July 25, 2014, 06:22:51 PM

Author Topic: 135mm vs. 100mm macro  (Read 6813 times)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8255
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2013, 05:56:32 PM »
I have both.  The 100L for macro, the 135 for everything else in that focal length range where I need f/2.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2013, 05:56:32 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3277
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2013, 11:03:22 PM »
The 135L IMO is the best portrait lens just under the 200 f/2. The 100L is a good all use lens but won't do anything for portraits that a 70-200 2.8 couldn't do.

If you need a macro, the answer is obvious. If you want a portrait lens, the answer should be obvious.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1151
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2013, 11:53:35 PM »
I would say they are made for two separate applications. If you need an excellent portrait lens for low light etc then the 135L is the way to go. The IS would only be useful for stationary subjects, for me that doesn't translate to portraits as people tend to move about and figit a lot! The 135L has the extra stop advantage which would give faster shutter speeds if used in conjunction with a higher ISO. You want somewhere around 1/200 s or faster and f/2.8 in my opinion is just not fast enough in low light without hitting the really high ISO levels.

5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

EOS M | 22 f/2 | 11-22 IS

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2428
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2013, 12:52:57 AM »
For your uses, I would buy the 135 f/2 and a 25mm extension tube (or set of Kenko tubes).  For wedding/event "macro" you're usually not going for a true 1:1, and the extension tube will get you to .41x.  Plus, you can use the 1.4x and 2x extenders with it.  It was my first L and is still my favorite lens. 
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

sleepnever

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2013, 12:56:45 PM »
I bought the 100L just recently because I like the fun/challenge of finding interesting macro subjects, but also it doubles as a great portrait lens. This thing is insane wide open on my 5D3 at 2.8 and only gets better as I stop down. My 24-70L Mk1 hasn't been on my camera for a while. The IS is nice and the lens has actually taught me to use MF instead of AF.

I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?
Canon 5D3 | 50mm f1.4  | 24-70 f2.8L | 100 f2.8L IS Macro | 430EX II
Flickr

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2428
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2013, 01:25:47 PM »
I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?
Because with the 135mm you can get 1/200s at f/2 at ISO 1600 or less in just about any lighting, even indoors in poor lighting.  I would be more leery of the 200mm because the non-IS model is a f/2.8.  Ultimately they're both great lenses (the 135 and 100 macro) and unless you shoot indoor sports (and need f/2) or macro (and need true 1:1) or have unsteady hands (and need IS), you can't go wrong with either lens.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »
I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?


Because of this?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »