Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?

[infilm]

I almost hate to post this question, there are so many posts similar to this. However here I go. I'm looking for a little advice here. I am interested in both the 135 f2L and the 100 f2.8L Macro, (and to get this out of the way I own a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L IS.) and a few other canon f2.8 zooms. My original thought was to go for the 100L macro as it will serve both as a portrait lens and a very good macro. 2 for the price of one, right? However after reading thru the net, I have read so much great stuff about the 135L that I'm a little confused now. So, what would be your recommendations?, and what would I sacrifice if I just went the the 135L and if I wanted to do some macro I just spin a diopter on the front of the lens? Thank you all for your time.

[K-amps]

I have tried Diapoters...

It is hard as it is taking good macro shots... let's just say adding more glass to existing lenses just makes it less fun. Get a proper Macro if you are into Macro..

Unless you really need IS, the non-L 100mm f2.8 Macro is a great buy for the money, I had one, it was sharper than the L version. It also takes great Portaits. Thats another option.

[TW]

You might also consider the EF 100mm f2.0 USM lens. This is a great lens, considerably smaller and lighter than either the 135 or the 100 macros, with excellent image quality, very good build quality, and is from $100 to $700 cheaper than the other lenses, too. No good for macro, but otherwise highly recommended.

[zhap03]

Just buy both!  I did.  There are lots of 135L on the used market (Kijiji etc...) that are in pristine condition.

For real though... the 100L takes really sweet portraits too!!!  It's something that people may not realize, given the Macro designation of the lens.  You just have to get closer than normal to your subject to narrow your depth of field.  This may make your human subject uncomfortable and act less natural.

With the 135L, you can maintain a comfortable distance and take great portrait shots because of the F2 aperture and telephoto compression.  However, no macro capabilities.

I guess it's give and take, huh?  Exactly the dilemma Canon wants us to be in?!

[neuroanatomist]

I have both.  The 135L is a wonderful portrait lens on FF, less so on APS-C unless you're shooting outdoors with plenty of space - else, it's just too long.  Given that, I'd recommend the 100L macro.  It does, indeed, make a decent portrait lens (although the AF is a little slow), and it's great for macro, obviously.

I would avoid using a close-up lens if possible - they are challenging to sork with because your working distance is fixed to a specific distance from the lens. 

[epsiloneri]

Yes, it's a hard choice. I haven't found the 135/2.0L very useful on the 7D, is there a particular reason you're interested in it, already having the 70-200/2.8L IS? I would instead spend the $$ on upgrading to the 70-200/2.8L IS II (yes, it's that much better). Or perhaps save for the 5D3, so you can use the full potential of your lenses.

The macro is much more fun than the 135mm, and the IS makes it good for low light as well (but with the 70-200/2.8L IS this becomes a bit redundant). For macro, I haven't found IS very effective, so I agree with TW that you could consider the non-L non-IS EF 100mm/2.8 macro (since the non-macro application of the macro lens isn't important to you). Other than that, looking at your lineup, you could do with a couple of more 2TB external hard drives 

[K-amps]

........  You just have to get closer than normal to your subject to narrow your depth of field.  This may make your human subject uncomfortable and act less natural.
......

  Yes, thats one of the reasons I got the 180mm 3.5L macro. Gives more more distance from the subject and the amount of bokeh is more than the other lenses due to it's longer reach. See a comparison of Bokeh of the Canon 65mm/100mm & 180mm here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx  Go down about 50% of the page to see a comparison.

Ofcourse, this might get too long for you then, but will do very nice portraits and Macro all in one.

[distant.star]

I don't mean to be critical, but the questions seems like asking -- should I buy a bus or a truck? Seems like the answer is entirely in whether you want to haul people or things.

Someone pointed out that if you have a 70-200, the 135 would seem rather redundant. On my 1.6 crop I use a 60mm for macro (and some classic portraits). I use the 135 for candid portraits, my first love.

As big brain said the 135 is not so good indoors, houses for example. But it would be okay in an auditorium or large meeting hall or ballroom. It's also unobtrusive at sport events and it's speed is great for stop action and background control. I've used it on a tripod to shoot dance recitals with good results.

The real value of the 135 for me is the candid portrait. Especially on a crop frame it keeps me far enough away from the subject that I don't become a distraction or part of the story. I don't have any problem with mounting a 50mm and sticking the camera in someone's face but I lose the purity of a candid portrait when I do. And I do talk with people after shooting them because the picture event has an intimacy that should be properly acknowledged.

For me, as a walkaround lens, I use the excellent efs 15-85. When I go to events and want good candid portraits, the 135 is my only real choice. And to get the spider on that flower, the 60 macro.

Anyway, if you're hauling people around, get a bus. If you're hauling potatoes, get a truck.

[neuroanatomist]

Anyway, if you're hauling people around, get a bus. If you're hauling potatoes, get a truck.

What if you want to haul both?

[dewa]

If you want to do both, you really have to choose the 100mm then.
Distant star is right, 135mm is a very very special lens, especially for candid, that no other lens can even try to get close too.
If you're not that into candid street photography, you can relatively ignore the 135mm.

I enjoy my 135mm way too much, and some of my shots can be seen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjiputra/

good luck.

[lukaszb]

100mm macro is good for portraiture, but on 7d might be too long..  Are you thinking of the L version?  The autofocus is a bit slow on it.  The second question is what type of macro are you thinking of doing?  If you're looking to photograph fly's eye etc then you may want to consider MP-E 65mm.

[mr.ranger]

Someone pointed out that if you have a 70-200, the 135 would seem rather redundant. On my 1.6 crop I use a 60mm for macro (and some classic portraits). I use the 135 for candid portraits, my first love.

as he said it is a bit redundant and the 100 would be to long for portrait especially on a crop. i would definitely look into a 60mm or 65mm macro both great lens and greatly built. i have a 60mm macro and just love it works great

[bycostello]

I love my 100mm macro lens, can get grat close ups and is a great portrait lens.

[Old Shooter]

I noticed that you own a 7D and a 24-70L...  That lens should be a 38-112 equivalent with a 1.6x crop...  That encompasses most of the classic portraiture focal lengths...  Are you unhappy with your IQ or some other aspect?  Just curious...

[whatta]

you have quite impressive lens set already, but just to mention, I use the EF-S 60/2.8 macro for portrait too and I am really happy with it. good value, small, nice usm (af switch to turn off macro af would be good though) very good IQ.

cheers