135mm vs. 100mm macro

[mackguyver]

I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?

Because with the 135mm you can get 1/200s at f/2 at ISO 1600 or less in just about any lighting, even indoors in poor lighting. I would be more leery of the 200mm because the non-IS model is a f/2.8. Ultimately they're both great lenses (the 135 and 100 macro) and unless you shoot indoor sports (and need f/2) or macro (and need true 1:1) or have unsteady hands (and need IS), you can't go wrong with either lens.

 

[Pi]

I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?

Because of this?