July 29, 2014, 01:45:41 PM

Author Topic: 135mm vs. 100mm macro  (Read 6871 times)

GoodVendettaPhotography

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
135mm vs. 100mm macro
« on: April 15, 2013, 06:48:37 PM »
I just bought the 135mm and am looking forward to using it; however, I was torn before I bought with the possibility of getting the 100mm L. I am planning on using this range for weddings, portraits, and general events. Would you choose the 100 because of the IS? Interested in your thoughts! Thanks!
5D Mark III | 7D | 17mm TS-E f/4 L | 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS | 50mm f/1.2 L | 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 135mm f/2 L | ST-E3 | 600 ex (x3) | 2x TC III

canon rumors FORUM

135mm vs. 100mm macro
« on: April 15, 2013, 06:48:37 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13596
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2013, 07:01:21 PM »
I'd choose the 100L if I needed macro, else the 135L.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

GoodVendettaPhotography

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2013, 07:04:18 PM »
I have the non L 100 macro and love that lens, but I just didn't know if the upgrade was justifiable..
5D Mark III | 7D | 17mm TS-E f/4 L | 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS | 50mm f/1.2 L | 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 135mm f/2 L | ST-E3 | 600 ex (x3) | 2x TC III

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1404
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2013, 07:50:51 PM »
I have both the 135f/2 L & 100f/2.8 L IS Macro, but i use them for two completely different things, 135 I use for People, City streets, anywhere I need f/2, 100 I use purely for Macro, Underwater Macro, for this the 100 has no competition, not even the Nikons 105 (Crap Lens), I've tried the 100 for People etc, but although I find the Lens as Sharp as a button, I do find in low light the Auto Focus can begin to hunt, as it's primarily a Macro Lens, you may find the 135 is your Lens for Weddings/People etc as has been suggested, cant fault this Lens either, sharp, fast, wonderful in Low Light.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

DCM1024

  • Guest
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2013, 07:51:32 PM »
I purchased both the 100L Macro and the 135L. I love both and consider them to have separate usages. I have not missed IS with the 135 - used it at a low light wedding reception this past Saturday, and am very happy with the results. So far, I find I am using the 135 more than the 100.

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2013, 08:12:10 PM »
if u bought the 135 then that is the best one!   i use the 100 for the close up detail work on a job though

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1287
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2013, 09:00:14 PM »
With the 135L and the 70-200L II, the 100L would most likely be used for macro only.  The IS is nice for macro applications handheld, but I wouldn't think that it would be a high priority.  Look to fill your other lens needs first.  The 100L may be a nice upgrade, but it might not be the best bang for your buck.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2013, 09:00:14 PM »

leftnose

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2013, 09:20:31 PM »
I have them both as well.  As said above, they're different lenses and I use them for different purposes.  I tend to use the 135 for general photography and the 100L in studio (I don't do portraits).

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2013, 12:09:54 AM »
I agree with the overall opinion. I own them both, and the 100L is not as good as I expected for non-macro.

westr70

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2013, 12:47:02 AM »
I have both the 135f/2 L & 100f/2.8 L IS Macro, but i use them for two completely different things, 135 I use for People, City streets, anywhere I need f/2, 100 I use purely for Macro, Underwater Macro, for this the 100 has no competition, not even the Nikons 105 (Crap Lens), I've tried the 100 for People etc, but although I find the Lens as Sharp as a button, I do find in low light the Auto Focus can begin to hunt, as it's primarily a Macro Lens, you may find the 135 is your Lens for Weddings/People etc as has been suggested, cant fault this Lens either, sharp, fast, wonderful in Low Light.

+1, same experience.  I'd take the 135 over the 100 anything but macro.  Both are wonderful lens. 
5DIII; 600D; 7D; 100-400mm, f4.5-5.6; EFS-18-135, f3.5-5.6; 100mm, f2.8 IS; 70-200mm, F4 L IS; 17-40mm, f4 L USM; Sigma 50 mm, f2.8.
http://500px.com/Westr70
http://www.facebook.com/JohnFosterPhotography

florianbieler.de

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • florianbieler.de photography
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2013, 04:40:08 PM »
I also own both of them, I had a 100 non-L at first but wanted the IS, so got the 100L instead. I bothered quite a time if I'd need the 135L. Though they are not far away from each other regarding their focal lengths, they are both useful in their own ways. I used the 100L for macros a lot in the beginning (obviously) but also as a portrait lens. Also I have it with me, next to a wider lens, when I am only hiking around or so because it got an IS, and it's weather sealed while the 135L is not. Keep that in mind for snow or rain, I had a shoot with a girl when it snowed heavily and I could have cancelled that without the 100L. I use the 135L almost only for portrait work and then from a tripod.

The 135L is a bit better regarding sharpness and image quality but they are still both very, very sharp, probably the sharpest lenses in that price segment. If you can afford it, get both, unless you only plan indoor use or in very good weather conditions / at daylight, then I would consider the 135L.
EOS 5D Mark III · Canon 17-40 4.0L · Sigma 35 1.4 · Sigma 85 1.4 · Canon 70-200 4.0L IS · Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 VC
EOS M · Canon 22 2.0 · florianbieler.de

MARKOE PHOTOE

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
  • Photography is a love affair with life.
    • View Profile
    • http://www.markoe.smugmug.com
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2013, 06:33:26 PM »
Have both but prefer the 135 for most any portrait work depending on the setting, distance.  I find the 135 has a smoother bokeh than the 100.  Don't really miss the IS but it would be nice. 

Personally, I'm excited about what Sigma has to offer with a 135 f1.8 OS.  I just rented the new Zeiss 135mm and will have that next week for testing.

I know it wasn't in your question but the 'older' 200mm f2.8L II makes a great portrait lens also, given you can step back 500 yards or so!  ;D

You really can't go wrong with either the 100 or 135. Both are sharp and consistent.

Best of luck.
A few cameras and lenses and a lot of creative energy and imagination.
"You never learn anything until you mess it up."

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1968
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2013, 09:55:58 PM »
I have the 100mmL and my assistant has the 135... Indoors, handheld or monopod, i get a much much better keeper rate... it's not even close.  Outdoors, it's debatable. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2013, 09:55:58 PM »

bholliman

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2013, 10:06:06 PM »
I have a 135L and have been borrowing a 100L Macro for the past 5 months.

The 100L is a great Macro lens, but the 135L is much better for portraits and general purpose photography. 
Bodies:  6D, EOS-M (22/2 and 18-55)
Lenses: Rokinon 14mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 IS, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 135mm 2.0L, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, Extenders: EF 1.4xIII, EF 2xIII ; Flash: ST-E3-RT, 600EX-RT (x3)

mifho

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2013, 05:48:28 PM »
100L = inanimate objects
135L = animate objects
5d mkiii, 16-35L, 24-70L ii, 24-105L, 70-200L f2.8 is II,  Sigma 35 art, 50L, 85L, 135L, Fuji x100s

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2013, 05:48:28 PM »