100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[Jesse]

What do I know though, I bought the 100L because it's the best lens for video out there.

[wayno]

Bogging in again, I prefer the 70-200 2.8II IS (for flexibility) and the 85 (I have the Sigma) for portraiture personally. The 100L is great for macro but I just don't have a meaningful place for it in my own kit. If I didn't have the 70-200 2.8 then I would possibly find it more useful (the IS, for one) but when the option for truly luscious DOF lurks just around the corner at 85, I find it hard to justify the comparatively slow 100L at 2.8 (even if the bokeh is sweet).

[RLPhoto]

RL, people are able to create equally good portraits with either the 135L or the 100L because gear doesn't matter.


......

Exactly my point why even buy the 100L macro? Get the non-L 100 f/2 or 100mm macro non-IS.

Eye portraits are not considered to be portraits but details.

[Don Haines]

I find the 100L works quite well as a portrait lens on a crop camera, particularly when you can't get right up into the person's face.....  It also works well for animal portraiture and excels at insect portraiture

[Don Haines]

well, the reproduction of the  perspective is not the best  with "160mm"  equivalent  compared to 100mm
In a head shoot the ears  looks bigger with "160mm" and the head flatter compared to 100mm on a 24x36.

I should have added to my post that on a crop camera I think that 50-60 mm is ideal most of the time.  Lately, I have shot a number of portraits of musicians while performing. They look a lot more relaxed when you are a reasonable distance away.... Edge of the stage as opposed to elbowing the sheet music stand out of the way..... And in those conditions the 100 is ideal. For studio work, birthday parties, etc, it's way too much reach and that's where I like the 50...

[RLPhoto]

No need to buy a 100L for portraits when you have a 70-200II. It just not worth it for just portraits.

The 135L give you the extra speed for a unique look neither can deliver and its small, compact and fast.

[Plamen]

OK, this is easy to cheat, so don't. Which of these images were shot with the 135 and which with the 100 IS L Macro? There are no prizes and each will have their own tastes, that is not the point, my point is can anybody reliably tell the two lenses apart, if you are honest I expect few, actually nobody, can.

Neither has a "unique look", the macro can do a lot more than the 135, but there are very good reasons to own either.

The child is NOT shot at f/2. In the other, the focus is too close for f/2 to make a huge difference. But when you focus farther away, things change.

Which one of those is shot with the 100L?

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

[RLPhoto]

is this taken with a 100mm or a 135?

Might as well be shot with an iPhone. It'd look more appetizing than this.

[RLPhoto]

and you are right, this is a Iphone 4s, and what do I meant by this?
If we are showing pictures from one or another lens they do not tell us much if there not are two identical images captured.

Great because test charts are always more useful than actual photos made with the equipment.

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

Horrible bokeh? hahahahaha. You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

[7enderbender]

I had been contemplating both as well. The 100L has the advantage of being a good portrait lens AND a very good macro lens. However, I decided to go with the 135L. Why? Because it's a focal length that I'm more accustomed to for portraits and since portraits were the main objective I decided to go with the hammer-over-swiss-army-knife approach. If the main goal had been macros I would have looked at it the other way.
Both are excellent lenses and (don't tell Canon that) really good value - if not a bargain compared to how much other very very good lenses cost.
For me personally, the IS in the 100L counts as a negative so that was another (small) factor.

I'm quite happy with the 135 and it performs really well. It's so sharp that at times you might want to carefully evaluate in post processing if you really want it that sharp depending on the subject...The bokeh is probably as good as it gets.

That being said: I may add the 100L at some point as well - as a macro lens. But since I'm not very interested in macro work at the moment it's somewhat lower on my list. And even then I may actually go with the TS-E 90 to cover that...

Would you mind explaining why IS on the 100 counts as a negative?

More stuff that you pay for, more stuff that breaks eventually and I personally see absolutely no use for IS other than increasing the keeper rate on borderline useful snapshots in low light perhaps. It's not a replacement for a tripod in situations where you'd want one. And it doesn't help when things are moving around.

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

So which of the four I posted are the 135? You already said not the girl on the swing, so three more guesses. What difference would it make if I have used either, I am asking you to post an image that has the "unique look" of the 135, you know, the images with "35% more compression", "twice the light", "much narrower depth of field", I, and others, have posted images shot with both and you can't tell them apart, I am not the one being dumb here.

Having said that I knew that images one and four were with your 135, the 100 doesn't have harsh bokeh like that, I got two right, 50%, even though it was a trick question!

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

[RLPhoto]

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

So you can't tell the difference, but then I knew that. Your only defense is to resort to insults and insinuations. I shot the 135 on film for years, now I find the 100 macro a much more versatile lens with much nicer bokeh and vastly greater functionality.

After calling me dumb, do you want to know how dumb you are?
"The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh."
"When I see a 135L image, I know it ...."
That was shot with the 135 at f2.2, you might still be fooling yourself, but I doubt if anybody else is impressed with your avoidance, insults and insinuations.

You haven't shown an image with "a unique look, 35% more compression, twice the light, and much less dof" that you purport the 135 gives you, because you can't, there is not enough to distinguish between the two.

I have little respect for measuabators in photography. I've already displayed work with both lenses and I chose the 135L for already said reasons. If my conclusion is that the 135L is better and that's too much for you to handle, go ahead and waste your time. Preaching to the choir. I simply cannot respect you as a photographer until I've seen photographs with your work with BOTH lenses. Then atleast I could respect your opinions on this topic.

The 100L is a good portrait lens but the 135L, now that's a great portrait lens.

[RLPhoto]

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD