100 f2 or 135L on a 1d???

I searched quite a bit and could not find much. I had a 135L and loved, but used it as part of a tradee to get the mkiv. I miss the lens for tight headshots. The only issue is that with the 1.3 crop it acts like a 189 where as the 100 is about 135 or close to it. What do you 1d folks own and any pros/cons. I really liked the depth of field, colors, speed and build.

assuming that you are speaking of the 100mm macro, i would say get the 100L. you have both macro view and telescope. 135L is nice but must stay at f/2.0 if you wished for the creamy bokeh.

Both 100mm macro are f/2.8. The 100 f/2 is an awesome lens for the money, I sold mine when I bought the 100L.

I personally would rather have an 85 or 100 on 1.3x crop for portraiture. Although a lot of people do use 200mm primes on FF for portraiture, so longer can work.

nonameowns wrote in post #11764877
assuming that you are speaking of the 100mm macro, i would say get the 100L. you have both macro view and telescope. 135L is nice but must stay at f/2.0 if you wished for the creamy bokeh.

I wanted to stay with the 2.0 if possible. Is the 100 2.0 as good or almost as good as the 135L or is there anyone that uses the 135L on a 1d?

Rudy Winston from Canon says the 135L is the absolute sharpest canon lens made. Check out his video on "Choosing canon lens on B&H Photo.

The choice of FL can mainly depend on the working distance available. If the distance is not an issue, I personally like longer FLs for flatter perspective and better separation.

For my outdoor portraits I mostly use one of the following (depending on what dictates the camera choice):

5D + 135L
1D3 + 135L or 1D3 + 200L
7D + 135L

So the FL can be anything between 135 and 260 mm. I have used 100L on 1D3 for portraits indoors (the room was not jammed) and enjoyed the high ISO and IS that came with this combo to use ambient lighting. Very satisfied.

I'd prefer 100 f/2.0 because 135 on 1.3 body sometimes to tight for me, make me have to walk back a few step.

The 100/2 is an excellent lens, period.


Jason C

Clearie wrote in post #11766904
Rudy Winston from Canon says the 135L is the absolute sharpest canon lens made. Check out his video on "Choosing canon lens on B&H Photo.

That is possibly true, but at some point you are splitting hairs. Is 1000 more than 998? Yes in absolute terms, but not really in any significant sense. The 100mm f2 is a crazy sharp lens. I'd say the only drawback in real world use over the L is that is can purple fringe at f2.

I think you all might be confusing the 100 F/2 and 100/2.8s. The 100/2 is very similar (optically in terms of construction) to the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

The 135L is a bit sharper, with much nicer bokeh/AF.

The 100/2.8s are macro lenses that are very sharp as well.

tkbslc wrote in post #11769290
That is possibly true, but at some point you are splitting hairs. Is 1000 more than 998? Yes in absolute terms, but not really in any significant sense. The 100mm f2 is a crazy sharp lens. I'd say the only drawback in real world use over the L is that is can purple fringe at f2.

This is the reason I am having a hard time deciding. 100 seems to be right in the middle of my 70 and 150 as coompared tot the 135, but I also like the build of the 135L.

100/2 is a terrific lens. No complaints on FF or 1.3x (nope, not even about CA).

Sp1207 wrote in post #11769440
The 135L is a bit sharper, with much nicer bokeh/AF.

.

I disagree that the AF and bokeh are significantly better on the L. Build, yes, the 100mm f2 has an average build quiality which is part of why it is half the price of the L. (The other half is the aperture class, 67mm vs 50mm)

the 135L is better in every way. i would go with the 135L despite FL, and just move my feet to frame the same shot.