First, the "comparison" plamen posted IS NOT relevant or the situation I have constantly referred to, I KEEP saying FOR THE SAME FRAMED IMAGE, that means moving forwards for the 100.
Exactly what I did. The error was about 10%.
I will post some more.
Why not just try and tell me which of the four images I posted many pages ago are shot with which lens, surely that should be easy seeing as how the 135 has a "unique look"? And that is my point, yet again, it is not about comparisons, it is about the FACT that nobody can RELIABLY tell what image was shot with which lens, nobody who alludes to this "unique look" can reliably identify it, if you can't reliably identify it it isn't "unique". If the look it gives isn't unique then there needs to be a better reason to choose between the two lenses. My thought was that, bearing in mind nobody seems to be able to differentiate the lenses when used for portraits, the macro has much more flexibility. Now why is that so controversial?
You're right, to an extent. But you're wrong to an even further extent. Yes, distance, the amount of light, composition, etc play a very big factor in creating an image. But macro lenses, like other lenses have very noticeable strengths and weaknesses. In terms of image quality itself, I don't know how you can't
see it. I saw it right away after borrowing a 100L and comparing it to my 135mm and 85mm lenses. Macro images look horrible for head and shoulder shots. I can even see it in full body portraits. Color wise, sharpness wise, they're over the top. Fixing it all in post is no excuse, over saturation destroys the range from the standard portrait distances. So no, nobody wants to use a bloody 100L for portraits, mostly for those reasons, and some because of AF performance and speed which is another sacrifice. If you need to get close, it's no compromise, get a macro lens. But don't tell me it's equal or better than portrait lenses.