135L v. 100L Macro, with video.

A week or so ago I posted a quick comparison video showing the difference between the 135L and the new 100L Macro's AF speed. Since then, I've gotten a few PM's about it so I thought I would try to make the comparison a little better.

Unlike my last test where I was just pointing the camera at a fairly lit white wall that it was purposely unable to focus on, I decided to set up a target (my Lens Align) and compare the two lenses in different light.

In the video, I start with the 135L in decent light and you can see that it locks on without hesitation, I then turn the light out, and it still give a pretty positive lock on the target. I then switch over to the 100L, and I test it both with the limiter on FULL, and with the limiter set to 0.5. I do this with the light on and the light off.

You can see in the video that the differences are not terribly drastic, but I think it shows that the 135L gives a more positive lock in low light. The AF remains quick and it locks on to the target, where the 100L will slow down and hunt a bit more.

I've used the 100L Macro as a general lens outdoors in different light and it's been fine. However, it's not a lens I would use for a wedding or event because I believe 135L is better for that. I think you could get away with using the 100L Macro for a lot of general shooting, portraiture, etc., but IMO if you're looking for a telelphoto lens where you'll be doing say 80% general shooting (especially in mixed light) and 20% casual macro, you would probably be better off with a 135L and tubes... or maybe picking up a 100mm non-IS Macro and a 100mm f/2.

Bottom line (IMO): I DO think the 100L can pull double duty, but it might cost you a shot in challenging light. If you can live with that, then you should be fine.

Without further adieu, click below for the video (my first taken with the 7D ).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.timnosenzop​hoto.com …5/1/#674926305_​kEhBx-A-LB

It looks like it keeps up with the 135L in good light with the focus limiter set.
In low light, you can see it hunts quite a bit more that the 135L.

It also seems like it is "struggling" when you defocus it to its fullest.
On a couple of tries, you didn't defocus it all the way and the AF locked in pretty quickly.

That's a pretty darn slick presentation! Confirms for me that it can do double duty but it's certainly not as good as the 135. But the 100L really does macro better!

nicksan wrote in post #8790299
It also seems like it is "struggling" when you defocus it to its fullest.
On a couple of tries, you didn't defocus it all the way and the AF locked in pretty quickly.

Yup, I think the video illustrates that the 135L's AF is more predictable in low light than the 100L Macro. The 135L just did the same thing at the same speed every time.

I didn't catch it with the video, but I've had a couple times when the light is very low that the 100L Macro just won't do anything. Usually a lens will rack back and forth and if it can't focus on anything it stops, but the 100L just stops doing anything. It doesn't even bother doing a full rack, it just stops and blinks the focus confirm light. It's an interesting phenomena, it's almost like it's just waiting for you to do something, or to help it along a bit. Again, I've only seen this only happens in extreme low light.

great video! thanks for taking the time to post this!

CMIIW, but seems like the focusing speed on 100mm L is the same as the old 100mm one. Nothing changed (to me).
Would you mind to compare the 100mm L with the old one?

virsago_mk2 wrote in post #8790660
CMIIW, but seems like the focusing speed on 100mm L is the same as the old 100mm one. Nothing changed (to me).
Would you mind to compare the 100mm L with the old one?

I don't have the non-L 100 Macro, so I can't compare them. Though, I did had one a while ago, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the AF is similar--it seems about the same as I remember from that lens.

timnosenzo wrote in post #8790683
I don't have the non-L 100 Macro, so I can't compare them. Though, I did had one a while ago, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the AF is similar--it seems about the same as I remember from that lens.

So the only knock on the old 100 macro was low light AF, just like the 100L? Sounds like I've been misinformed...which isn't anything new!:o

Thanks for posting the test! As you know I went with the 135L and I am very glad I did. It is a fantastic lens
I don't shoot much macro and the extra stop is very nice to have for low light and DOF/background blur. I just wish it had IS, but I am not sure I'd be happy to pay the premium.

sebr wrote in post #8791384
I don't shoot much macro and the extra stop is very nice to have for low light and DOF/background blur.

I agree, the extra stop is nice, and I'm sure it's at least somewhat responsible for the quicker AF response of the 135L.

As far as I know the 100L focuses faster than the non L 100mm. And I have used the 100mm plenty for street. When you use the focus limiter it's plenty quick so the 100L should be perfectly fine.

timnosenzo, I'm probably going to pickup a used 135L. I'm new to extension tubes. Which tubes do you use on the 135. How close can you focus?

REALLY nice video. thanks! grrrr now i have to buy back my 135L. i sold this thing twice because i hated the focal length on a 1.6x body. now i have a 5d so i think i'l lreally like 135

I just sold my old 100mm macro and I'm going to but the new one.
Tim, how do you like the bokeh on the 100L?
I know it's the same as the 135L, but in general?

JelleVerherstraeten wrote in post #9139301
I just sold my old 100mm macro and I'm going to but the new one.
Tim, how do you like the bokeh on the 100L?
I know it's the same as the 135L, but in general?

I also have both (100L & 135L) and I think the bokeh of the 100 is quite nice actually.