I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.
Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?
i was going to do the same but also cancel, i own the 100/2.8L IS and my buddy the 135/2L I was going to buy but i cant tell you how close the two bokeh images are the 100 is sharper sharp IMO cause it has to be spot on for macro details its a 2 in one lens also, I know that f2 is more light but with IS giving 4 stops what I do is balance the loss of light so its actually better in low light than the f2, most of the time I cant tell the difference on either lens from the blur how ever there are to low of times when you can I see them more equal on blur, but if you want the extra reach the 135 is nice, dont me wrong its a sweet lens I used it for a long time, but I notice the new lenses canon are making has more elements do give better results, just like the 70-200 2.8 v2 vs the v1 you can see the v2 blows out v1 on quality.
It all boils down to what you want and your use. for me the extra cost for that lens isnt worth the money ill just put that up against a new 85/1.2L v2 and double up on a sweet crop body like the 7dv2 to get 136 at 1.2.
this is just my 2cents.