100L vs. 135L

Status
Not open for further replies.
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".
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
VitorMachado said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
GMCPhotographics said:
VitorMachado said:
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.
 
Upvote 0

RLPhoto

Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Mar 27, 2012
3,777
0
San Antonio, TX
www.Ramonlperez.com
Pi said:
funkboy said:
GMCPhotographics said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
VitorMachado said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Random Orbits said:
VitorMachado said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2013
2,169
0
VitorMachado said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
RLPhoto said:
Pi said:
funkboy said:
GMCPhotographics said:
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.

It was about comparing the 85L and the 135L, not about the usefulness of MA.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 17, 2011
5,514
15
funkboy said:
GMCPhotographics said:
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...

Both are excellent lenses. My 85L II is super @ f1.2. As you can see photos below.
1. 135L @ f2
2. 85L II @ f1.2 - I did moved toward to the chair to get 135L view

f1.2 Vs f2, not bad for 85L II @ f1.2. My 2cents: the 85L seems to be sharper than 135L at wide open - no scientific data of course, just by looking at the photos with my ave Joe's eyes ;)

ZERO AFMA on both lenses
 

Attachments

  • 135L @ f2.JPG
    135L @ f2.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,129
  • 85L II @ f1.2.JPG
    85L II @ f1.2.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,207
Upvote 0

funkboy

6D & a bunch of crazy primes
Jul 28, 2010
476
4
54
elsewhere
That is exactly the point I was (sleepily) trying to make: I'd guesstimate that 9 in 10 of the folks on forums that say "my copy of lens X is sharper than lens Y, I've tested them both" didn't actually calibrate their AFMA before they did their "testing", and it's awfully rare that anyone mentions that they actually *did* check AFMA beforehand. The same likely goes for people returning lenses because they got a "bad copy"...
 
Upvote 0
Nov 17, 2011
5,514
15
funkboy said:
That is exactly the point I was (sleepily) trying to make: I'd guesstimate that 9 in 10 of the folks on forums that say "my copy of lens X is sharper than lens Y, I've tested them both" didn't actually calibrate their AFMA before they did their "testing", and it's awfully rare that anyone mentions that they actually *did* check AFMA beforehand. The same likely goes for people returning lenses because they got a "bad copy"...

The diff between 0 and +1 by 12points(880 vs 892, x50 in distance) through Reikan FoCal, I wonder the human can see this diff? I rather leave my @ zero ;)
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Dylan777 said:
The diff between 0 and +1 by 12points(880 vs 892, x50 in distance) through Reikan FoCal, I wonder the human can see this diff? I rather leave my @ zero ;)

Perhaps not. But AF systems aren't perfect - take a bunch of shots, and while a properly AFMA'd lens will result in spot-on focus on average, any given shot may be a bit off. By ensuring the AFMA is correct, you're ensuring that the shots that are a bit off are less off.

castillophotodesign said:
In my opinion the 100L is better than the 135L at everything, except that the 135L is F2 one extra stop a more creamy bokeh. No Macro capibility on the 135L though. They are both super sharp.

My 135L focuses a lot faster than my 100L. That makes it a better choice for action, so for me it's more than just the extra stop of light.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.