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!
100L vs. 135L
- Thread starter VitorMachado
- Start date
- Status
VitorMachado said:
For me the right answer was 135L. I don't have much interest in macro photography so was looking primarily for a portrait/tele lens and the 135L fits the bill perfectly. It will focus as close as 3 feet, which is generally plenty close enough outside. The sharpness and color rendition of this lens are hard to beat. I have only limited experience with the 100L and its is a wonderful lens as well. Its advantage is of course its macro capability. The 135L is a stop faster and better bokeh.
Upvote
0
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 100L. You don't need the extra stop when shooting cars, actually you may even need to stop down further.
And depending on the type of "car photography" you do, you may even use the macro for detailed shots, especially of the interior.
Plus not to mention image stabilization and weather sealing.
I've had both lenses but sold the 135mm. The 135mm is the king of creamy backgroud portraits, only get it if you plan on shooting at f2 often. I kept the 100L as its a great multi purpose lens, and fairs just as well at f2.8 onwards as the 135mm (apart from AF speed, which isn't too bad if you use the focus limiter).
And depending on the type of "car photography" you do, you may even use the macro for detailed shots, especially of the interior.
Plus not to mention image stabilization and weather sealing.
I've had both lenses but sold the 135mm. The 135mm is the king of creamy backgroud portraits, only get it if you plan on shooting at f2 often. I kept the 100L as its a great multi purpose lens, and fairs just as well at f2.8 onwards as the 135mm (apart from AF speed, which isn't too bad if you use the focus limiter).
Upvote
0
You should buy the 135L and get the 100mm non L for special occasions or marco work. Both of your choices are great lenses, but I found myself almost always using the 135L.
Upvote
0
Hi, Think you gave the answer yourself. The 100L would get you the required flexibility plus IS. If you suddenly should turn focus onto portraits the 100L would also do a very decent job. And if not then buy the 135L at that point in time. Enjoy your new lens.
Upvote
0
I just went through the same internal debate. I ended up with the 100L for the following reasons: 1:1 macro; nine-blade aperture gives very good blur (not as creamy as the 135, but very good at 2.8 nonetheless); IS; weather-sealing; price (it's a hair cheaper); sharpness wide open....in a nutshell — versatility.
Upvote
0
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!
Attachments
Upvote
0
VitorMachado said:
They are both sharp enough wide open not to worry. There might be some CA from the reflections with the 135 wide open but the 100L cannot open so much anyway. The 100L renders more saturated colors. For your application, the 100L might be better - the IS is a big plus. The 135L does have better bokeh though.
P.S. I posted some comparisons here some time ago. Sorry, a very different setup, no cars.
Upvote
0
Like mwh says above, 50 1.4 is an excellent lens for cars photography. I have shot the entire Detroit Auto Show during press days with three lenses, 50 1.4, 135 f2 and 70-200 IS. The primes for stationary cars (including ones on pedestals) and the zoom for unveils or ones coming on stage. To me, it is an extremely versatile combination.
Cars, in my opinion, do not have that much macro details as much as an insect would that would absolutely require a dedicated macro lens. With additional f-stop on the 135 it makes a difference.
Following were shot with 50 1.4.
Cars, in my opinion, do not have that much macro details as much as an insect would that would absolutely require a dedicated macro lens. With additional f-stop on the 135 it makes a difference.
Following were shot with 50 1.4.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 399245
- EOS R
