Need comparisons between Canon 135L vs 100L

[IIIHobbs]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For your theater work on FF, there is a good reason they call the 135mmL "The Stage Lens". I have the 100L and the 135mmL along with several primes (15, 17, 35, 50, 85). My 135mmL gets over 50% of the use.
In low light, it performs well even wide open.

 

[bdunbar79]

I do like the 70-200L for sports too, I just like the side look with the 135L at f/2, that's all. To the zoom's credit:

 

[EOBeav]

135L = Magic. 8)

I've been wanting one for awhile. Now I REALLY want one.

 

[cayenne]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

Thank you, I was going to get the latest and greatest 70-200L....f/2.8 and IS, etc.
I bought my camera with kit lens and 85mm through Crutchfield. With their rewards program, I earned just shy of $500 worth of 'points'.
If I get the lens on a sale like has recently happened with Canon, plus taking about $500 off that...the lens will cost me only about $1700 , free shipping, no tax...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280EF702HL/Canon-EF-70-200mm-2-8L-IS-II-USM-Lens.html?search=canon_70-200&skipvs=T

So, I'd definitely go for the whole enchilada on that one.

Ok, I think I've decided first new lens..will be the 70-200 zoom.

I'll have some time while saving pennies again...to decide about the 100L and the 135L....but I've gotten some great insight on this thread, and hope maybe it helps someone else that might be trying to decide between the two....

C

 

[Drizzt321]

I have the...
24-105 f/4 L
17-40 f/4 L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

Based on the lenses you have and budget consciousness, consider the 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

If you are not shooting macro, your 85 is fine in place of the 100 2.8. The 135 f2 is amazing, but the reach is too close to your 105. The 200 f2.8 would b a better choice. But your preference for zooms, get one of the more economical 70-200

Thank you, I was going to get the latest and greatest 70-200L....f/2.8 and IS, etc.
I bought my camera with kit lens and 85mm through Crutchfield. With their rewards program, I earned just shy of $500 worth of 'points'.
If I get the lens on a sale like has recently happened with Canon, plus taking about $500 off that...the lens will cost me only about $1700 , free shipping, no tax...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280EF702HL/Canon-EF-70-200mm-2-8L-IS-II-USM-Lens.html?search=canon_70-200&skipvs=T

So, I'd definitely go for the whole enchilada on that one.

Ok, I think I've decided first new lens..will be the 70-200 zoom.

I'll have some time while saving pennies again...to decide about the 100L and the 135L....but I've gotten some great insight on this thread, and hope maybe it helps someone else that might be trying to decide between the two....

C

Sounds like a good choice, and you can always rent the other two (or use the Canon CPS equipment evaluation program) to try them out when it comes time for you to decide. I honestly don't think you'll be disappointed with either of them, just depends on your shooting style and what you tend to shoot more of and your needs.

 

[florianbieler.de]

How in the world could you open up that topic a week after I bought my 100L. It's a great lens, I love it's macro functionality and build quality, also I get great results with portraits but boy, the 135L bokeh looks just so awesome. Tears me apart!

Still going to stick to the 100L probably, because I do macros here and then and it has an IS. $1000 for a portrait only prime lens is too much to lift right now.

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I too have both the 100L and the 135L. Both are great but I actually much prefer the bokeh from the 135 which I see as a lot smoother. The 100L has its place but for portraits and short tele's, its the best.
The only thing I've noticed with the 135L is CA in bright contrasty edges which is easily adjusted in post.

 

[Northstar]

you will not be disappointed in the 70-200 2.8ii...it's just incredible.

also...if you can get it for $1700, you'll probably always be able to sell it for at least that amount in the future. so it's not like you're spending your money...you're just moving it from "checking" to "lenses" for a period of time.

 

[jdramirez]

135L = Magic. 8)

I've been wanting one for awhile. Now I REALLY want one.

Ditto. And i have a 24-105 & a 100mm f2.8L. So I'm gonna have a ton of redundancy.

 

[skitron]

I went with the 100L because it's a two trick pony and has IS. And impressive IQ. That made it incredible bang for the buck.

That said, I'm still attracted to the 135 and at some point will try it. It 'has that look' and also grabs more light and has more reach...good things for shooting stage, which I do. The big downer for me is no IS.

I don't want to start another debate of IS vs no IS, but just say that if your hands are as wobbly as mine, it helps in most every situation. I (unfortunately) easily motion blur a 1/200th shot with a 100mm lens and no IS enough to be noticeable, no matter how hard I try to 'bead the target'. Which is so strange since I'm so proficient with firearms...I suppose too bad for me that viewfinders don't work when holding a camera with fully extended arms...lol maybe I need to put a gun sight on top of my 5D2 so I can use all of these wonderful non IS lenses? But in all seriousness, IS and closeup would be the reasons to pick the 100L over the 135L IMO, given the length difference is not enough to matter to you. Otherwise 135L.

 

[jdramirez]

I went with the 100L because it's a two trick pony and has IS. And impressive IQ. That made it incredible bang for the buck.

That said, I'm still attracted to the 135 and at some point will try it. It 'has that look' and also grabs more light and has more reach...good things for shooting stage, which I do. The big downer for me is no IS.

I don't want to start another debate of IS vs no IS, but just say that if your hands are as wobbly as mine, it helps in most every situation. I (unfortunately) easily motion blur a 1/200th shot with a 100mm lens and no IS enough to be noticeable, no matter how hard I try to 'bead the target'. Which is so strange since I'm so proficient with firearms...I suppose too bad for me that viewfinders don't work when holding a camera with fully extended arms...lol maybe I need to put a gun sight on top of my 5D2 so I can use all of these wonderful non IS lenses? But in all seriousness, IS and closeup would be the reasons to pick the 100L over the 135L IMO, given the length difference is not enough to matter to you. Otherwise 135L.

There are rumors of an IS 135mm model being developed. I'd be willing to pick up either, but I imagine the non is would be 1/2 as much as the IS... at least for a year after launch.

 

[killswitch]

I don't have the 100L but I do have the 135L and it is a must have lens IMO. The 100L is a macro so I would not compare them I would just consider them for different purposes. I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and while it is an excellent work horse lens, it is not the same as the 135L. I use them for different purposes as well and I need them both. The 135L is very light and easy to use as a walk around lens.

135L examples with minimal editing...

Darn! I dunno what to say but these are some of the best photos I have seen in recent times. Did you get these colors and contrast right off the bat? Please say yes! =O

 

[Mr Simpleton]

Having both the 70-200/2,8LISII and the 135/2L My advice it to get the zoom!
IQ is pretty much a tie, and the only thing that speaks for the prime is f:2.0 and weight.
It's just that the zoom is so versatile

My prime sees far too little use now that the new 70-200 came along.

And as I see you are using 5D Mk3, the new zoom do have a newer type of focus system that will give improved accuracy vs. older lenses. Newer still (compared to 70-200) do have even better focus system, look at the the lensrental.com blog. Quite interesting stuff.

Still if money is an issue, the 135 is a great lens and do give superb IQ as shown in the thread.

 

[jdramirez]

Having both the 70-200/2,8LISII and the 135/2L My advice it to get the zoom!
IQ is pretty much a tie, and the only thing that speaks for the prime is f:2.0 and weight.
It's just that the zoom is so versatile

My prime sees far too little use now that the new 70-200 came along.

And as I see you are using 5D Mk3, the new zoom do have a newer type of focus system that will give improved accuracy vs. older lenses. Newer still (compared to 70-200) do have even better focus system, look at the the lensrental.com blog. Quite interesting stuff.

Still if money is an issue, the 135 is a great lens and do give superb IQ as shown in the thread.

I've been disappointed with the 70-200mm f/4 L USM and the 70-200 f/2.8L USM... So I just don't want to be burned a third time.

 

[Studio1930]

I don't have the 100L but I do have the 135L and it is a must have lens IMO. The 100L is a macro so I would not compare them I would just consider them for different purposes. I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and while it is an excellent work horse lens, it is not the same as the 135L. I use them for different purposes as well and I need them both. The 135L is very light and easy to use as a walk around lens.

135L examples with minimal editing...

Darn! I dunno what to say but these are some of the best photos I have seen in recent times. Did you get these colors and contrast right off the bat? Please say yes! =O

Yes, the 1DX and 135 f/2 combo does a great job. I spent about 45 seconds editing each of these. Love that lens.

 

[Crapking]

I've made the decision to scrap my 70-200L II IS for indoor volleyball, and use my 135L instead. Yes I'll have to get off my butt, but it'll be worth it. Side shots of people serving at f/2 is simply amazing.
[/quote]

Kinda like this

PVC18Black1D045 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

or this


PVC18Black1D041 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

LOVE the 135 for indoor volleyball.....

 

[florianbieler.de]

After spending some weeks thinking about this 135 and especially it's massive price tag (at least for me it is), I decided to trash my 70-200 4.0L non-IS (don't use it that often anyway) and get the 135 instead.

So now I own the 100L and the 135L. I am going out for a testdrive later this weekend to see if it's really that magic. But I very much hope so.

 

[RLPhoto]

After spending some weeks thinking about this 135 and especially it's massive price tag (at least for me it is), I decided to trash my 70-200 4.0L non-IS (don't use it that often anyway) and get the 135 instead.

So now I own the 100L and the 135L. I am going out for a testdrive later this weekend to see if it's really that magic. But I very much hope so.

Enjoy! If you recieved a good 135L copy, You'll find it's just as sharp as your 70-200 F/4 @ F/2.