February 21, 2018, 10:35:38 AM

Author Topic: 135L or 100L macro?  (Read 18293 times)

Quasimodo

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 979
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • 500px.com
Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2012, 08:29:58 AM »
What about getting the 135mm F2.0L and the 100 non-L macro now? A friend of mine has the latter, and it is according to him (and to the photozone) almost equal, - the is, which for macro is not that important?

My next lens is the MP-E65, but I have to wait because of the collateral cost (twin macro flash....).
1Dx, 5x600 EX RT, ST-E3, Canon:24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 135L, 2x III TC, Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2012, 08:29:58 AM »

jm345

  • Guest
Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2012, 01:50:14 PM »
At the wide end I would consider 24-70L or 24-105L IS over the 17-40L on a FF body. I have owned all three and the 17-40 is the weakest wide open. Actually I would like to see a new Canon 24-70 (or 105) f/2.8L IS as sharp in the center and corners as the Canon 70-200f/2.8L IS II.

I have both the 100L IS macro and the 135f/2. Both are fantastic lenses - you can't go wrong with either one. Others here have described the advantages of each lens. You will have to match your photographic needs with those advantages to get the most out of either lens.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 14008
Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2012, 02:04:13 PM »
Simple facts:

I would bet on the 135L being a faster AF than the 100L

Brian

my 135mmL focuses much faster from near to infinity than my 100L.  The 100L is handicapped because you have to move the focus elements a lot further.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2012, 02:04:13 PM »