100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[RLPhoto]

Ok, so what are you trying to say? That there is no discernible difference between the 135L and 100L?

The vast majority of the time for the vast majority of users yes there is effectively no difference in "normal" portraits. I would be very interested to know the actual focal lengths of the two lenses when focused at, say, 10 feet.

They are both superb portrait lenses, the 135 for the longest time stood alone as an exceptional lens in that range, and for the performance a very good price, but the 100 IS macro added a very interesting alternative and I for one, when buying the macro, was well prepared to not like it and sell it on, but that didn't happen.

How can we set up a double blind test?

Don't waste your time. I've used both and chose the 135L on the extra compression and the stop of light and that was on just my 5Dc's green tinged screen. If your arguing that the 100L is a better portrait lens, your mistaken. Many already agreed to the 135Ls clear superiority in portraiture and that's what the OP is going to do mostly.

 

[deleteme]

I use the 100 Macro exclusively for portraiture in the studio. When outdoors I use my 70-200 2.8 for its versatility and the additional OOF I can achieve at 200 mm at wider apertures.

That said I see two issues that occur between the lenses.
First is that the 100 has greater contrast and a touch better sharpness especially at large apertures. At f5.6 and smaller the difference is visible only in very large magnifications on screen.
The second is that achieving sharp focus at f2.8 is very difficult with the 70-200 at longer focal lengths. The 135 f2 would be even more difficult at f2.

I no longer use an aperture large than f3.5 because I need to deliver razor sharp results reliably. I do not want to be in the situation of having the best expression on a tight shot be soft where even Helen Keller can see it. At f3.5 and smaller I have a far greater success rate with no serious loss of bokeh.

In the studio I am often shooting at f8 so the speed of the undoubtedly excellent 135 f2 becomes meaningless.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

In the studio I am often shooting at f8 so the speed of the undoubtedly excellent 135 f2 becomes meaningless.

f/8 is an awesome aperture for studio portraiture, especially with flash. The whole face is in sharp focus, and the hair is just a bit soft but still clearly defined. Most people for most portraits want the whole face to be sharp.

Razor-thin depth of field can be a compelling special effect to direct attention to just a very small portion of the photo...but most portraits are about a person's face, not just the iris of one eye. I personally would never want to shoot portraiture with a razor-thin depth of field unless there was some sort of exceptional reason to do so, such as with a model with a peculiar and compelling eye color or to help cover up particularly bad complexion with a model who was self-conscious about it.

Cheers,

b&

 

[steliosk]

+1 for the 100 L macro
lighter, smaller, newer and has IS
awesome bokeh
permits shorter shooting distance.

Wanna sacrifice all that for 1 stop brighter lens which you won't practically use?
i don't know how sharp is the 135 at f/2 you'll probably use any of these lenses at f/4 minimum unless you really know what you're doing.

However the 100 L wide open is way too SHARP.

I own the 100 L macro
I bought it for portrait use and i love it.

here is a couple of samples with my 100 L

http://500px.com/photo/23665991
http://500px.com/photo/23486803

 

[RLPhoto]

Don't waste your time. I've used both and chose the 135L on the extra compression and the stop of light and that was on just my 5Dc's green tinged screen. If your arguing that the 100L is a better portrait lens, your mistaken. Many already agreed to the 135Ls clear superiority in portraiture and that's what the OP is going to do mostly.

I have used the 135 too, indeed I still own the FD version of it. I am not arguing the 100 is a better portrait lens, what I am saying is for the vast majority of users most of the time they couldn't tell the difference between images from either, that is a very different position to assert. Throw in the macro ability, full weather sealing and the hybrid IS and for most people the 100 makes a "better" (more useful) lens.

Consider this, there is nothing that the 100mm macro can do for portraiture that cannot be done on 70-200LII, while the 135L gives me twice the light of either for effect or practical purposes.

The 100L is a fine macro lens, and my original comment said that it can be used as a portrait lens. I prefer the 135L.

 

[bholliman]

Thanks for the excellent responses and example photos.

I don't think I can make a bad decision here as both the 100L macro and 135L can take awesome portraits as illustrated by the samples and links provided. This is going to be a tough call!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Thanks for the excellent responses and example photos.

I don't think I can make a bad decision here as both the 100L macro and 135L can take awesome portraits as illustrated by the samples and links provided. This is going to be a tough call!

I just re-read your original post.

First, since you've got the 70-200 f/2.8 II, there are only a very few reasons you'd want anything else -- and image quality is not one of those reasons. Nothing is going to beat the IQ of that lens.

The 100L can do macro photography that the 70-200 can't.

The 135L is one stop faster than the 70-200. Big whoop. The 70-200 beats it in image quality, though the 135 is certainly no slouch.

Both are smaller and lighter -- and that's the reason you're indicating you're considering either.

So, here're my updated recommendations.

First, if macro photography is something you want to get into, the discussion is over: get the 100L.

But, if not, if macro is just a "well, I'd play with it if I had it" sort of thing, get some gaffer's tape and fix the 70-200 at 100mm. Shoot a full session with it, however you would if you had the 100L. Then do the same thing with the lens taped at 135mm. If you discover that you have a preference between the two focal lengths, that answers the question.

If your shooting doesn't reveal a strong favorite, run one of those EXIF analysis tools over the shots you've already taken with the 70-200 to see if a definite pattern emerges that way. I'd only recommend this after doing the gaffer's tape bit because this is an emotional decision as much as anything, and it could be that you want to use the one focal length but some sort of restriction forced you to use the other more.

If you still don't see a winner at that point...get the 135 f/2.8 with soft focus. It's very small, it's lightweight, it's cheap, it's pretty decent optically (though certainly not up to the standards of the 70-200 f/2.8 II!), and it's got a built-in soft focus filter for you to play with. Your primary expressed desire, after all, is for something small and lightweight when you don't want to haul around the big guns, and the 135SF fits the bill perfectly.

Also worth considering is its close cousin, the 100 f/2.0. It's even smaller and lighter than the 135 and one stop faster.

Cheers,

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

I love it when a user says "it's only one stop" while they forget its only one stop that separates the super-teles from L grade zooms. Infact, if its only one stop, why bother with f2.8? F/4 is good enough.

A stop is twice the light. Some want a a whole stop of ISO performance but put down a stop of advantage on a lens? I wish my paycheck was a stop better!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I love it when a user says "it's only one stop" while they forget its only one stop that separates the super-teles from L grade zooms.

Eh, no. Not hardly. Not even close.

Except for the not-yet-available-for-sale 200-400, the fastest 400 you're going to get in a Canon zoom is f/5.6. The supertelephoto 400 is f/2.8. That's not only two stops of light, it's the difference between Group A autofocus (all points doing everything they can) and Group E autofocus (no dual-cross points, no high-precision points, cross points only in the center, mostly just horizontal-only points) with the 1Dx and 5DIII. Even the 24-105 f/4 has better autofocus performance than a zoom that reaches 400. Indeed, the 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter still has better autofocus than a zoom with 400mm -- and no zoom will cover 560 or autofocus worth a damn there if you somehow kludge it.

And context is key, too. Few people doing telephoto portraiture are doing so in conditions so dark that they're ISO-limited with a 5DIII or a 1Dx, with the rare exception of theatre and concert photographers. And DoF at standard portrait distances is already so insanely shallow at f/2.8 (let alone f/2) that most portrait photographers are going to be stopping down to at least f/4 if not f/8 to maintain sharpness of more than a single eyelash.

In contrast, typical shooting distances of a Great White are much longer. Typically, you're taking a whole-body portrait if not even a group shot, as opposed to a head shot. By the time (before, actually) the action is close enough for a head shot with a Great White, you're dropping it and picking up your second body with the 70-200. Depth of field is still shallow, but you've got more room to work with at those distances. That, and you need much faster shutter speeds than you do for portraiture or even the theatre or concert hall.

There's a reason why you'd always shoot a Great White wide open on the field and often wish it was even faster, but few successful studio portrait photographers are often pushing the aperture limits of their lenses.

Cheers,

b&

 

[skitron]

...it's the difference between Group A autofocus (all points doing everything they can) and Group E autofocus (no dual-cross points, no high-precision points, cross points only in the center, mostly just horizontal-only points) with the 1Dx and 5DIII.

Speaking of AF groups, the 100L is in goup C while the 135L is in group A, so that might be something to help OP decide as well.

 

[RLPhoto]

I love it when a user says "it's only one stop" while they forget its only one stop that separates the super-teles from L grade zooms.

Eh, no. Not hardly. Not even close.

Except for the not-yet-available-for-sale 200-400, the fastest 400 you're going to get in a Canon zoom is f/5.6. The supertelephoto 400 is f/2.8. That's not only two stops of light, it's the difference between Group A autofocus (all points doing everything they can) and Group E autofocus (no dual-cross points, no high-precision points, cross points only in the center, mostly just horizontal-only points) with the 1Dx and 5DIII. Even the 24-105 f/4 has better autofocus performance than a zoom that reaches 400. Indeed, the 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter still has better autofocus than a zoom with 400mm -- and no zoom will cover 560 or autofocus worth a damn there if you somehow kludge it.

And context is key, too. Few people doing telephoto portraiture are doing so in conditions so dark that they're ISO-limited with a 5DIII or a 1Dx, with the rare exception of theatre and concert photographers. And DoF at standard portrait distances is already so insanely shallow at f/2.8 (let alone f/2) that most portrait photographers are going to be stopping down to at least f/4 if not f/8 to maintain sharpness of more than a single eyelash.

In contrast, typical shooting distances of a Great White are much longer. Typically, you're taking a whole-body portrait if not even a group shot, as opposed to a head shot. By the time (before, actually) the action is close enough for a head shot with a Great White, you're dropping it and picking up your second body with the 70-200. Depth of field is still shallow, but you've got more room to work with at those distances. That, and you need much faster shutter speeds than you do for portraiture or even the theatre or concert hall.

There's a reason why you'd always shoot a Great White wide open on the field and often wish it was even faster, but few successful studio portrait photographers are often pushing the aperture limits of their lenses.

Cheers,

b&

Don't be naive.

200mm f/2 - 70-200 f/2.8

300mm f/2.8 - 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC

400mm f/4 DO / 200-400 f/4 - 100-400 4.5-5.6

400mm 2.8 and upwards have no zoom equivalents in the range.

A stop is a lot. Don't belittle that fact.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Don't be naive.

200mm f/2 - 70-200 f/2.8

300mm f/2.8 - 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC

400mm f/4 DO / 200-400 f/4 - 100-400 4.5-5.6

400mm 2.8 and upwards have no zoom equivalents in the range.

A stop is a lot. Don't belittle that fact.

Except for the 400s, those aren't supertelephotos. And the 200-400 doesn't officially exist yet.

Your original quote specified "super-teles" versus "L-grade zooms"

Check the EF Lens lineup here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

You could maybe make a marginal case for your original point by comparing the 400 f/5.6 against the 100-400, but the 400 f/5.6 is really just a 300 f/4 with a built-in teleconverter. Generally, "supertelephoto" really only applies to lenses with a physical aperture of 120mm and bigger.

But your original statement, that it's only one stop that separates supertelephotos from L zooms, is quite misleading. Those zooms all have apertures of about 70 mm. Indeed, that's almost a constant from the 70-200 f/2.8 all the way through the 100-400, as well as the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 primes, and even the 85 f/1.2. In contrast, the majority of the supertelephotos have apertures twice that size, which is why they're in a league all unto themselves.

Cheers,

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

Don't be naive.

200mm f/2 - 70-200 f/2.8

300mm f/2.8 - 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC

400mm f/4 DO / 200-400 f/4 - 100-400 4.5-5.6

400mm 2.8 and upwards have no zoom equivalents in the range.

A stop is a lot. Don't belittle that fact.

Except for the 400s, those aren't supertelephotos. And the 200-400 doesn't officially exist yet.

Your original quote specified "super-teles" versus "L-grade zooms"

Check the EF Lens lineup here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

You could maybe make a marginal case for your original point by comparing the 400 f/5.6 against the 100-400, but the 400 f/5.6 is really just a 300 f/4 with a built-in teleconverter. Generally, "supertelephoto" really only applies to lenses with a physical aperture of 120mm and bigger.

But your original statement, that it's only one stop that separates supertelephotos from L zooms, is quite misleading. Those zooms all have apertures of about 70 mm. Indeed, that's almost a constant from the 70-200 f/2.8 all the way through the 100-400, as well as the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 primes, and even the 85 f/1.2. In contrast, the majority of the supertelephotos have apertures twice that size, which is why they're in a league all unto themselves.

Cheers,

b&

One stop of light is the same difference between the 135L and 100L. Which is the same one stop which seperates a 70-200L to a 200 f/2. Some are willing to pay the 5000$ for a stop yet, you belittle the twice the light advantage of the 135L as not a reason to chose it over the 100L. Super tele, meh, I use that term loosely for big expensive glass that 99% of people won't own.

The principle is still there in my comment, a stop is big step and enough to choose between lenses.

 

[bycostello]

only maybe if you take pictures of lens targets... i think it is a great lens

 

[RLPhoto]

The point of the one stop difference in portrait shooting is quite different from the point of one stop faster for telephoto shooting, your comparisons are weak and your argument disingenuous.

Shooting telephotos: compare a 300mm f4 at 1/125 second to a 300 f2.8 at 1/250 second, that extra shutter speed could well make the difference in subject motion or camera shake and is the primary reason for fast telephoto lenses, being able to achieve higher shutter speeds.

Shooting portraits: 135mm f2 at 11 feet, for a 3" dof; 100mm f2.8 at 8 feet (for the same framing though fractionally different perspective) for a 4" dof.

Now you can argue this as much as you like, but I know that practically nobody could tell the difference between the two images shot in the portrait scenario. Sure people will pay thousands for an extra stop, I have two 300 f2.8's and have never touched a 300 f4, but in portrait shooting, unless you are plying the one trick pony of ultra narrow dof, the one stop faster turns out to have very limited functionality, the macro IS on the other hand has functionality in bucket loads.

Yet again, I am not saying the 135 is a bad lens, is isn't, it is a superb lens (though long overdue a makeover), indeed Zac Arias stated that lens alone is worth owning a Canon system for, though he ended up not using it much, favouring the 85 f1.8 ( http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/canon-switch-update-all-is-well/ ). But unless you are going to primarily shoot at f2 then there is nothing the 135 has over the 100 macro, indeed once you do go to f2.8, a mere inch difference in dof, then the 100 macro has many advantages over the 135.

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4. Getting to the difference between f2 and f4 then we are getting into an area where I would hope most on here could, so no, if narrow dof is what you are trying to achieve then f4 is not particularly effective.

You seem to take offense not at the content, which is well backed up with maths, but at the contrary message. This is a forum, a place for ideas, nothing you have put forward supports your opinion, you can't point to an image, anywhere, that is unmistakeably shot with a 135 f2, that is not confrontational, it is just the truth. Don't forget I have a 135 f2 and used it for years, though all on film, I now have the 100 IS macro and know I couldn't tell the difference.

The 85 f1.2 does the narrow dof field well for two reasons, it is fast, obviously, but because it is a medium focal length you automatically move closer for the same framing, this also narrows your dof even more, however when comparing the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 the tables turn, you stand closer to frame the same for the slower lens, because you are closer your dof is less, seriously, we are talking 1" difference in dof on a wide open portrait from the two lenses.

If your buisness model is based on ultra narrow dof and you are getting lots of buisness then obviously the $5,000 more expensive 200 f2 makes sense, if you are anybody else the difference between a 135mm image shot at f2 and a same framed 100mm image shot at f2.8, well, that 1" dof difference is marginal at best.

My clients don't care between f/2 or f/4. That's my job and If I can see the benefit for f/2 I will use it.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4. Getting to the difference between f2 and f4 then we are getting into an area where I would hope most on here could, so no, if narrow dof is what you are trying to achieve then f4 is not particularly effective.

You seem to take offense not at the content, which is well backed up with maths, but at the contrary message. This is a forum, a place for ideas, nothing you have put forward supports your opinion, you can't point to an image, anywhere, that is unmistakeably shot with a 135 f2, that is not confrontational, it is just the truth. Don't forget I have a 135 f2 and used it for years, though all on film, I now have the 100 IS macro and know I couldn't tell the difference.

The 85 f1.2 does the narrow dof field well for two reasons, it is fast, obviously, but because it is a medium focal length you automatically move closer for the same framing, this also narrows your dof even more, however when comparing the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 the tables turn, you stand closer to frame the same for the slower lens, because you are closer your dof is less, seriously, we are talking 1" difference in dof on a wide open portrait from the two lenses.

If your buisness model is based on ultra narrow dof and you are getting lots of buisness then obviously the $5,000 more expensive 200 f2 makes sense, if you are anybody else the difference between a 135mm image shot at f2 and a same framed 100mm image shot at f2.8, well, that 1" dof difference is marginal at best.

Thank you for illustrating my point, people will know which image they prefer, but they can't accurately and consistently tell the focal length or dof used for each image.

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

 

[RLPhoto]

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

I know, that is exactly why they do!

You can try and hide behind veiled superiority, I have worked for some pretty discerning clients too, I know definitively none of them know the difference between a 100 shot at 8 feet and f2.8 and a 135 shot at 11 feet and f2, they know lighting, posing, framing, they demand on time results of a high enough quality to do the job, they don't give a damn how I achieve that.

But we are getting off point, as I keep saying, both lenses are very good lenses, however for me, and I would suggest the majority of users, the functionality that the 100 IS Macro L has that the 135 f2L doesn't have are more useful than the functionality that the 135 has that the 100 doesn't have.

I can well understand people buying either lens without considering the other, but if people are considering both I believe in a toss up between the two most people will get more out of the 100.

And that's your decision. I like the f/2 look and my clients don't know what exactly that is but they like it as well.

In the end, there is nothing the 100mm macro can do for portraits that the 70-200LII cannot do. I'd wouldn't buy the macro solely based on this fact. The 135L may not have IS, but it gives a unique look at f/2 that neither of these lenses can give.

 

[Plamen]

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4.

Let us see. Can you tell me which one here is f/2.8, which is f/4, and which is f/2? All shot on crop.

https://picasaweb.google.com/102280064689407386179/Test?authkey=Gv1sRgCNeyraywjY3cBg#5837981280973351058

 

[skitron]

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

I actually asked this very question recently and got this exact opinion (don't recall from whom) and was expecting to sell my 100L upon arrival of a 70-200 IS2.

FWIW, the reality is my 100L has notably better color rendition, better contrast and miles better bokeh than my 70-200 IS2, so it stays.

IMO, it's tough to go wrong with either the 100 or 135 and given the resale, it's not worth sweating the decision too much since you can always buy one, turn it for a good price and buy the other if it comes down to that...probably cheaper than renting both of them before buying.