April 17, 2014, 01:44:29 AM

Author Topic: 100L vs. 135L  (Read 7960 times)

VitorMachado

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
100L vs. 135L
« on: June 18, 2013, 05:28:14 PM »
I'm currently in the market for a telephoto L lens, but stuck between these two. I've never owned nor shot either lens so that's my biggest issue. Here's the question; which one should I buy? I shoot cars so I'd like to have the perfect 16:9 aspect ratio from a distance, but also get more up close if needed. The 100L will basically knock out two birds with one stone due to the extremely small focus distance, but then the 135L has been crowned the king of the L lenses. Which decision should I make? Your help is appreciated!
6D | 60D | 24 f/1.4L II | 50 f/1.2L | 40 f/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitormachadophotography/

canon rumors FORUM

100L vs. 135L
« on: June 18, 2013, 05:28:14 PM »

bholliman

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 688
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2013, 06:11:04 PM »
I'm currently in the market for a telephoto L lens, but stuck between these two. I've never owned nor shot either lens so that's my biggest issue. Here's the question; which one should I buy? I shoot cars so I'd like to have the perfect 16:9 aspect ratio from a distance, but also get more up close if needed. The 100L will basically knock out two birds with one stone due to the extremely small focus distance, but then the 135L has been crowned the king of the L lenses. Which decision should I make? Your help is appreciated!

For me the right answer was 135L.  I don't have much interest in macro photography so was looking primarily for a portrait/tele lens and the 135L fits the bill perfectly.  It will focus as close as 3 feet, which is generally plenty close enough outside.  The sharpness and color rendition of this lens are hard to beat.  I have only limited experience with the 100L and its is a wonderful lens as well.  Its advantage is of course its macro capability.  The 135L is a stop faster and better bokeh.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 11:20:12 PM by bholliman »
Bodies:  6D, EOS-M
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, EF-M 22 2.0, EF-M 18-55mm, Extender EF 2xIII; Speedlites: 600EX-RT(2x), 430EX II

Eli

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
    • http://500px.com/elindaire
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2013, 06:36:17 PM »
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 100L. You don't need the extra stop when shooting cars, actually you may even need to stop down further.
And depending on the type of "car photography" you do, you may even use the macro for detailed shots, especially of the interior.
Plus not to mention image stabilization and weather sealing.

I've had both lenses but sold the 135mm. The 135mm is the king of creamy backgroud portraits, only get it if you plan on shooting at f2 often. I kept the 100L as its a great multi purpose lens, and fairs just as well at f2.8 onwards as the 135mm (apart from AF speed, which isn't too bad if you use the focus limiter).

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12749
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2013, 06:37:31 PM »
I have both, both are excellent; the 135L is my go-to for portraits and often indoor sports, the 100L is used primarily for macro. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

GoodVendettaPhotography

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2013, 07:18:21 PM »
You should buy the 135L and get the 100mm non L for special occasions or marco work. Both of your choices are great lenses, but I found myself almost always using the 135L.
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

mwh1964

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2013, 08:48:01 PM »
Hi, Think you gave the answer yourself. The 100L would get you the required flexibility plus IS. If you suddenly should turn focus onto portraits the 100L would also do a very decent job. And if not then buy the 135L at that point in time. Enjoy your new lens.
5D3 | 24-70L II | 24-105L | 70-200L II | 70-300L | 15 fisheye | 35 IS | 40 STM | 50 f1.4 | 100L | 135 L | extender 2X III | B&W Kaesemann | 2 x 600 EX-RT | ST-E3-RT | MR14-EX | Manfrotto | Billingham | Lowepro | Think Tank

chas1113

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2013, 09:43:37 PM »
I just went through the same internal debate. I ended up with the 100L for the following reasons: 1:1 macro; nine-blade aperture gives very good blur (not as creamy as the 135, but very good at 2.8 nonetheless); IS; weather-sealing; price (it's a hair cheaper); sharpness wide open....in a nutshell — versatility.
5D III | 5DII | Fuji X-E1 | EF 17-40 | EF 24-105 | EF 35 IS | EF 50 f/1.4 | EF 100L | EF 70-300L | EF 100-300L | EF 300 f/4 IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2013, 09:43:37 PM »

John

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2013, 10:11:26 PM »
i hardly ever shoot macro. i have both lenses and i use the 135L a lot more often than the 100. i use the 135 for portraits and indoor sports. i love the lens a lot.

tnargs

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2013, 10:18:02 PM »
Which camera will it mainly be for, the 6D or 60D?

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2013, 10:21:42 PM »
What cars, real cars (not models)? 135mm or 100mm would be too long for that, I guess.

Z-06

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2013, 10:28:08 PM »
How much close up do you need? (Shot with the 135L 2013 Detroit Autoshow)




VitorMachado

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2013, 11:14:06 PM »
Thanks for the replies, they're really helping. I am leaning towards the 100L solely because of it's versatility, but the 135L does indeed have the best bokeh, which is something I need. Does anyone know if both of these lenses are sharp wide open? These 2 pictures I have included below were taken using the 50 1.4, but stopped down to about 2.5/2.8, due to its massive chromatic aberration around the wheels' reflections. Thanks again!
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 11:15:48 PM by VitorMachado »
6D | 60D | 24 f/1.4L II | 50 f/1.2L | 40 f/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitormachadophotography/

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2013, 11:22:58 PM »
Thanks for the replies, they're really helping. I am leaning towards the 100L solely because of it's versatility, but the 135L does indeed have the best bokeh, which is something I need. Does anyone know if both of these lenses are sharp wide open? These 2 pictures I have included below were taken using the 50 1.4, but stopped down to about 2.5/2.8, due to its massive chromatic aberration around the wheels' reflections. Thanks again!


They are both sharp enough wide open not to worry. There might be some CA from the reflections with the 135 wide open but the 100L cannot open so much anyway. The 100L renders more saturated colors. For your application, the 100L might be better - the IS is a big plus. The 135L does have better bokeh though.

P.S. I posted some comparisons here some time ago. Sorry, a very different setup, no cars.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 11:27:55 PM by Pi »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2013, 11:22:58 PM »

mwh1964

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2013, 11:46:36 PM »
Great pictures. Why not stay with your 50 f/1.4 and save the money. Just a thought.
5D3 | 24-70L II | 24-105L | 70-200L II | 70-300L | 15 fisheye | 35 IS | 40 STM | 50 f1.4 | 100L | 135 L | extender 2X III | B&W Kaesemann | 2 x 600 EX-RT | ST-E3-RT | MR14-EX | Manfrotto | Billingham | Lowepro | Think Tank

Z-06

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 07:22:49 AM »
Like mwh says above, 50 1.4 is an excellent lens for cars photography. I have shot the entire Detroit Auto Show during press days with three lenses, 50 1.4, 135 f2 and 70-200 IS. The primes for stationary cars (including ones on pedestals) and the zoom for unveils or ones coming on stage. To me, it is an extremely versatile combination.

Cars, in my opinion, do not have that much macro details as much as an insect would that would absolutely require a dedicated macro lens. With additional f-stop on the 135 it makes a difference.

Following were shot with 50 1.4.




canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 07:22:49 AM »