September 01, 2014, 10:43:09 PM

Author Topic: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L  (Read 6970 times)

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2012, 02:33:41 PM »
Another consideration, with the Kenko extension tubes set, you can get close to 1:1 (I think it's something like 90% life size from memory) when attached to the 135 and you can get some really unusual, very low DoF results with it. In fact the depth of field at f/2 on the 135 with extensions tubes and minimum focal distance is about the thickness of a petal. It isn't to everyone's taste, but if you want to try something different, you've still got more traditional near macro shots as well.


Wood Sorrel by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Artistic Gallerina by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

For what it's worth, I often handhold for macro, simply because most of the time, I'd miss the shot if I had to set up a tripod (although the first example was with a tripod and the second with a thin bean bag on the ground, as flowers and fungi don't move very quick). Also, with even the slightest breeze, macro is awkward, so I need to increase the shutterspeed anyway. I have the non-IS 100mm macro, which I use for most macro shots and only use the 135 for the more creative shots, as it is slightly unbalanced with 68mm of extension tubes.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2012, 02:33:41 PM »

Trovador

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
    • Photography Portfolio
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2012, 02:59:15 PM »
I have the 100L, awesome lens.  I always use it handheld for 1:1 macros, works like a charm.  Some of my pics as examples can be found here:

http://www.ruddyflorentino.com/#!nature|c3c1
Canon 6D+7D; 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 100-400L IS, 50 1.4, 100L 2.8 IS, Rokinon 8mm fisheye
www.ruddyflorentino.com

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2012, 03:02:55 PM »
Interesting. Well I sold my 100 2.0 for the 100L because its hybrid IS makes it one of the best lenses for video.
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, 135 f/2 L 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1259
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2012, 09:40:01 PM »
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.

That's what I thought.
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

jondave

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2012, 11:05:02 PM »
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.

That's what I thought.

If identically framed for both 100mm lenses, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing, DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

For most uses the 100mm macro should be able to replace the 135mm. Comparing the two -

IQ - similar
100mm macro benefits - shorter MFD, 1:1 magnification, Hybrid IS
135mm benefits - longer reach, 1 stop faster

So unless you're a sports shooter, you can simply walk up closer to your subject and turn on IS to negate the 135mm's reach and 1-stop advantage.

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2012, 01:27:05 AM »
Quote
If identically framed for both 100mm lenses, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing[
/b], DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

+1 but at the same aperture.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.97m

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 100
Focus distance: 6.75 (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.81m

But you forgot.  If you need that bokeh so bad for portraiture, 135 is still a lot better than 100mm due to its bigger aperture at F2.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters
Total Depth of field: 0.69m


Source Magnification: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Magnification-Value.aspx
Source DOF calculator: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 01:33:53 AM by verysimplejason »

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1259
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2012, 01:52:02 AM »
Quote
If identically framed for both 100mm lenses, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing[
/b], DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

+1 but at the same aperture.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.97m

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 100
Focus distance: 6.75 (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.81m

But you forgot.  If you need that bokeh so bad for portraiture, 135 is still a lot better than 100mm due to its bigger aperture at F2.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters
Total Depth of field: 0.69m


Exactly. I said at their widest apertures, the 135 should have a shallower DoF.

For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135.

I didn't want to rake up a DoF/FoV conversation- I merely wanted to confirm that a 100mm macro lens is just another 100mm lens, with a really small MFD.
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2012, 01:52:02 AM »

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2012, 02:26:01 AM »
they do seem to overlap quite a bit... i'd sell to fund the purchase...

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14033
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2012, 09:09:51 AM »
I merely wanted to confirm that a 100mm macro lens is just another 100mm lens, with a really small MFD.

Yes.

But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing, DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

No.

+1 but at the same aperture.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.97m

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 100
Focus distance: 6.75 (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.81m

No2  :P

Your math is wrong.  135mm at 10 m will have a wider FoV than 100mm at 6.75 m.  For the same framing as 135mm at 10 m, the 100mm lens would be at a distance of 7.4 m [i.e. 10 m / (135mm/100mm)].  When you plug those numbers into your DoF Calculator of choice, you will find that for the same aperture the DoF is identical.

Here's the way it works: when comparing on a given sensor size (so we can ignore the circle of confusion), three factors determine DoF.

  • Aperture: wider = shallower
  • Focal length: longer = shallower
  • Subject distance: closer = shallower

When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out.  When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture.  So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing.
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 #24 on: December 11, 2012, 09:43:09 AM »

Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV......

It was worth a try....

The Bad Duck

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2012, 10:25:41 AM »
Also, perhaps a bit obvious, but the 135 gives more compression that might be a bit more flattering.
Even more obvious is the working distance, most people are not thrilled at a big lens up their nose. They seem to want some space, favouring the 135. On the other hand, in a smaller room the 100 might be more suitable.

50 or 85 mm can give more intimate portratist since go are forcing yourself into the models comfort zone. However then you might have issues with distortion.

It´s always a compromise no matter how much money you throw at your gear. That is why I like the gear-planning so much.

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2012, 12:07:49 PM »
"When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out.  When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture.  So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing."

Mind blown. So would this work for all lenses? Eg. a 24mm and 200mm?
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, 135 f/2 L 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2012, 12:22:16 PM »
As someone who just received a 135 f/2 yesterday and has worked with a 100 2.8 Macro for some time I can tell you they serve very different purposes. And to boot, the Macro is no where as sharp and cannot even come close to the gorgeous melting out of focus that the 135 produces. My new favorite lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2012, 12:22:16 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14033
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2012, 02:56:41 PM »
"When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out.  When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture.  So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing."

Mind blown. So would this work for all lenses? Eg. a 24mm and 200mm?

24mm f/4, 200mm f/4, 600mm f/4 - for the same FoV, the DoF will be the same (mostly...at very wide angles, the relationship breaks down a little bit, but even then it's <10% difference).  Obviously, you'll be further away, the longer the lens.  Also, different rules apply at macro distances (1:1 or close to it).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2012, 02:56:41 PM »