Keep 135mm and get ext tubes, or sell to get 100mm/2.8L IS?

I recently purchased a 135mm/F2 and I love it. Once it hit my camera I just can't take it off. Even when it's too long I make it work somehow. When I'm in close quarters I put one of my 50mm's or 35/2 on, but then immediately want to put the 135mm back on. It has that je ne sais quois. It's my first L Prime (second L, had a 24-105mm).

I want to do some food photography (not professionally, just for myself). I can get pretty close with my 35/2, but my other primes don't get close enough, the 85/1.8 and 135mm. Sometimes I want to fill the frame with half or 3/4 of a plate of food etc. I don't need true macro 1:1 capabilities, but maybe that'll be fun. So I was thinking of getting some extension tubes, which will allow me to use them on all of my lenses.

However, rumors of a new 135mm with IS (just rumors, nothing substantial) makes me think, maybe I should look into the 100mm/2.8L. I'll be giving up, what I think is a 1/3 stop? But I'll gain IS, which won't help me freeze motion but for food and other portraits (my main subjects with this lens) it may help a lot. I can sell my 135 and get the 100mm macro for roughly no loss.

I won't mind the difference in FL. Sometimes the extra 35mm is too long. Sometimes. So what do you guys think, will I lose anything else by going down to the 100mm macro other than a third of a stop? Again, macro isn't my forte but I can see myself messing around with it. No bugs though, I'm deathly afraid. If there is a beetle in front of a door I go around back.

If you love the lens then keep it. I don't seen them coming out with a 135mm IS anytime soon. It would add weight to an already fast prime lens. There are people like myself who like the simplicity and compactness of a fast prime like the 135L. The reason you might see a 100L 2.8 macro with IS is because macro lenses require a steadier hand to get a good close up pictures. Having tried my hand at macro photography, I just don't shoot enough bugs to justify having a macro specific lens when then 135L is just so damn awesome.

The 135L is actually 1 full stop faster then the 100L IS Macro.

What camera do you shoot with? Depending on your MPs and your desired output you could just crop to your desired framing.

its a simple variable that you need to decide on..... do you need the extra stop @ F/2? or not?

^^^ Based on that your decision should become quite easy.

5d Mark II.

Jdmhood. thanks for that. Fstops don't confuse me. Calculating them does.

Yusef, I don't see them coming out with one soon either. That's why I'm contemplating this. It's a poor mans version of the 135mm IS. It's a 100mm IS that's a stop slower . The IS on the macro actually doesn't help much on the macro side of things (up to a stop perhaps) but at regular focusing lengths it helps immensely. Up to 4 stops better.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …_2p8_is_usm_c16​/page4.asp

JayStar86 wrote in post #10367321
its a simple variable that you need to decide on..... do you need the extra stop @ F/2? or not?

^^^ Based on that your decision should become quite easy.

Simple variable that isn't so simple to determine - I really don't know until I lose that stop

But, an update to my original post. Buddy has the macro. He's never even mounted the damn thing. I'm going to trade him for a few days and see what happens. If i get the fun factor of very close shots and normal portraits, with IS, I may go for it.

jdang307 wrote in post #10367331
Simple variable that isn't so simple to determine - I really don't know until I lose that stop

But, an update to my original post. Buddy has the macro. He's never even mounted the damn thing. I'm going to trade him for a few days and see what happens. If i get the fun factor of very close shots and normal portraits, with IS, I may go for it.

I hear yah. Its a simple variable but hard to decide no doubt about it. I think you will like the 100L Macro. Its nice to be able to try things before buying.

Why not just keep the 135mm and get the 100mm 2.8 Without IS ? It's still better than using the tubes with the 135mm.

100mm 2.8 with USM motor will run you around $400; but it's a great lens.

-David

Yeah I thought about that. But the IS is one of the reasons drawing me in. Plus I'm trying to do this without putting out a dime. Just bought a house, and spent $22k to refurbish the whole thing inside. So yeah, I can shuffle around, I can't shell out any dough

i have 135L. and i had 100mm usm macro too, but i sold it because after looking at pictures i took, i realized that i rarely need magnification above 1:2.
i love shooting flowers, but when i had both lenses, i always prefer 135L when i don't need high magnification. because i'm crazy about 135L's bokeh.
this one i took with 135L and 40D without tubes

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Easily fixed.. Why not buy a set of extention tubes and use them on your 50mm and 85mm lenses??

And for god sake,,keep your 135L!!

I would never get rid of the 135mm 2.0 in favor of a 100mm 2.8 macro. I believe this might be a move that you could later regret.

At macro subject distances it seems likely that you'll want to be using a tripod anyway, since even stopped down a bunch your DoF is limited and handheld foreward/backward motion could be a problem

If you're looking at food photography... you may want to look at the TS-E lens. That's Tilt & Shift if you don't know. Most people think tilt & shift lens are only for those weird and cool effects but that's only a bonus thing. TS-E lens are designed for product photography and architecture or landscape shots. You can manipulate the lens to get as much dof as possible or as little dof as possible. Its a "hit two birds with a stone" thing...

Minimum focusing distance for the 90mm TS-E is 1'6". Not as close as the 100mm macro 2.8 which is 1' but still pretty close anyway. Other TS-E lens have even closer minimum focus distances. I have the old non-L macro lens and its a great lens but I think the 90mm TS-E lens I have is better for my product photography work. It doesn't hurt that the manual focusing ring on the 90mm is the smoothest I have ever felt with perfect dampening...

About the tubes, I have read that the 90mm does work with tubes but its not officially supported. I have no experience in this, though.

Tripods are a must have thing for macro photography or simple product photography. I avoided buying tripods for a few years... The very moment I started using a good tripod, I felt stupid. Should have bought one a long time ago!