF in terms of looking at it).

You also have to compare cost honestly to make this fair though. Comparing a $300 lens to a $750 (used prices) lens isn't really fair. Also, comparing an older 1D series to a very modern full frame is also not the fairest comparison.

Very best,

Thank you this is the kind of information I am looking for

You could look at some of the images from both lenses in this lens photo archive link https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406 it may help you decide.

I've never had the 100mm f/2 (100mm is reserved for my macro), so the next is hearsay. It is the big brother of the 85mm f/1.8, which I have. My understanding the 100 is better with purple fringing than the 85, but is still not as good as the 135L. (But) The 85 is way worse than the 135L with the PF (Not hearsay).

Also (for non-macro) - I knew I wanted an 85mm (one day the L?), and 100 was too close to 85, so I went 135mm.

I had the 135L and 85 1.8. Sold them to compromise on the 100 2. Have since sold the 100 2 and repurchased the 135L and 85 1.8. That floats my boat. I've never had a 1.3x crop though.

I've owned all three (85mm 1.8, 100f/2 and 135mm f/2) for some years.
Most of the time I have been shooting them on 1.3x 1D bodies having only recently gone full frame with the 5D3.

The 135mm is by far the most used of the three, regardless of sensor size, with the 85mm being 2 and the 100mm coming in close 3rd.

mikexlt wrote in post #17705758
Should have been more specific. I am most interested in how the image quality and bokeh compare. but didn't want to limit feedback to just those two factors

I have both cameras (1d3 and 5d3) and both lenses (100/2 and 135/2L), so if I have time on the weekend I will try to take few same photos from both setups for you. I also had 85/1.8 and in my opinion worse is 85 (big CA, less sharpness, most missed shots), then 100 and the best 135.

My exact findings as well

mkkaczy wrote in post #17708021
I have both cameras (1d3 and 5d3) and both lenses (100/2 and 135/2L), so if I have time on the weekend I will try to take few same photos from both setups for you. I also had 85/1.8 and in my opinion worse is 85 (big CA, less sharpness, most missed shots), then 100 and the best 135.

I also agree with these findings. My 135 gets the most use by far due to the better results

Few shoots taken with 5dIII+135/2 @f/2 and 1dIII+100/2, wide open as well.
Combo 5+135 works much better, I think it is faster, way better AF if shooting towards light. 135 does not require any MA, while 100/2 is -9 on may 1dIII and -14 on 5dIII. Both had hoods, set up in AV mode, same ISO, same setting in cameras. Used central AF point only. Developed in LR in default settings.
They both sharp, but 135 is sharper. Stopping down 100mm gives more sharpness and reduce CA, while 135 is razor sharp trough all apertures without/very little CA. 135mm on FF gives nicer bokeh and shallower DOF. Below pictures are links to full version.

Towards light
5dIII+135/2

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/idyFM5Lmj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/p7gqCDyZj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/p5FrHH10j

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/exEVmJzyj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/ipFAtN7Nj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/id0qXoZnj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/f0aqcd31j

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/pc12M98Wj

Very interesting comparison here; one a really good lens and the other a great one.

The color rendering, contrast and bokeh of the 135L lead me to switch from the 100 f2 when I went FF.

Thanks. You are rigth, the 100mm is great but 135mm is greater. Anyway, I need to change again 100mm for 85mm as the gap between 35mm and 100mm in my prime lenses is too big. So going to have 35/2 (have it already), 85/1.8 or Sigma 1.4, 135mm/2 (have it already), 200/2.8 II (have it already), 400/2.8 IS (have it already)

You'll be covered in style, no doubt--sweet lineup!