August 23, 2014, 01:40:32 AM

Author Topic: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L  (Read 6914 times)

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
    • View Profile
100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« on: December 09, 2012, 05:35:01 PM »
I'd like to start doing macro photography, I'm not into faffing with flash, tripods and such, I like to handhold and shoot...  I have a 135mm 2.0L and was pondering if I got a 100mm 2.8L macro, would I still use the 135mm ?  It's currently one of the three lenses I use most.  I'm aware of focal length change, but what about the look of the images ?  The colour and soft focus areas, Is there a difference to the look when used as a normal telephoto at similar lengths to the 135mm ?
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13862
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2012, 06:41:02 PM »
I have both. The 135L is a better choice for portraits and for low light action, The former because of the thinner DoF and better bokeh, the latter because of the faster aperture and faster AF.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

bobbysamat

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 07:22:42 PM »
i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me.  the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld.  at least for me.  i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it.  i'd say about 10 of those were handheld.  that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1230
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2012, 01:55:43 AM »
i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me.  the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld.  at least for me.  i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it.  i'd say about 10 of those were handheld.  that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.

Why would the macro have a shallower DoF? For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135. Or is there something different about macro lenses? Some clarification is appreciated.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2012, 11:30:27 AM »
Thanks for the reply, some real world comments on macro would be good too....

Looks like I'm getting a lensbaby composer for Xmas from my wife, that opens some additional macro possibilities too ;-)
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2012, 12:16:42 PM »
The 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro is an excellent choice if you want to start doing macro. If you want to start doing macro and you only want to do it hand held it is the best choice IMO. I own it and use it for just that reason, it is great.

If you still owned the 135mm after you bought the 100mm you would probably use it for the benefits described by others.

Reading between the lines maybe? Are you asking if you should sell your 135mm and replace it with the 100mm?
If so the 100mm will substitute for the 135, and do many things it can do but probably not as well. The 135mm would have a very hard time taking a 1/1 picture of a lady bug, hand held and image stabilized. IMO and for my uses the 100mm would be the more versatile of the two. But I prefer bug portraits over people portraits.



PackLight

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2012, 12:32:53 PM »
i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me.  the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld.  at least for me.  i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it.  i'd say about 10 of those were handheld.  that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.

Why would the macro have a shallower DoF? For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135. Or is there something different about macro lenses? Some clarification is appreciated.

Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV, just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.

@bobbysamat do you have the Non L version of the 100mm which does not have IS? What makes the 100mm f/2.8 L IS great is the fact it does have hybrid IS and can be hand held.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:34:27 PM by PackLight »

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2012, 01:12:21 PM »
i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me.  the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld.  at least for me.  i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it.  i'd say about 10 of those were handheld.  that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.

Why would the macro have a shallower DoF? For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135. Or is there something different about macro lenses? Some clarification is appreciated.

Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV, just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.

@bobbysamat do you have the Non L version of the 100mm which does not have IS? What makes the 100mm f/2.8 L IS great is the fact it does have hybrid IS and can be hand held.

+1.  IQ wise, they're the same.  I had the non-L.  Very sharp from edge to edge and renders the colors nicely.  It's just that with the non-L version, I limit myself from 1/150 to 1/200 (I had to use flash) handheld.  I can go as low as 1/100 or 1/60 but it will require a lot, lot of patience to shoot.  I think with IS, I can handheld more for at least 2-3 stops.

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2012, 01:18:44 PM »
Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.
5D3, 8-15 f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 IS L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 L, 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13862
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2012, 01:23:12 PM »
Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.

This.  Or compare this vs. this
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2012, 01:24:12 PM »
Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.

Check this out;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.
Second Edit; it was really a minute.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 01:28:34 PM by PackLight »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13862
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2012, 01:26:33 PM »
Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.

It was a full minute, actually.   :P
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2012, 01:27:39 PM »
Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.

It was a full minute, actually.   :P

 ;D I noticed that after I typed it....

pdirestajr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 741
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2012, 01:40:49 PM »
Or some "real world" examples, as they like to say:


Vi <3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Pink Velcro by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

I've had the L & non-L versions. Didn't notice a difference. Didn't miss IS. I have the 135 f/2 now.
Oh, and that top one was shot on Ai-Servo, focus speed is just fine. The fun thing about a macro lens is that you can basically use it like a "zoom" since there is such a small MFD.
7D | 5DII | EOS-3 | Nikon F3 | Mamiya 645 Pro-TL

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2012, 01:46:46 PM »
I wish you all the luck in the world with your 1:1 Macro handheld images. Then again I drink coffee.