100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 end

LM Hernandez
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Question for the pros: Considering that both, the prime 100mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.0 L lenses are great. good IQ, sharp. bright. fast. ideal for portraits...

Is the 135 L really worth the extra $500?

Thanks in advance,

LM

Mar 27, 2008 at 07:33 PM

khaos
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Yes. Along with the 35 L it amazes me the sharpness and color saturation I get.

Mar 27, 2008 at 07:48 PM

tom s
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Yes. Better background blur (due to more telephoto power), better close up capabilities (due to shorter MFD), better build, much less purple fringing wide open, and 7 % sharper (see photozone.de or old.photodo.com: 135 2 sharpness: 4.5/5; 100 2 sharpness: 4.2/5).

Edited on Mar 27, 2008 at 07:51 PM

Mar 27, 2008 at 07:50 PM

Gavilan
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

yes

Mar 27, 2008 at 07:59 PM

rceres
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

I love the 135mm focal length, but it is almost always too long to use indoors except for very tight head and shoulder portraits. Other than that and a tendency to flare it is nearly perfect. The 100 f2.0 is a true bargin. I have the 100 f2 instead of what I really and truely want, both the 85 1.2 and 135 2.0 and so the 100 f2 has saved me a bundle.

Mar 27, 2008 at 08:19 PM

rceres
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

By the way, when will Canon release the 135 f1.4L? Or even the 135 2.0LII with IS and better flare control?

Mar 27, 2008 at 08:21 PM

shiver
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

How about 100 f/1.8L? :]

Mar 27, 2008 at 08:25 PM

Stuart Bell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Is $500 too much to pay for a meal? For some people, yes. For others, no.

Ditto the 135L over the 100/2. I have the latter, with the 200L. For me, they're more useful than a 135L.

Incidentally, the 85L won't replace the 100/2; its focussing is just too slow for the kind of indoor sports work I do with the 100/2.

Stuart

Mar 27, 2008 at 08:27 PM

Bmeister
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

I like shooting tight, even indoors but that's just MY particular preference. On the 1DmkII, 1DmkIII and 40D, I prefer the reach of the 135/f2 and find its AF quicker than the (still very fast) 100/f2 and 85/f1.8. I will occasionally even use the 200/f1.8 on the 40D indoors...that's how much I like tight headshots. The 135/f2 has such great sharpness and contrast that it takes a 1.4x or 2X converter very well with an imperceptible quality loss.

Here's a recent out-of-camera JPG from the 40D+135/f2 @ f2 from ~15ft away:
http://www.bwbrock.com/gallery/2065622_Kwdo8/1/270219377_hcrRw/Large

Mar 27, 2008 at 09:59 PM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

I owned the 135L and sold it for the 100 f/2. The 135L is a better lens overall, but honestly in sharpness and bokeh they are very, very close. The 135L has better color and CA control, but other than that, they are more alike in IQ than different. The 100mm was just a better focal length for me...135 was just too long to use as a portrait lens, and that was what I wanted to use it for mostly.

Here are the 135L and 100 f/2 wide open at f/2, so you can see a bit of the bokeh, and the sharpness, and how very close they really are. These are 100% unsharpened unprocessed crops. Yes, my wife's romance novels were the target..they were handy and provided something with detail to shoot.

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 01:25 AM

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Westerberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

If you want a fast, fixed 135mm focal length lens then go for the the 135L. No doubt. I've owned a good copy and the sharpness, contrast and color were incredible. Subjectively speaking, my 135L looks like it was a bit sharper than JMan13's. Hard to say, though. I don't know how sharp the printing of those books were.

Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18 AM

LM Hernandez
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. You've been very helpful.

Jman13, just to be sure, can you tell us which photo belongs to which lens? I assume the first is from the 135 L, but just to be sure (or surprised).

LM

Edited by LM Hernandez on Mar 27, 2008 at 10:47 PM GMT

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 04:47 AM

Mar 28, 2008 at 03:14 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

I think the 135L is better and has a bit more "magic" if you like, but I would buy based on your preferred FL, not on the difference in IQ or price (I prefer 100). Also, for available light, you will be able to handhold the 100 at slower shutter speeds... which may make a difference too.

Mar 28, 2008 at 03:29 AM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #14 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

In the above photos, the 100 f/2 is the first image, and the 135L the second. And no, I didn't have a soft copy of the 135L. Remember the above crops have had no sharpening applied to them...they are straight from RAW.

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM

twistedlim
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

AS Mh2000 said, get the focal length you need. My old 100 was just as sharp and colorful as the 135 I had. I found no extra discernible magic with the 135 other than it would focus closer relative the the focal length. I found the 100 slightly sharper and colorful to the 85 1.8 (wide open) which I now have but made the move to the 85 only becasue I want to eventually pick up the 135 to give me more range when I am shooting with 2 bodies.

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Mike Tuomey
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #16 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

not a pro here, but i love shooting in the 85-135 FL range with FF and 1.3x crop cameras, and agree with the advice to buy based on need for a focal length, not the lens itself. i've owned or own the two 85's, the 135L, and am enjoying a newly bought 100/2 (thanks twistedlim!). also the 100/2.8. except for the macro lens, other than FL, these lenses are remarkably similar in IQ imho. you just can't go wrong with any of them. if another FL besides 135 will suit you, save the money ...

Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31 PM

zariio
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

30D+135/2L f2 I love this lens

Mar 29, 2008 at 06:35 AM

kesava
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #18 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

shiver wrote:
How about 100 f/1.8L? :]

shut yo mouth!
Although a great idea, will cut into the 135 and 85L sales. but I would sell both my 85L and 135L for it.

Mar 29, 2008 at 02:24 PM

LM Hernandez
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

zariio wrote:
30D+135/2L f2 I love this lens

damn! that shot's a great selling point towards the 135 L...

Edited on Mar 29, 2008 at 06:20 PM

Mar 29, 2008 at 06:19 PM

jxsq
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

Yes, I agree, this is one of the best i've ever seen. thanks!

zariio wrote:
30D+135/2L f2 I love this lens

Mar 29, 2008 at 06:20 PM

twistedlim
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #21 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

The 100 will give you pretty good background separation also:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Mar 29, 2008 at 09:40 PM

trumpet_guy
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #22 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

I have found the 100 f/2 to be so good that I have not yet had the courage
to slap down the money and get the 135 f/2L. By most accounts, the L should
be even better, but the 100 is already so good that it's hard for me to justify
trying the L, especially when my tele primes (on my crop bodies) already fall
into a nice progression: 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400mm.

The 100 f/2 has good color, good bokeh, good resolution, and quick autofocus.
I even enjoy it for landscapes.

f/5.6

This image is copyrighted by the owner

f/2.5

f/6.3

f/2 in low light and with ISO 800

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Mar 30, 2008 at 06:12 AM

Breitling65
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #23 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

rceres wrote:
By the way, when will Canon release the 135 f1.4L? Or even the 135 2.0LII with IS and better flare control?

Would you pay 5 times more for it (f1.4L) and get large increase in size?
I am shooting lot with 135L, no need in IS, it will decrease lens IQ. Less moving parts inside - better lens IQ. That is why primes are always better than zooms.

Mar 30, 2008 at 04:12 PM

Breitling65
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #24 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

LM Hernandez wrote:
Question for the pros: Considering that both, the prime 100mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.0 L lenses are great. good IQ, sharp. bright. fast. ideal for portraits...

Is the 135 L really worth the extra $500?

Thanks in advance,

LM

Just get back from Barcelona, 135L simply amazing lens!!!

http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/94891055
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/94889894
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/94891236

Mar 30, 2008 at 04:18 PM

PetKal
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #25 · 100 mm 2.0 Vs 135 2.0 L

How can anyone go wrong with either lens ?
However, FL issues aside, I'd take the 135L for the following three reasons:
(1) nicer bokeh.
(3) speedier AF drive.
(3) sharper

Edited by PetKal on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:50 AM GMT

Edited by PetKal on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM GMT

Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Mar 30, 2008 at 04:48 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end