100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[RLPhoto]

No need to buy a 100L for portraits when you have a 70-200II. It just not worth it for just portraits.

The 135L give you the extra speed for a unique look neither can deliver and its small, compact and fast.

 

[Plamen]

OK, this is easy to cheat, so don't. Which of these images were shot with the 135 and which with the 100 IS L Macro? There are no prizes and each will have their own tastes, that is not the point, my point is can anybody reliably tell the two lenses apart, if you are honest I expect few, actually nobody, can.

Neither has a "unique look", the macro can do a lot more than the 135, but there are very good reasons to own either.

The child is NOT shot at f/2. In the other, the focus is too close for f/2 to make a huge difference. But when you focus farther away, things change.

Which one of those is shot with the 100L?

 

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

 

[RLPhoto]

is this taken with a 100mm or a 135?

Might as well be shot with an iPhone. It'd look more appetizing than this.

 

[RLPhoto]

and you are right, this is a Iphone 4s, and what do I meant by this?
If we are showing pictures from one or another lens they do not tell us much if there not are two identical images captured.

Great because test charts are always more useful than actual photos made with the equipment.

 

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

Horrible bokeh? hahahahaha. You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

 

[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...

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

More stuff that you pay for, more stuff that breaks eventually and I personally see absolutely no use for IS other than increasing the keeper rate on borderline useful snapshots in low light perhaps. It's not a replacement for a tripod in situations where you'd want one. And it doesn't help when things are moving around.

 

[RLPhoto]

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

So which of the four I posted are the 135? You already said not the girl on the swing, so three more guesses. What difference would it make if I have used either, I am asking you to post an image that has the "unique look" of the 135, you know, the images with "35% more compression", "twice the light", "much narrower depth of field", I, and others, have posted images shot with both and you can't tell them apart, I am not the one being dumb here.

Having said that I knew that images one and four were with your 135, the 100 doesn't have harsh bokeh like that, I got two right, 50%, even though it was a trick question!

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

 

[RLPhoto]

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

So you can't tell the difference, but then I knew that. Your only defense is to resort to insults and insinuations. I shot the 135 on film for years, now I find the 100 macro a much more versatile lens with much nicer bokeh and vastly greater functionality.

After calling me dumb, do you want to know how dumb you are?
"The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh."
"When I see a 135L image, I know it ...."
That was shot with the 135 at f2.2, you might still be fooling yourself, but I doubt if anybody else is impressed with your avoidance, insults and insinuations.

You haven't shown an image with "a unique look, 35% more compression, twice the light, and much less dof" that you purport the 135 gives you, because you can't, there is not enough to distinguish between the two.

I have little respect for measuabators in photography. I've already displayed work with both lenses and I chose the 135L for already said reasons. If my conclusion is that the 135L is better and that's too much for you to handle, go ahead and waste your time. Preaching to the choir. I simply cannot respect you as a photographer until I've seen photographs with your work with BOTH lenses. Then atleast I could respect your opinions on this topic.

The 100L is a good portrait lens but the 135L, now that's a great portrait lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

 

[Standard]

The 100L is a good portrait lens but the 135L, now that's a great portrait lens.

Both are outstanding glasses in their own rights...and both can produce wonderful portraits in the right hands.

 

[RLPhoto]

was that a answer to me?
if it was, it is time for you to understand perspective and also define what you mean with a better portrait lens, that the ears is moving forward? flatter ?

No it wasn't.

But you do want to know, re-read my posts. I don't feel like wasting more time defining this.

 

[Don Haines]

and perspective wise the 100mm is better , if we are discussing reproduction, naturalness of a heads shape, even better is 85mm.This basic photo knowledge if you have study perspective and portrait photo.

I agree with you.... longer lenses do make the ears seem bigger. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the typical distance that people from European cultures are apart while talking, corresponds to the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you use a wider lens it makes it look like you are too close and longer lenses make it look like you are too far away.

Perhaps this explains Prince Charles.... Paparatzi use LONG lenses to take his picture... REALLY LONG lenses..

 

[RLPhoto]

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

You can't take me seriously? Really? You are the one who claims a "unique look", but can't actually show it. I have displayed four images, the only one you commented on as not being the 135, was from the 135, others have also displayed images. What difference does it make where the images come from? I think the only person who hasn't now got the point by now is you. You can continue with the personal attacks, like I said, it doesn't worry me in the slightest, but you are showing yourself and your opinions up for the pointless fallacies they are.

4 images, that aren't yours lol.

I've showed my proof, where's yours!?!

 

[wickidwombat]

and perspective wise the 100mm is better , if we are discussing reproduction, naturalness of a heads shape, even better is 85mm.This basic photo knowledge if you have study perspective and portrait photo.

I agree with you.... longer lenses do make the ears seem bigger. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the typical distance that people from European cultures are apart while talking, corresponds to the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you use a wider lens it makes it look like you are too close and longer lenses make it look like you are too far away.

Perhaps this explains Prince Charles.... Paparatzi use LONG lenses to take his picture... REALLY LONG lenses..

not as long as the ones they use to shoot princess kate when she's nuding it up!

 

[RLPhoto]

I've showed my proof, where's yours!?!

Oh I am sorry, I have made a silly mistake, for the last nine pages I mistook you for a knowledgeable photographer that knew his equipment and came to forums like this to spread the deep understanding you have for your craft, all the while giving unbiased opinions and astute insight to the technical aspects that allude and confuse the less experienced. I was wrong.

I took you as a photographer. I was deeply mistaken.

 

[RLPhoto]

Meet the man with facts, and stop throwing pies at each other

- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture.

I don't know how much clearer I can demonstrate this, explain this, and many others agreed on this. PBD has shown no photos or portraits to prove that he's used the gear in question to the OP. Not a single photo. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

 

[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?

More stuff that you pay for, more stuff that breaks eventually and I personally see absolutely no use for IS other than increasing the keeper rate on borderline useful snapshots in low light perhaps. It's not a replacement for a tripod in situations where you'd want one. And it doesn't help when things are moving around.

Got it. Then I'm a bit confused as to why you were comparing the 135 to the 100 L rather than the significantly cheaper, but still optically exceptional 100 macro. For me, the excellent hybrid IS and weather sealing of the L are worth the difference...

 

[Plamen]

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

I do not want to get into this dispute and I did not even follow it carefully.

I just want to mention that all images I posted were taken with the 135L wide open on FF. You cannot take those images with the 100L. The 135L has 1.89x the diameter (the physical aperture) of the 100L and that matters. It is close to 2 stop advantage, loosely speaking. It has the best bokeh I have seen but the 100L has surprisingly good bokeh as well.

If you take a head and shoulders shot, f/2 or even f/2.8 may be too much. But full body and background not too far - the 135L cannot be replaced by the 100L

 

[Radiating]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.
[/quote]

I did extensive and even obsessive testing and sought out multiple sources to confirm my findings for that conclusion. Just because your baseless oppinions conflict with my well researched ones, doesn't make what I say BS. In fact it makes you extremely foolish.

The fact that the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro has harsh bokeh past macro distances was confirmed by no less than two Canon reps when I was testing this lens as a portrait lens. Canon's stance is that this lens has harsh bokeh as a result of it's tuning for macro purposes. The bokeh is tuned to be the most pleasing as macro distances and becomes harsh past those distances as a tradeoff.

In fact the 100mm macro is tuned in every conceivable dimension from it's most basic design to be very specifically used primarily for macro work, and as a result has tradeoffs.

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture. Notice how the OOF highlights look like laser beams, and the background is generally the opposite of buttery, but instead very crunchy and contrasty? That crunch is a result of the tuning the lens underwent to maximize macro detail, I'm told, which gives it extremely strange spherical abberations at normal focal lengths that are generally considered unacceptable. I'm not saying that this lens cannot be used to take good portraits, I've seen plenty of good ones taken with it, and I've even taken great portraits with it, I'm just saying that it should not be your first pick. (And might I remind you that that oppinion is echoed by Canon)