100L or 135L?

They cost about the same, 100 slightly less (and on sale right now).

100 has IS and macro at f2.8. 135 has f2.0, which is even more pronounced impact at the longer Focal Length.

This is for art shooting. So; portraits, things, etc. but mostly portraits (and maybe portions of a wedding or two). Emphasis on "isolation".

Just wanted to gather thoughts.

As my gear list indicates, I have 85 f1.8 (presently my favorite lens on crop or FF), 70-200 f2.8 IS arriving Monday. It's such a big honker I'd sort of like a real performer art lens with less weight and attention.

Just can't decide, so collecting advice.

I recently opted for the 100L. ( will arrive Monday ) for obvious reasons. IS and macro. 2 very different lenses if you ask me. I have been considering selling my 70-200 2.8 and going to a 70-200 F4 IS and 135 L for size/weight reasons but thats another thread.

I too love the 85 but it may have to go ( lack of use and probably less after i have the 100L ) but its small size makes it a fun lens just like the 50 1.4 so I am in no hurry to decide, just gonna play with load of overlapping lenses and see what I enjoy most.

Tons of thread on this, but yeah, very different lenses, so intended use should be the deciding factor. I love my 135, but been using it much less since picking up the 70-200IS. I think I'm leaning to the 100L. I see you have the 70-200IS too, so something to think about.

Waiting for results of this poll-- I'm leaning more towards the 100L right now due to being able to shoot at under 1/50 and getting very sharp images with the IS.

If you've already got the 85, you might want to go for the 135 due to 100 being very very close to the 85.

Portraits and subject isolation clearly point to the 135L. You will also get better focusing in low light.

I have the 135L and the 100 macro (non-L) but only rarely shoot macro. It is nice to have a macro lens for those occasions, but I must say that it only comes out of the box a couple of times a year.

stop your 85 1.8 down to 2 on crop for a cheap version of the 135

also chose between the two. i chose and voted 100L.

since you have an 85mm already I would say the 135L because 100mm is too close to 85mm to make a difference. You could zoom with your feet in that case. Portraits and isolation also point directly to the 135L as someone else mentioned.

If you are buying it for isolated portraits then I would think you should buy the portrait lens that allows more isolation control and not the macro

NBEast wrote in post #10388724
Emphasis on "isolation".

This made my choice easy---the 135L. One of the best in Canon's lineup for isolation.

If you want a macro, get the macro. If you don't need a macro, then this is easy, get the 135mm 2.0.
For portraits, the 135mm 2.0 is outstanding. A good second choice would be the 100mm 2.0.

Only get the 100L if you have at least some interest in macro or close focus. Otherwise the 135L beats it.

135 is amazing. But if you plan on doing macro shots then go for macro.

Hmm. Some great points here. Still undecided but it's helping me see the choice clearer.

135L seems to make the most sense for the isolation. I do wish it had IS.

The 100 f2.0 is an interesting suggestion.

I love the 85f1.8 but not that I've gone FF I was just looking for a similar FL with even improved IQ and bokeh.

An FM thread comparing these two was proposing that the 100L rivaled the 135L for portraits and rich IQ, has IS, and adds macro.

Since my EF-S 60 macro has sat in the bag for 3 years Macro doesn't seem to be much priority. Although part of that was probably my lacking tripod - recently rectified.

Consensus seems to be - if I was the best for isolation and portraits then it's 135L. If I'm willing to back off from perfection a tiny bit then the 100 adds IS and Macro which are worthy additions.

For portraits and isolation, the 100 f2.8 IS is redundant to the 70-200 f2.8 IS, only a lot smaller and lighter and less conspicuous. However for that the 85 is close enough.

I think that all adds up to the 135L. Thanks!

+1 if isolation is what you want then 135mm f/2 will give you more than 100mm f/2.8, more than twice as narrow the depth of field at the same distance.

You can use the 135 as a macro lens with extension tubes. If your main purpose is portraiture get the 135, if your main purpose is macro get the macro. For you I think this means the 135L.

NBEast wrote in post #10388724
They cost about the same, 100 slightly less (and on sale right now).

100 has IS and macro at f2.8. 135 has f2.0, which is even more pronounced impact at the longer Focal Length.

This is for art shooting. So; portraits, things, etc. but mostly portraits (and maybe portions of a wedding or two). Emphasis on "isolation".

Just wanted to gather thoughts.

As my gear list indicates, I have 85 f1.8 (presently my favorite lens on crop or FF), 70-200 f2.8 IS arriving Monday. It's such a big honker I'd sort of like a real performer art lens with less weight and attention.

Just can't decide, so collecting advice.

sounds to me like you just want to spend money, which is fine. if i bought the 70-200L f2.8 IS i would not own any primes in that range unless i had a real specific purpose other than "less weight" or "attention".

ed rader