100 f/2.8L or 135mm f/2L

[JMan54]

Hi Everybody,

I'm looking into getting a 100 f/2.8L or 135mm f/2L, to do some portrait/ macro work. I won't be using the Macro a ton, but would like the feature. As of today, my budget only allows for one or the other, so I could use your help in deciding between the two.

Right now, I'm using a 24-70 f/2.8L Mark I, and a 50mm 1.4 on a 50D Body.

Recommendations?

[Marsu42]

First, we should be clear about the term "macro": Does that mean to you taking pictures of smaller objects like complete flowers and butterflies? This can be done with a lot of lenses, "real" macro near 1:1 mag is when your lens cap nearly hits the object, the dof gets razor-thin and the usable aperture goes down the drain so you often need a tripod - if it's the latter then you won't get around a "real" macro lens like the 100L.

Note: non-IS (imho unnecessary for "real" macro) macro lenses are quite affordable when used, look at the 100 non-L prices - you could get that next to the 135L.

[JMan54]

Yes, I'm referring more to the taking pictures of small objects aspect of it. I don't anticipate that I'll be doing much of the tripod-ed macro-type photography.

[Eli]

Have you tried those focal lengths on a crop body?

[roadrunner]

JMan, unfortunately, I do not own the 135L to compare it to, but I absolutely love my 100L. Like you mentioned, I use it primarily for portraits and only occasionally for true macro. Although I don't own it (I've used it once though), I would not trade my 100L for the 135L. They both offer amazing image quality, and I am constantly impressed with the results I get from the 100L. I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two lenses by comparing images from each.

Image stabilization, while not that important for the true macro work, it incredibly useful for portraits. It has been a great lens for typical portrait sessions, as well as low light wedding photography work. If I could choose just one lens, I would say the 100L is the way to go. I was going through the same decision about a year ago and decided the image quality and versatility of macro and IS were too good to pass up. Just my opinion of course.

[Eli]

JMan, unfortunately, I do not own the 135L to compare it to, but I absolutely love my 100L. Like you mentioned, I use it primarily for portraits and only occasionally for true macro. Although I don't own it (I've used it once though), I would not trade my 100L for the 135L. They both offer amazing image quality, and I am constantly impressed with the results I get from the 100L. I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two lenses by comparing images from each.

Image stabilization, while not that important for the true macro work, it incredibly useful for portraits. It has been a great lens for typical portrait sessions, as well as low light wedding photography work. If I could choose just one lens, I would say the 100L is the way to go. I was going through the same decision about a year ago and decided the image quality and versatility of macro and IS were too good to pass up. Just my opinion of course.

Exactly the same situation with I; out of the two I chose the 100L. Great for portraits, it can do macro, it has hIS and it's weather sealed! Overall a more versatile and useful lens. Also the 135mm might be a bit long on APS-C, you could consider the 85mm 1.8 as well as some extension tubes for a cheaper option.

[AmbientLight]

Regarding macro work you can also use the 100mm L macro for macro shots without using a tripod. You are not exactly required to use a tripod for good macro shots, especially if you are not trying to get to minimum focus distance with a rather static subject. Since you have stated to not have a requirement for trying to achieve that 1:1 aspect ration frequently. Nevertheless it is great to have the option. You probably won't want to part with this lens, once you have tried it out for macro work.

With that I strongly recommend the 100mm L macro for your stated usage scenario. For pure portrait work without any macro aspect to intended usage I would recommend the 135mm f2.

[neuroanatomist]

Since you're shooting APS-C, I'd say get the 100L Macro.  For most indoor portraits, the 135L is too long on APS-C. 

[Northstar]

Since you're shooting APS-C, I'd say get the 100L Macro.  For most indoor portraits, the 135L is too long on APS-C.

What he said.... for portrait shots the 135 is way too long on a crop body...get the 100

[The Bad Duck]

A very nice portrait lens is the 100 /2.0 or the 85 /1.8

If you don´t need the macro feature then you should consider one of those. I think they make better portrait tools than either 100 /2.8 macro.

I also agree with people about 135 beeing too long on aps-c but that is up to you. If you think you would like the longer lenses the sigma 150 /2.8 OS Macro could also be an interesting lens. I found that to be too long even on FF, and I fould that my macro work was... whole flowers and stuff that I could do with my 70-200 /4 or my 24-105.

good luck!

[roadrunner]

Since you're shooting APS-C, I'd say get the 100L Macro.  For most indoor portraits, the 135L is too long on APS-C.

This is important to note. I will say that for portraits, I found even the 100L to be too long for my tastes on my 7D. It wasn't until I recently picked up a 5D Mark III that the 100L became one of my favorite lenses ever.

[neuroanatomist]

Since you're shooting APS-C, I'd say get the 100L Macro.  For most indoor portraits, the 135L is too long on APS-C.

This is important to note. I will say that for portraits, I found even the 100L to be too long for my tastes on my 7D. It wasn't until I recently picked up a 5D Mark III that the 100L became one of my favorite lenses ever.

Very true, and I amost added that bit myself.  An 85mm lens makes for great portraits on APS-C (I started with the 85/1.8, moved to the 85/1.2L II).  Even 100mm is getting long for indoor use.  I have a 70-200/2.8, and when I bought it I had only the 7D, and to be honest the 70-200 range felt awkward on APS-C - too long indoors, to short for real reach outdoors.  It was a good backyard lens, outdoor events, that sort of thing.  After getting a 5DII, the 70-200mm lens saw a lot more use as on FF that's a great focal range indoors and out.

[7enderbender]

Hi Everybody,

I'm looking into getting a 100 f/2.8L or 135mm f/2L, to do some portrait/ macro work. I won't be using the Macro a ton, but would like the feature. As of today, my budget only allows for one or the other, so I could use your help in deciding between the two.

Right now, I'm using a 24-70 f/2.8L Mark I, and a 50mm 1.4 on a 50D Body.

Recommendations?

Like others have said: check if this is the right focal length for you. You'd be at an effective focal length of over 200mm with the 135L on your crop body. Not saying that this is bad necessarily. I use my 200mm lens often enough for outdoors portrait type situations. But that is certainly very different from how I use my 135L on full frame.

I've never used the 100L but hear it is very very good. I'm also more than happy with my 135L. It is extremely sharp and has beautiful out of focus blur. 2.0 aperture can come in handy and is totally usable on that lens. So it really comes down to focal length. A good 85 lens may be better for what most people would use a 135 for. Unless you are planing to go full frame any time soon.

[neuroanatomist]

Couple of shots taken at the Massachusetts Horticultural Society's Elm Bank gardens, within a few minutes of each other, both with the 100L Macro IS on a 7D.  A very versatile lens...

   

[Jesse]

""real" macro near 1:1 mag is when your lens cap nearly hits the object,"

You actually have a lot of workspace when shooting with the 100L. Your lens never nearly hits the object even at minimum focus....