100mm 2.8L or 135mm 2L?

kingmamaof2 · February 19, 2010

I'm hoping to purchase either the new IS macro or the 135L next month and I'm stumped as to which to choose. I already have the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8. I would like to take portraits with gorgeous bokeh and be able to take close ups of details, like a shell in the sand, wedding rings, ect.

The 135L is awesome in image quality and bokeh. It's also a little longer so I think I would have a good prime range.

The 100mm IS 2.8L is an awesome macro and would be able to take macro and portrait shots-so it's versatile.

Ack! Any help/advice is appreciated!! Thanks guys!

divamum · February 20, 2010

85 and 100 are almost the same in practice - very little difference in FL. Unless the macro is really important to you, I'd vote for the 135L. Then again, I think the 135 is actually ground with magic dust, so I'm a tad biased (it would be hard to express just how much I love mine!

)

NeilL · February 20, 2010

For studio work and set up shots (objects, people, architecture, medium distance landscape), don't sweat the difference. For macro the answer is clear. Neither are much good for low light without flash. Both are not versatile enough for carry round-street-PJ, especially on a crop body. If you really would miss ultra closeup get the macro. If you have a fetish for ultra resolution get the 135.

Neil

craig_d · February 20, 2010

I have considered getting the new 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, but I have decided not to, at least for now. The 135mm f/2L is still on my wish list, though.

My reason for not getting the new macro is that for true macro usage I don't think the new lens has that much to offer over the Tokina AT-X M100 that I already have. Basically, the Canon will auto-focus faster (the Tokina is pretty slow) and the Canon has IS. However, I generally use manual focus for true macro shots, and my macro work is generally done under good light or with the Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite, so I can usually shoot 1/200 sec or faster (with a boost to the ISO level if necessary). That being the case, I don't feel much need for IS or faster AF. The faster AF would be nice when I use the lens for non-macro purposes, but even then it's not essential.

I think one question to consider is whether you really need the L-series IS macro lens, or whether something optically just as good but less expensive and lacking IS would be sufficient. The Tokina costs only $399 at Amazon, and both the Sigma 105mm macro and the older Canon 100mm non-IS macro sell for around $500.

Photoskipper · February 20, 2010

what's the body? For 135mm on 1.6X crop body becomes 216 mm tele and very limited use for portrait. It does not have IS and a bit heavy. Handle held may be a bit challenge.

100 mm is half of the price and lighter.

Since you have already had the 50 and 85 mm, adding 100 or 135 mm does not give you more. just adding weight to you bag.

It is better to consider other gear with the money you have.

Pindy · February 20, 2010

the 135mm is so good, you'll buy a FF body to go with it, eventually. I think it's a killer app.

Photoskipper · February 20, 2010

it seems going back to the old film days. The 135 was considered as portrait lens for the films and slides. Since I have 2 FF bodies, it is the time for me to think of it.

NeilL · February 20, 2010

Pindy wrote:

the 135mm is so good, you'll buy a FF body to go with it, eventually. I think it's a killer app.

Not only that, Pindy, but if you have that lens it *makes* you go and shoot with it, you can't argue.

Neil

Moogle Pepper · February 20, 2010

NeilL wrote:

Not only that, Pindy, but if you have that lens it *makes* you go and shoot with it, you can't argue.

Neil

win win situation!

kingmamaof2 · February 20, 2010

Wow, thanks for the quick replies guys. I'm leaning toward the 135L, but what about getting extension tubes for the 50 or 85? I don't plan on doing serious macro, just want to take a few close up detail shots every now and then. Are the extension tubes worth it? Whats the difference between the canon EF25 and EF12?

paddler4 · February 20, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Wow, thanks for the quick replies guys. I'm leaning toward the 135L, but what about getting extension tubes for the 50 or 85? I don't plan on doing serious macro, just want to take a few close up detail shots every now and then. Are the extension tubes worth it? Whats the difference between the canon EF25 and EF12?

If you want extension tubes, you might want to consider the Kenko set: cheaper than Canon, and you get 3 lengths rather than 2. (Tubes can be stacked as well.) You can always use them in conjunction with a real macro lens if you buy one later. I use them routinely with two canon macros (60 & 100mm) to get closer than 1:1, with no problems.

ChatKat · February 20, 2010

Macro Sleeper lens
The 135L is one of the best portrait lenses in the Canon line up even on the 1.6 although killer on the Mark 5d2. The 200 2.8 is also an incredible portrait lens.

If you are thinking Macro but don't want to spend on the 100 you might consider the 50 2.5 Macro. It's an older lens - one I still use and I've had it for many many years. It was my favorite lens when I was shooting film and it is just as good for digital. It's about $250. new.

kdog · February 20, 2010

NeilL wrote:

Neither are much good for low light without flash.

An F2 lens isn't much good in low light?

craig_d · February 20, 2010

ChatKat wrote:

If you are thinking Macro but don't want to spend on the 100 you might consider the 50 2.5 Macro. It's an older lens - one I still use and I've had it for many many years. It was my favorite lens when I was shooting film and it is just as good for digital. It's about $250. new.

But the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is not a true 1:1 macro lens. You need to use a separate, dedicated teleconverter (the Canon EF Life Size Converter) to get 1:1 images with that lens, and that TC can't be used with any other lens. So you end up spending $500 for a two-piece 1:1 macro system that isn't optically as good as Canon's or Tokina's 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses that cost about the same or less. For this reason, I don't recommend the 50mm Compact Macro.

kingmamaof2 · February 20, 2010

quick question, for those of you who have the 135L, do you notice any motion blur since it doesn't have IS? I guess that and the fact that I have a crop sensor camera, I'm just worried it may be too long or difficult to hold steady when shooting outside?

ziggy53 · February 20, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

quick question, for those of you who have the 135L, do you notice any motion blur since it doesn't have IS? I guess that and the fact that I have a crop sensor camera, I'm just worried it may be too long or difficult to hold steady when shooting outside?

The Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM is usable and sharp at f2 (although very shallow DOF). It is easy to shoot because you can use faster shutter speeds. I do not have any problems hand holding my copy on any camera. If anything, the 135L is a little heavy and that extra mass lends to stability.

It also allows extremely accurate focus at smaller apertures because focus is calculated at f2, so the lens lets in extra light, making the AF more efficient compared to a smaller aperture lens. Many cameras are also more accurate and sensitive, using the center focus, with "any" lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8 or faster.

A larger aperture lens is almost always a more flexible and valuable tool, compared to a smaller aperture lens with IS.

kingmamaof2 · February 20, 2010

Thank you sooo much everyone!! Dgrin is awesome! I can't wait to get the new glass.:D

NeilL · February 20, 2010

kdog wrote:

An F2 lens isn't much good in low light?

hehe is that a bit controversial? try shooting moving things at 135mm f2 in a dim mall with no flash...

Neil

100mm 2.8L or 135mm 2L?

Comments