I almost hate to post this question, there are so many posts similar to this. However here I go. I'm looking for a little advice here. I am interested in both the 135 f2L and the 100 f2.8L Macro, (and to get this out of the way I own a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L IS.) and a few other canon f2.8 zooms. My original thought was to go for the 100L macro as it will serve both as a portrait lens and a very good macro. 2 for the price of one, right? However after reading thru the net, I have read so much great stuff about the 135L that I'm a little confused now. So, what would be your recommendations?, and what would I sacrifice if I just went the the 135L and if I wanted to do some macro I just spin a diopter on the front of the lens? Thank you all for your time.
Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
- Thread starter infilm
- Start date
I have tried Diapoters...
It is hard as it is taking good macro shots... let's just say adding more glass to existing lenses just makes it less fun. Get a proper Macro if you are into Macro..
Unless you really need IS, the non-L 100mm f2.8 Macro is a great buy for the money, I had one, it was sharper than the L version. It also takes great Portaits. Thats another option.
It is hard as it is taking good macro shots... let's just say adding more glass to existing lenses just makes it less fun. Get a proper Macro if you are into Macro..
Unless you really need IS, the non-L 100mm f2.8 Macro is a great buy for the money, I had one, it was sharper than the L version. It also takes great Portaits. Thats another option.
Upvote
0
You might also consider the EF 100mm f2.0 USM lens. This is a great lens, considerably smaller and lighter than either the 135 or the 100 macros, with excellent image quality, very good build quality, and is from $100 to $700 cheaper than the other lenses, too. No good for macro, but otherwise highly recommended.
Upvote
0
Z
zhap03
Guest
Just buy both! I did. There are lots of 135L on the used market (Kijiji etc...) that are in pristine condition.
For real though... the 100L takes really sweet portraits too!!! It's something that people may not realize, given the Macro designation of the lens. You just have to get closer than normal to your subject to narrow your depth of field. This may make your human subject uncomfortable and act less natural.
With the 135L, you can maintain a comfortable distance and take great portrait shots because of the F2 aperture and telephoto compression. However, no macro capabilities.
I guess it's give and take, huh? Exactly the dilemma Canon wants us to be in?!
For real though... the 100L takes really sweet portraits too!!! It's something that people may not realize, given the Macro designation of the lens. You just have to get closer than normal to your subject to narrow your depth of field. This may make your human subject uncomfortable and act less natural.
With the 135L, you can maintain a comfortable distance and take great portrait shots because of the F2 aperture and telephoto compression. However, no macro capabilities.
I guess it's give and take, huh? Exactly the dilemma Canon wants us to be in?!
Upvote
0
I have both. The 135L is a wonderful portrait lens on FF, less so on APS-C unless you're shooting outdoors with plenty of space - else, it's just too long. Given that, I'd recommend the 100L macro. It does, indeed, make a decent portrait lens (although the AF is a little slow), and it's great for macro, obviously.
I would avoid using a close-up lens if possible - they are challenging to sork with because your working distance is fixed to a specific distance from the lens.
I would avoid using a close-up lens if possible - they are challenging to sork with because your working distance is fixed to a specific distance from the lens.
Upvote
0
Yes, it's a hard choice. I haven't found the 135/2.0L very useful on the 7D, is there a particular reason you're interested in it, already having the 70-200/2.8L IS? I would instead spend the $$ on upgrading to the 70-200/2.8L IS II (yes, it's that much better). Or perhaps save for the 5D3, so you can use the full potential of your lenses.
The macro is much more fun than the 135mm, and the IS makes it good for low light as well (but with the 70-200/2.8L IS this becomes a bit redundant). For macro, I haven't found IS very effective, so I agree with TW that you could consider the non-L non-IS EF 100mm/2.8 macro (since the non-macro application of the macro lens isn't important to you). Other than that, looking at your lineup, you could do with a couple of more 2TB external hard drives
The macro is much more fun than the 135mm, and the IS makes it good for low light as well (but with the 70-200/2.8L IS this becomes a bit redundant). For macro, I haven't found IS very effective, so I agree with TW that you could consider the non-L non-IS EF 100mm/2.8 macro (since the non-macro application of the macro lens isn't important to you). Other than that, looking at your lineup, you could do with a couple of more 2TB external hard drives
Upvote
0
zhap03 said:
Yes, thats one of the reasons I got the 180mm 3.5L macro. Gives more more distance from the subject and the amount of bokeh is more than the other lenses due to it's longer reach. See a comparison of Bokeh of the Canon 65mm/100mm & 180mm here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx Go down about 50% of the page to see a comparison.Ofcourse, this might get too long for you then, but will do very nice portraits and Macro all in one.
Upvote
0
I don't mean to be critical, but the questions seems like asking -- should I buy a bus or a truck? Seems like the answer is entirely in whether you want to haul people or things.
Someone pointed out that if you have a 70-200, the 135 would seem rather redundant. On my 1.6 crop I use a 60mm for macro (and some classic portraits). I use the 135 for candid portraits, my first love.
As big brain said the 135 is not so good indoors, houses for example. But it would be okay in an auditorium or large meeting hall or ballroom. It's also unobtrusive at sport events and it's speed is great for stop action and background control. I've used it on a tripod to shoot dance recitals with good results.
The real value of the 135 for me is the candid portrait. Especially on a crop frame it keeps me far enough away from the subject that I don't become a distraction or part of the story. I don't have any problem with mounting a 50mm and sticking the camera in someone's face but I lose the purity of a candid portrait when I do. And I do talk with people after shooting them because the picture event has an intimacy that should be properly acknowledged.
For me, as a walkaround lens, I use the excellent efs 15-85. When I go to events and want good candid portraits, the 135 is my only real choice. And to get the spider on that flower, the 60 macro.
Anyway, if you're hauling people around, get a bus. If you're hauling potatoes, get a truck.
Someone pointed out that if you have a 70-200, the 135 would seem rather redundant. On my 1.6 crop I use a 60mm for macro (and some classic portraits). I use the 135 for candid portraits, my first love.
As big brain said the 135 is not so good indoors, houses for example. But it would be okay in an auditorium or large meeting hall or ballroom. It's also unobtrusive at sport events and it's speed is great for stop action and background control. I've used it on a tripod to shoot dance recitals with good results.
The real value of the 135 for me is the candid portrait. Especially on a crop frame it keeps me far enough away from the subject that I don't become a distraction or part of the story. I don't have any problem with mounting a 50mm and sticking the camera in someone's face but I lose the purity of a candid portrait when I do. And I do talk with people after shooting them because the picture event has an intimacy that should be properly acknowledged.
For me, as a walkaround lens, I use the excellent efs 15-85. When I go to events and want good candid portraits, the 135 is my only real choice. And to get the spider on that flower, the 60 macro.
Anyway, if you're hauling people around, get a bus. If you're hauling potatoes, get a truck.
Upvote
0
D
dewa
Guest
If you want to do both, you really have to choose the 100mm then.
Distant star is right, 135mm is a very very special lens, especially for candid, that no other lens can even try to get close too.
If you're not that into candid street photography, you can relatively ignore the 135mm.
I enjoy my 135mm way too much, and some of my shots can be seen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjiputra/
good luck.
Distant star is right, 135mm is a very very special lens, especially for candid, that no other lens can even try to get close too.
If you're not that into candid street photography, you can relatively ignore the 135mm.
I enjoy my 135mm way too much, and some of my shots can be seen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjiputra/
good luck.
Upvote
0
L
lukaszb
Guest
100mm macro is good for portraiture, but on 7d might be too long.. Are you thinking of the L version? The autofocus is a bit slow on it. The second question is what type of macro are you thinking of doing? If you're looking to photograph fly's eye etc then you may want to consider MP-E 65mm.
Upvote
0
M
mr.ranger
Guest
distant.star said:
as he said it is a bit redundant and the 100 would be to long for portrait especially on a crop. i would definitely look into a 60mm or 65mm macro both great lens and greatly built. i have a 60mm macro and just love it works great
Upvote
0
I noticed that you own a 7D and a 24-70L... That lens should be a 38-112 equivalent with a 1.6x crop... That encompasses most of the classic portraiture focal lengths... Are you unhappy with your IQ or some other aspect? Just curious...
Upvote
0
you have quite impressive lens set already, but just to mention, I use the EF-S 60/2.8 macro for portrait too and I am really happy with it. good value, small, nice usm (af switch to turn off macro af would be good though) very good IQ.
cheers
cheers
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I concur, owning both lenses as well, with a 5Dmk2 and a 7D. I purchased the 135mm f/2 L first and loved using it. When my 70-200mm failed and I had to send it in for repair, I was able to use the 135mm plus the 1.4x tele III with outstanding results as a fill in.
However, after picking up the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS L, I find this lens to be really great. The IS is an advantage when not shooting macro, where as the 135mm lacks that. Putting the 100mm on a 7D gives the same crop as a 160mm. I use this a lot more than the 135mm.
I have kept both, the 135mm's extra stop at f/2 is a help, but the IS on the 100mm is more useful. I'm interested to see how they do on the 1DX.
Now I have to decide on either the 400mm f/5.6L or the 2.0x tele III with my 70-200mm f/2.8.
Upvote
0
@old Shooter. The 24-70 is okay, but the IQ of either one of those primes knocks the zoom out of the water. I also get that with the 1.6x crop the the long end of a 24-70 is a little over 100mm. That really doesn't matter to me. The type of images I want to capture are some distance away and in an urban environment. I don't want to walk around with a giant white Canon lens screaming "hey look at me with the big damn lens!!". I my mind the choice is between the extra reach of the 135 vs the flexibility of the 100mm L macro. The latter being that I get a macro, kind of a 2 for 1. I believe that I'm going to go for the 135 and if I feel the need to shoot macro I'll throw an extension tube on and off I go.
Thanks all
Thanks all
Upvote
0
In many situations 135L on a crop body is just too long. 85mm would be much better. On the other hand, if you want the best results, you need to get a FF camera first. Maybe 5D2 paired with something like Sigma 150/2.8 OS Macro could be the right combination - 2in1 (macro/portrait) lens with IS and outstanding image quality. What do you think?
Upvote
0
A better comparison is the 100mm f/2 and the 135mm L. both are f/2.
I have the 100mm L and the 135mm L, they are for different purposes and have different strengths and weaknesses.
With my 7D, I use the 100mm l for Macro, but the 135mm L is really longer than I like for portraits, so I use my 85mm f/1.8 for portraits. With my 5D MK II, the 135mm L is a excellent match and is my most used lens.
Much of my photography is in low light, so f/2.8 is not always adequate.
Since you have a zoom lens, look at your images and see what focal length is the most used, and the aperture settings. The information might help you decide.
I have the 100mm L and the 135mm L, they are for different purposes and have different strengths and weaknesses.
With my 7D, I use the 100mm l for Macro, but the 135mm L is really longer than I like for portraits, so I use my 85mm f/1.8 for portraits. With my 5D MK II, the 135mm L is a excellent match and is my most used lens.
Much of my photography is in low light, so f/2.8 is not always adequate.
Since you have a zoom lens, look at your images and see what focal length is the most used, and the aperture settings. The information might help you decide.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I agree that the 135 on a 7D might be a bit long for portrait. I find it perfect on the 5D (FF) however. That said I really find it useful to have the f2 on the 135 for those low light situation compared to the f2.8 on the 100 macro. Weither you are looking to stop action or get more light, the f2 has proven very useful for me on the 135L...
Jacques
Upvote
0
