Need comparisons between Canon 135L vs 100L

[Northstar]

I own the 135 and 70-2002.8ii 

If you're looking for a sports lens, then you have to go with the 70-200 2.8ii. end of story.  the versatility of the zoom range combined with the IQ and low light capability of this lens are unmatched.  THE IQ IS EQUAL TO THE 135.  The 135 can throw off a little bit better bokeh, but it's not worth the zoom range capability of the 70-200 2.8.

the first image (both shots taken within minutes of one another on the same ice) is from the 70-200 and the second is from the 135.

for sports, the ability to zoom in or out as athletes move towards you or away is invaluable.

ALSO...the 70-200 2.8ii with either extender is fantastic.  with the 2Xiii, it's a very good 140-400 for field sports.

[RLPhoto]

135L = Magic. 

[IIIHobbs]

We know you are using a FF camera, but it would be helpful to know what lens you are using now and how satisfied you are with the results it provides.

[cayenne]

We know you are using a FF camera, but it would be helpful to know what lens you are using now and how satisfied you are with the results it provides.

Ok, well, I have the 5D3 body.
I have the kit lens that came with it, the 24-105 f/4 L
I have the 17-40 f/4 L
and the 85mm 1.4 lens

I'm also experimenting with an assortment of very very old Nikon lenses, but only for video...

I was originally saving to get the 16-35 L 2.8, but the 17-40 came up on craigslist for about $500 I think, and I grabbed that.

So, I'm looking I guess more for the zoom first. Thinking I'll get the 70-200 at this point...and then come back and see what I want to do. I'd like maybe the macro at this point.

Or hell, if I go for the 70-200 II IS L......I might just switch gears and go back to something ultra wide like the 14mm....who knows.

I'm just trying to put my list together.....and from reading all here and thinking, the 70-200 is likely going to be my next one...maybe the 2x extender on that...

After that...maybe the 100 for the macro...or like I said..throw an fish eye ultrawide in the mix there somewhere.

Thanks for all the replies!!

C

[Drizzt321]

We know you are using a FF camera, but it would be helpful to know what lens you are using now and how satisfied you are with the results it provides.

Ok, well, I have the 5D3 body.
I have the kit lens that came with it, the 24-105 f/4 L
I have the 17-40 f/4 L
and the 85mm 1.4 lens

I'm also experimenting with an assortment of very very old Nikon lenses, but only for video...

I was originally saving to get the 16-35 L 2.8, but the 17-40 came up on craigslist for about $500 I think, and I grabbed that.

So, I'm looking I guess more for the zoom first. Thinking I'll get the 70-200 at this point...and then come back and see what I want to do. I'd like maybe the macro at this point.

Or hell, if I go for the 70-200 II IS L......I might just switch gears and go back to something ultra wide like the 14mm....who knows.

I'm just trying to put my list together.....and from reading all here and thinking, the 70-200 is likely going to be my next one...maybe the 2x extender on that...

After that...maybe the 100 for the macro...or like I said..throw an fish eye ultrawide in the mix there somewhere.

Thanks for all the replies!!

C

If you're planning on doing actual macro, not just using the 100L with AF as a great portraiture/closeup lens, then consider one of your old Nikon lenses with extension tubes or bellows for your macro use. By and large, for real macro work, I've read (and am finding) that full MF is really what you want. AF can only do so much. And a good steady tripod is really necessary. It's pretty darn hard hand-holding doing any kind of macro work.

[IIIHobbs]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For your theater work on FF, there is a good reason they call the 135mmL "The Stage Lens".  I have the 100L and the 135mmL along with several primes (15, 17, 35, 50, 85).  My 135mmL gets over 50% of the use.
In low light, it performs well even wide open.
 

 

[bdunbar79]

I do like the 70-200L for sports too, I just like the side look with the 135L at f/2, that's all.  To the zoom's credit:

[EOBeav]

135L = Magic. 

I've been wanting one for awhile. Now I REALLY want one.

[cayenne]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

Thank you, I was going to get the latest and greatest 70-200L....f/2.8 and IS, etc.
I bought my camera with kit lens and 85mm through Crutchfield. With their rewards program, I earned just shy of $500 worth of 'points'.
If I get the lens on a sale like has recently happened with Canon, plus taking about $500 off that...the lens will cost me only about $1700 , free shipping, no tax...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280EF702HL/Canon-EF-70-200mm-2-8L-IS-II-USM-Lens.html?search=canon_70-200&skipvs=T

So, I'd definitely go for the whole enchilada on that one.

Ok, I think I've decided first new lens..will be the 70-200 zoom.

I'll have some time while saving pennies again...to decide about the 100L and the 135L....but I've gotten some great insight on this thread, and hope maybe it helps someone else that might be trying to decide between the two....

C

[Drizzt321]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

Thank you, I was going to get the latest and greatest 70-200L....f/2.8 and IS, etc.
I bought my camera with kit lens and 85mm through Crutchfield. With their rewards program, I earned just shy of $500 worth of 'points'.
If I get the lens on a sale like has recently happened with Canon, plus taking about $500 off that...the lens will cost me only about $1700 , free shipping, no tax...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280EF702HL/Canon-EF-70-200mm-2-8L-IS-II-USM-Lens.html?search=canon_70-200&skipvs=T

So, I'd definitely go for the whole enchilada on that one.

Ok, I think I've decided first new lens..will be the 70-200 zoom.

I'll have some time while saving pennies again...to decide about the 100L and the 135L....but I've gotten some great insight on this thread, and hope maybe it helps someone else that might be trying to decide between the two....

C

Sounds like a good choice, and you can always rent the other two (or use the Canon CPS equipment evaluation program) to try them out when it comes time for you to decide. I honestly don't think you'll be disappointed with either of them, just depends on your shooting style and what you tend to shoot more of and your needs.

[florianbieler.de]

How in the world could you open up that topic a week after I bought my 100L. It's a great lens, I love it's macro functionality and build quality, also I get great results with portraits but boy, the 135L bokeh looks just so awesome. Tears me apart!

Still going to stick to the 100L probably, because I do macros here and then and it has an IS. $1000 for a portrait only prime lens is too much to lift right now.

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I too have both the 100L and the 135L. Both are great but I actually much prefer the bokeh from the 135 which I see as a lot smoother. The 100L has its place but for portraits and short tele's, its the best. 
The only thing I've noticed with the 135L is CA in bright contrasty edges which is easily adjusted in post.

[Northstar]

you will not be disappointed in the 70-200 2.8ii...it's just incredible.

also...if you can get it for $1700, you'll probably always be able to sell it for at least that amount in the future.  so it's not like you're spending your money...you're just moving it from "checking" to "lenses" for a period of time.

[jdramirez]

135L = Magic. 

I've been wanting one for awhile. Now I REALLY want one.

Ditto.  And i have a 24-105 & a 100mm f2.8L.  So I'm gonna have a ton of redundancy.