December 22, 2014, 06:03:01 AM

Author Topic: 100L vs. 135L  (Read 11910 times)

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4369
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 08:50:48 AM »
No comment on 100L - never own one

I like 135L alot ;)
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 08:50:48 AM »

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1679
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2013, 08:55:02 AM »
If your primary purpose is shooting cars and you are at all concerned about ISO, I would actually recommend the 100L over the 135L.  Why would I say that when the 135L is a stop faster?  Because of not having IS, I typically shoot the 135L at a shutter speed of at least 1/160th second.  And that is fine when I am shooting event work, because I need a shutter speed high enough to counter motion blur from human activity.  But if you are shooting static objects like cars, I can shoot the 100L at 1/15th second all day and get sharp pictures.  1/25th is almost a guaranteed sharp image.  The IS is really, really effective.  You will actually end up shooting lower ISO with the 100L in the situation you are describing unless you are using a tripod, which I doubt.  I also think that you will find framing a little more flexible with the 100L.  Understand that the 135L is perhaps my favorite lens, but for your application I think the 100L is the better choice.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2013
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 09:55:15 AM »
The 135L is a superb lens, when it is in focus and when it is stabilized...  F2 is very very shallow and hard to control for some photographers and lack of IS could be killer in some situations...  I've had way too many great photos missed by my assistants with the 135 indoors because of camera shake, mis focus, etc...  So if your shooting indoors on tripod, go for it.  Otherwise if you are handholding, the 100L is my recommended lens. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 10:12:40 AM »
I have the 100L and I love it.


It's a proper do-it-all lens. Not too short, not too long, sharp as anything, IS built in, and there's also macro which can be lots of fun.


The 135L is an amazing lens but might be a tad restrictive in some circumstances.
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2013, 12:24:00 PM »
I have them both.  What would probably push me in the direction of the 100L is the IS (though I almost never have a problem with the 135 hand-held unless the light's pretty low) and, especially important to me, the very short MFD (as you would expect with a macro lens).  I like being able to get up close to fine details/small things sometimes (I don't mean macro work as such).  True, you probably won't need to do so that much with cars, but when I was at a vintage car show last summer with just my 24-105 I encountered several hood ornaments which made me wish I had my 100L (I'll just have to go again this year...).  Being able to get closer, by the way, may obviate any superiority the 135 L may have in terms of bokeh - the bokeh quality from both lenses is superb, and when you factor in magnification, distance ratios etc. I bet there's not much, if anything, in it (didn't someone fairly recently demonstrate here that they're essentially the same in that regard?). 

The only relative disadvantage the 100L has is a disadvantage all macro lenses have - focusing, especially in low light, can be slow if the next subject is significantly farther/closer than the current one.

VitorMachado

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 10:19:27 PM »
I think I have made up my mind. Just like any other photographer though, I wish I could have both. Anyways, the 100L seems to make more sense after all this great feedback. Even though 99% of my photo shoots are tri-pod'd, the IS can be a huge beneficial advantage. Rolling shots are always possible and who doesn't like to have IS when you hit a dead end, so to speak. The one stop loss of bokeh should be fine, considering the 100L's looks fantastic. Another thing that really caught my attention was better saturated colors. This is very important in my work and can automatically win over the competition between the two. Lastly, who doesn't like having macro. There hasn't been many instances where I needed macro on location, but it's nice to have. In my spare time I love shooting in this second world we all call "macro".
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 11:37:58 PM by VitorMachado »
6D | 60D | 24 f/1.4L II | 50 f/1.2L | 40 f/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitormachadophotography/

symmar22

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2013, 05:50:45 AM »
I have the 135L, but in your case I think the 100L would fit the task better, more flexibility, will allow you to shoot closer and lots of small details outside and inside the car (gauges, seats, switches), where the 135 is pretty useless. I do not have the 100L (I use a 90 TS-E for close-up), but I am seriously considering buying one; I love my 135, but the lack of IS and quite narrow angle of view makes it less flexible, I use it mainly when I want a strong subject / background separation.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2013, 05:50:45 AM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2013, 06:24:28 AM »
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.

funkboy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 425
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2013, 07:34:06 AM »
My 85IIL is sharper than my 135L, belive it or not.

All great lenses, but any discussion involving high-end lens sharpness should involve an AFMA test...

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2013, 07:48:18 AM »
My 85IIL is sharper than my 135L, belive it or not.

All great lenses, but any discussion involving high-end lens sharpness should involve an AFMA test...

And some intensive pixel peeping.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 01:52:09 PM by Pi »

VitorMachado

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2013, 10:42:02 AM »
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.

That is a great point, but you said it yourself, maybe I need both. And that's MY problem, I can't buy both. I'd really like to have the subject and backdrop separation the 135 brings but these detail shots really mean a lot as well. If it means anything, I have the 60mm macro for for my 60D.
6D | 60D | 24 f/1.4L II | 50 f/1.2L | 40 f/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitormachadophotography/

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2013, 11:01:19 AM »
My 85IIL is sharper than my 135L, belive it or not.

All great lenses, but any discussion involving high-end lens sharpness should involve an AFMA test...

An some intensive pixel peeping.

That's a bold claim.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2013, 11:51:57 AM »
That is a great point, but you said it yourself, maybe I need both. And that's MY problem, I can't buy both. I'd really like to have the subject and backdrop separation the 135 brings but these detail shots really mean a lot as well. If it means anything, I have the 60mm macro for for my 60D.

Yes, that means a lot.  If you're ok using 2 bodies, then use the 60 on the 60D and the 135 on the FF.  The only reason for pause is if you plan on getting the 70-200L II in the future.  If you do, I suggest getting the 70-200 II first.  There's not that big a difference between the 135L and the 70-200L II at f/2.8 at smaller and the zoom gives you a wide focal length range and better AF (servo).  I have both, but I tend to use the zoom a lot more because of sports.  The 135 is used specifically for portraits and low light indoor applications.

Perhaps the best path is to get the 135L now and trade in the ef-s 60 in the future to help offset the 100L's cost.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2013, 11:51:57 AM »

VitorMachado

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2013, 01:49:48 PM »
That is a great point, but you said it yourself, maybe I need both. And that's MY problem, I can't buy both. I'd really like to have the subject and backdrop separation the 135 brings but these detail shots really mean a lot as well. If it means anything, I have the 60mm macro for for my 60D.

Yes, that means a lot.  If you're ok using 2 bodies, then use the 60 on the 60D and the 135 on the FF.  The only reason for pause is if you plan on getting the 70-200L II in the future.  If you do, I suggest getting the 70-200 II first.  There's not that big a difference between the 135L and the 70-200L II at f/2.8 at smaller and the zoom gives you a wide focal length range and better AF (servo).  I have both, but I tend to use the zoom a lot more because of sports.  The 135 is used specifically for portraits and low light indoor applications.

Perhaps the best path is to get the 135L now and trade in the ef-s 60 in the future to help offset the 100L's cost.

That's what I was thinking. I wish I could be using my macro lens on my main body, but beggars can't be choosers. Getting the 135L now seems to be what I'm leaning toward, even though I posted about the 100L. I would benefit alot more off the  135 than the 100. I just wanted best of both worlds with the macro lens.
6D | 60D | 24 f/1.4L II | 50 f/1.2L | 40 f/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitormachadophotography/

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2013, 01:58:35 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!

Nice shots!

The 135 gives a narrower FOV and far shallower depth of field, so if you want that type of shot, go with the 135.  Its bokeh is the best I have ever used.

The 100L might be slightly sharper wide open, depending on how accurate your focus is, and the ultimate sharpness of the shot due to shutter speed, vibration, etc.  The differences in sharpness are not that much, and on the 6D, probably nill.

I'll just echo some of the above comments.  The 100L would be good if you ever plan to do macro shots.  The 135 is great for everything, provided you can take in enough FOV at 135mm.  My copy certainly stays very sharp even as you close down towards f/32.  So it will give some deep focus, provided you have enough light at such a small aperture.

If it were my money and I wanted a macro, I would buy the new Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (it also has stabilization).  It costs less than the Canon 100L, its image quality looks to be at least as good or better from the online images I've seen so far.  And at 90mm, for those wider shots, it will take in a bit more FOV.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100L vs. 135L
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2013, 01:58:35 PM »