135 f/2L with extension tubes?

So I just took delivery of a 135 f/2L, and to help offset the cost of this lens, I think I'm going to sell my 100 macro. I don't do a lot of serious macro work, but I do like to take some flower closeups and that sort of thing.

In lieu of the macro lens, I was thinking of picking up an extension tube
to help with my occasional close ups. I've never used extension tubes before--does anyone have experience using tubes with the 135L? Would I be better served using the tubes with one of my other lenses instead of the 135? Anyone have any comments on using this lens with tubes in comparison to a lens like the 100 macro?

Any thoughts/comments appreciated!

Tim

I've used tubes on almost everything; 35L, 50L, 85L, 24-70L and 70-200L. I tend to prefer the 50L and 85L, don't remember trying the 135L but it should work well. You'll have a good bit of working distance, though the longer the focal length the less magnification you'll get in the end. So I guess it depends on how much of that you need. The 70-200L also made a great "macro lens" using tubes.

I've used tubes on my 85 1.8.
I would imagine they would work quite well on the 135L.
Until I sold mine, it used to be the sharpest lens in my lineup.
God...I miss that lens.

I have done some nice stuff with a 25mm or 12mm tube on the 135/2. Also try some "arty" flower pix using f/2 or f/4.

Interesting, thanks guys. Probably what I will wind up doing!

If you're just shooting closeups rather than macros, you can probably get by without the tubes and just crop the images. I don't have the 100 macro, but my son gets some fantastic shots with it. It seems to be an excellent lens.

Here's a shot taken with just the 135L and then cropped at 100%:
30D - 1/5000s f/2.0 at 135.0mm iso100