100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[RLPhoto]

That's right, only the 135L could deliver that image on this particular cropped camera image! this even shows how good this lens is on crop cameras! No other lens could because no other lens is 135mm f/2 that melts the background like that with compression like that.

Your the one who said, blah blah blah "I could do that same shot from your crop camera on my FF camera with a 70-200II 2.8 blah blah blah" this mentality is completely wrong and stupid. You simply cannot accept that the 135L is a better portrait lens than the 100L, which BTW I never stated was bad but just not as good.

You have to be some sorta measuabator who has yet to post any real photos on this thread. You forget that the artist chooses his tool because the artist can tell between them. I can see a visual difference in the shots I've made with the 100L and the 135L both wide open. The 135L I found superior for portraits.

You say you can't tell the difference well good for you. I'm sure your happy with f2.8 and could argue that you wouldn't see a difference between 2.8 and f/4. Then you will say there is and I will say they're isn't. It's after all! Only one stop.

I've gave my experiences and opinions based on using both the 100L and 135L and I've even added some examples lying around my hard drive. Why you yourself have done little for the original OP except waste your time preaching to the choir who's shot on crop and FF cameras both lenses.

 

[mikemilton]

I have the lens. It is quite sharp at any shooting distance. It makes a fine portrait lens (I've used it on both the 1DmIV and 1Dx). The 9 blade, rounded aperture give a nice bokeh. The IS is astounding.

 

[bholliman]

Thanks again for all the great responses! The 100L Macro and 135L are both really excellent lenses.

I still was undecided, but my brother made my choice easy - by giving me his 100L Macro lens. My brother has been a hobby photographer since around 2005, but he has lost interest in the last year or two. He seldom takes his DSLR (a 5D2 and a large assortment of Canon L glass) out of storage now. What photography he does these days is with his iPhone 5 or Fuji X100. We were discussing photography and I mentioned I was thinking about buying a 100L Macro or 135L and he said he would just give me his the 100L Macro and solve my "problem".

So, I'll be able to buy a 135L soon and have both lenses! Life is good.

 

[florianbieler.de]

So, I'll be able to buy a 135L soon and have both lenses! Life is good.

Exactly what I did now. The 100L is great for short range portraits, but somehow lacks quality when the subject is further away. There the 135 kicks in, oh I will probably use it for any portrait when I got the space available. 100L is still a keeper for its weather sealing and IS.

Also got a Kenko MC4 1,4x converter and this grants me 189mm 2.8 too 8)

 

[pierlux]

Thanks again for all the great responses! The 100L Macro and 135L are both really excellent lenses.

I still was undecided, but my brother made my choice easy - by giving me his 100L Macro lens. My brother has been a hobby photographer since around 2005, but he has lost interest in the last year or two. He seldom takes his DSLR (a 5D2 and a large assortment of Canon L glass) out of storage now. What photography he does these days is with his iPhone 5 or Fuji X100. We were discussing photography and I mentioned I was thinking about buying a 100L Macro or 135L and he said he would just give me his the 100L Macro and solve my "problem".

So, I'll be able to buy a 135L soon and have both lenses! Life is good.

Or, you could have a look at your brother's large assortment of L glass, check if there's a 135L and, if yes, while discussing photography again, mention you are thinking about buying it... : Then repeat the comedy for every L lens in the assortment.

 

[bholliman]

... There the 135 kicks in, oh I will probably use it for any portrait when I got the space available. 100L is still a keeper for its weather sealing and IS.

I'm really looking forward to using both!

Or, you could have a look at your brother's large assortment of L glass, check if there's a 135L and, if yes, while discussing photography again, mention you are thinking about buying it... : Then repeat the comedy for every L lens in the assortment.

I thought about that. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a 135L (but does have several other lenses I covet: 24L, 50L, 85L and 16-35L). So, I'll start working on those next.

 

[7enderbender]

I had been contemplating both as well. The 100L has the advantage of being a good portrait lens AND a very good macro lens. However, I decided to go with the 135L. Why? Because it's a focal length that I'm more accustomed to for portraits and since portraits were the main objective I decided to go with the hammer-over-swiss-army-knife approach. If the main goal had been macros I would have looked at it the other way.
Both are excellent lenses and (don't tell Canon that) really good value - if not a bargain compared to how much other very very good lenses cost.
For me personally, the IS in the 100L counts as a negative so that was another (small) factor.

I'm quite happy with the 135 and it performs really well. It's so sharp that at times you might want to carefully evaluate in post processing if you really want it that sharp depending on the subject...The bokeh is probably as good as it gets.

That being said: I may add the 100L at some point as well - as a macro lens. But since I'm not very interested in macro work at the moment it's somewhat lower on my list. And even then I may actually go with the TS-E 90 to cover that...

 

[wayno]

Personally I've never been that happy with portraits from mine. There is something quite 'technical' looking about images from it that I never get with the 70-200. In that regard, i don't see the advantage of the macro for portraiture except perhaps weight (and focussing distance).

 

[lintoni]

Thanks again for all the great responses! The 100L Macro and 135L are both really excellent lenses.

I still was undecided, but my brother made my choice easy - by giving me his 100L Macro lens. My brother has been a hobby photographer since around 2005, but he has lost interest in the last year or two. He seldom takes his DSLR (a 5D2 and a large assortment of Canon L glass) out of storage now. What photography he does these days is with his iPhone 5 or Fuji X100. We were discussing photography and I mentioned I was thinking about buying a 100L Macro or 135L and he said he would just give me his the 100L Macro and solve my "problem".

So, I'll be able to buy a 135L soon and have both lenses! Life is good.

Life of Brian. You lucky bastard.

 

[bholliman]

LOL! ;D

 

[Jesse]

RL, people are able to create equally good portraits with either the 135L or the 100L because gear doesn't matter.


......

 

[Jesse]

Also, not every portrait is shot wide open. I don't think you're going to get much bokeh if you're shooting in a studio with a black backdrop shooting at f/11.

 

[brad-man]

I had been contemplating both as well. The 100L has the advantage of being a good portrait lens AND a very good macro lens. However, I decided to go with the 135L. Why? Because it's a focal length that I'm more accustomed to for portraits and since portraits were the main objective I decided to go with the hammer-over-swiss-army-knife approach. If the main goal had been macros I would have looked at it the other way.
Both are excellent lenses and (don't tell Canon that) really good value - if not a bargain compared to how much other very very good lenses cost.
For me personally, the IS in the 100L counts as a negative so that was another (small) factor.

I'm quite happy with the 135 and it performs really well. It's so sharp that at times you might want to carefully evaluate in post processing if you really want it that sharp depending on the subject...The bokeh is probably as good as it gets.

That being said: I may add the 100L at some point as well - as a macro lens. But since I'm not very interested in macro work at the moment it's somewhat lower on my list. And even then I may actually go with the TS-E 90 to cover that...

Would you mind explaining why IS on the 100 counts as a negative?

 

[Jesse]

"In the end, there is nothing the 100mm macro can do for portraits that the 70-200LII cannot do."

eye portraits, yo

 

[Kernuak]

Also, not every portrait is shot wide open. I don't think you're going to get much bokeh if you're shooting in a studio with a black backdrop shooting at f/11.

But equally, if you do want to shoot wide open and like the narrow depth of field f/2 produces, then you're pretty stuck if you have the 100L macro. It's a combination of having the right tool for the job and flexibility. For portraits, the 135L does generally have a little more flexibility, as long as you have enough space.

 

[Jesse]

What do I know though, I bought the 100L because it's the best lens for video out there.

 

[wayno]

Bogging in again, I prefer the 70-200 2.8II IS (for flexibility) and the 85 (I have the Sigma) for portraiture personally. The 100L is great for macro but I just don't have a meaningful place for it in my own kit. If I didn't have the 70-200 2.8 then I would possibly find it more useful (the IS, for one) but when the option for truly luscious DOF lurks just around the corner at 85, I find it hard to justify the comparatively slow 100L at 2.8 (even if the bokeh is sweet).

 

[RLPhoto]

RL, people are able to create equally good portraits with either the 135L or the 100L because gear doesn't matter.


......

Exactly my point why even buy the 100L macro? Get the non-L 100 f/2 or 100mm macro non-IS.

Eye portraits are not considered to be portraits but details.

 

[Don Haines]

I find the 100L works quite well as a portrait lens on a crop camera, particularly when you can't get right up into the person's face..... It also works well for animal portraiture and excels at insect portraiture

 

[Don Haines]

well, the reproduction of the perspective is not the best with "160mm" equivalent compared to 100mm
In a head shoot the ears looks bigger with "160mm" and the head flatter compared to 100mm on a 24x36.

I should have added to my post that on a crop camera I think that 50-60 mm is ideal most of the time. Lately, I have shot a number of portraits of musicians while performing. They look a lot more relaxed when you are a reasonable distance away.... Edge of the stage as opposed to elbowing the sheet music stand out of the way..... And in those conditions the 100 is ideal. For studio work, birthday parties, etc, it's way too much reach and that's where I like the 50...