I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.
Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?
I have a llot of good lenses..
theh MAIN ones I want to take out..
are the 14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER the 100L macro or 135L f2..
so to your question ...I have a tough time deciding..
the 135 gives faster aperture...for lo light, takes a 1.4x well and has a little better quality bokeh...
seems more useful
BUT the 100 L macro is quite good and if I.S. is needed in the mix...it goes ...instead of the 135
so you see ....it is a toss-up ...unless I.s versus f2 speed is a decider...
I am a stop and shoot the flowers guy so the macro 'draws more water' with me...
but some days I take the 14L 35 sig and 85L II(or maybe the 135 f2) JUST for lo light, first-sun AM shots..
tha macro has no standing on those moments...
cant lose... just choose
LOVE THIS STUFF..
and I await the NEW SENSOR/focus tech...70D...and then FF
... and these new options with the SAME FREAKIN LENSES....go Canon!!!
if macro is not so important to you ...then 135 f2 and a 12mm tube is fine...
I.S. is a helper ...not a decider... I suppose
the real news is..... the sigma 35 1.4 is sharper than any comparable canon ...wide open...
man....I love it....
pair that with a 135 f2, (or 85L II) and you have a serious lo-light kit....add a 14L for some spicy flavor