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!
Sorry for coming into this disccusion a bit late. The 135L is a great L lens but certainly not the king.
It's fast focussing and offers a great look to it's images. But it's considered to be more of a portrait lens that a general purpose lens (although I use mine more than my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II).
The 100L macro took a bit of a slating when it was first released becuase it was seen as just an IS addition. This is a little unfair, my copy is amazingly sharp. Mine is sharper than my 135L...this is where I get loads of replies say "this cannot be" and I get loads of people flinging lens charts at me...This is the case with both my copy and my 2nd photographer's copies. My 85IIL is sharper than my 135L, belive it or not. It's AF is improved to the point that it's great with non macro stuff too. It's Image Stabiliser is very very good and it feels lighter too. I like the 135L a lot, but it's not the same lens as the 100L Macro. Yes they both cover a simular focal range, but the look and results are different. Maybe the question you should ask yourself is...if you were to use the 100L would you miss the extra stop and 30% longer reach? Or if you chose the 135L, would you miss the closer focssing / macro / IS options of the 100L Macro? If you can't decide then you probably need both lenses.