135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

Archive 2011 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

misternikko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I am thinking the 135L will be a little too long for some situations where I cant back pedal enough and was wondering how the 100 2.8L IS would stack up. I absolutely loved my 60mm macro on my cropper and the 100 2.8L IS would be about the same focal length with 4-stop IS to boot. Anyone here use this lens for portrait and care to share your experience?

I dont know about anyone else, but i found the 60mm to be a fabulous and blistering sharp portrait lens.

2013 © misternikko

Dec 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Beauchamp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I own both. The 100L is a good lens, but for portraits, the 135L wins, hands down. Sharper, nicer colours and contrast. More magical "pop."

But, if Macro and IS matter, the 100L is no slouch.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 AM

John_T
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I use both 100L and 135L, and in most aspects they are equal for portraits, except for IS maybe being a plus for handheld. It's just that there is a slight difference of perspective that makes the 135L more interesting.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:14 AM

misternikko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I am a little worried a bout 135 handheld with no IS. I dont have the most steady hands lol. I always shoot handheld and almost never do macro. I just had an epiphany today that the 100mm 2.8L IS on my FF would be the same as the 60mm that I loved on my cropper...with IS on top of it. Just wanted to pick some brains before I pulled the trigger.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

100L has rounded aperture, sealing, macro, and IS.

135L has faster focusing, F2, and longer FL.

I think the 100L would be my pick with the 70-200/2.8 as backup.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM

kjcramer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I prefer the rendering of the 135L, but you can't really go wrong either way. I would not be too worried about hand-holding with the 135L, it's not bad at all. Depends on what your shooting though, I'm always chasing a moving toddler so I want higher shutter speed over IS most of the time.

The 135L focuses lightning fast even on my old 5D classic, that's another thing to consider.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:44 AM

misternikko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I shoot a 5d classic too however am never chasing anything. My concern is being able to back up enough and always having to be at 1/100 for a decent shot.

Dec 16, 2011 at 03:30 AM

kjcramer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Sounds like the 100L is they way to go then. Personally, I got rid of both for the 70-200 2.8 ll. It's much more versatile than either of the primes and optically spectacular. Plus you can get sharp. Shots at really slow shutter speeds. Amazing lens.

Dec 16, 2011 at 03:53 AM

reno.peterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I love my 100L on any camera I have (have used). I've used the 135L also on my 7D for a sporting event and it was great. If more of your work will be shorter camera to subject distances, then I'd go 100L. you can always move in to get the closer shot, but you can't always back up enough. Otherwise look at the 85mm FL, and if your looking for faster aperture still @ the 100mm FL, you've always got the 100 F/2 USM, and it's a stellar performer also!!!

Dec 16, 2011 at 03:57 AM

drive_75
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I had both and recently sold the 100L. The 100L was great for macro but for portrait I just don't feel that I need IS and I love the 135L. It just focus faster --much much faster from my perspective.

Dec 16, 2011 at 04:19 AM

Taynt3d
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Thing is, the 135mm just has that incredible pop/look to it, freakin' sharp as hell at f2.0 and such creamy bokeh and great color/contrast.

Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59 AM

Eyvind Ness
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I own both also. If pressed to keep only one, I'd keep the 100L, for sure. Much more versatile, and the IS makes a big difference for lots of shots. For portrait only, however, the 100L doesn't quite match the 135L, probably due to f2 vs f2.8 and the focal length difference.

100L, indoors in low light

This image is copyrighted by the owner

135L (always use this one outdoors, another thing to ponder)

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Cheers,
Eyvind

Dec 16, 2011 at 07:10 AM

gpop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

misternikko wrote:
I am a little worried a bout 135 handheld with no IS. I dont have the most steady hands lol. I always shoot handheld and almost never do macro. I just had an epiphany today that the 100mm 2.8L IS on my FF would be the same as the 60mm that I loved on my cropper...with IS on top of it. Just wanted to pick some brains before I pulled the trigger.

I don't think you could go wrong, both are excellent.
you liked the 60, the 100L will not disappoint you.
but I'd suggest you test the 135L if you haven't. and for heavens sake test it on your usual model. and then post the results.

but just to screw with you, have you considered the ef100/2.0 ? it's like 1/3 the price.
really sharp. quick focus. maybe some PF would be the down side.

Dec 16, 2011 at 07:17 AM

John_T
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Ok Mister, deal breaker time

:

- If you are willing to suffer for art, the 135L probably has the edge on perspective and bokeh, and is slightly lighter than the 100L IS. The focusing limiter at 1.6 meters is probably the starting distance for portraits.

- The 100L IS has the newest generation IS which is very forgiving (though a little noisy), a nifty tripod foot which you will like or remove. You will have to keep the focusing limiter at .5 meters or you may occasionally get into a macro searching loop.

If I had to choose between the two, I wouldn't. I'd still get both, but then again I'm not needing a one-trick pony for portraits.

...well wait... at gunpoint I'd hang on to the 135L...

Dec 16, 2011 at 08:21 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Save your pennies for the 85L. IMO it's the most versatile option and a lot easier to hand hold at marginal shutter speeds compared to the 135L. My rule of thumb is to keep it at double shutter speed vs. focal length, so for the 135 I would prefer 1/250 or faster. But with the 85L it seems to balance better on the camera, perhaps due to its significant mass in a shorter package, meaning that hand holding at marginal shutter speeds is often more forgiving. If 85L is out of the question, then maybe consider the Samyang 85 f/1.4 if you can tolerate manual focus, or for AF, the Sigma 85 f/1.4.

Otherwise I agree with the 70-200 suggestion. The f/2.8 IS II is amazingly sharp.

Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Eyvind Ness
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

85L versatile? That's news to me. While I own and cherish this lens also, it is by far *the least* versatile lens in my arsenal. Also, the MFD is pathetic - max magnification is 0.11 (the 135L: 0.19, 100L: 1.0, of course).

Dec 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM

mspringfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I also own both but I would be the opposite of Eyvind, if I were pressed I would keep the 135. The 100 is a magnificent lens and I probably use it more than the 135 but there is no substitute for aperture. The IS on the 100 is really good but I think too many people put too much emphasis on whether or not a lens has IS. To me the 100 is an excellent macro lens that will work for portrait if needed but the 135 is a true portrait lens.

If you need something in the 100 range with IS for portraits I would really look to the original 70-200 2.8. IS is not quite as good as the 100 but it is every bit as sharp, maybe sharper. Plus it is a little more versatile if you are worried about not being able to back up far enough.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:09 PM

misternikko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Ahhh all these points make sense!! Now what! Lol I really wish I could just afford both

85L II and 70-200 2.8L IS II are out of the budget and not on the table unfortunately. Never liked the purple fringing on my 85/1.8 and can only assume the 100/2 would be the same way. I will always look to buy the updated version of a lens since it was obv updated for a reason, so the older 70-200 is out as well. Never liked third party lenses and hate hate hate relying on myself for focus.

^sounds like a cry baby and wonders why he asked in the first place lol.

I really wish I could afford both

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:25 PM

jrscls
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

My 60 macro was also my favorite portrait lens on crop. I switched over to full frame and the 100L makes a great portrait lens in this format and will be better than the 60 was on crop with its IS and more control over DOF. I also have the 85 L and 70-200 MK II which seem to get used more for this purpose, but I would certainly recommend the 100 L.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM

eosfun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

So budget is tight. No 85L, no 70-200L no option? Mind: the 70-200L vs1 isn't bad at all <tongue in cheek> and is a great buy second hand! My favourite portrait lens next to my 85L.

Anyway, I have seen your photography Azan and it's great!

From what I see I would recommend you to think twice about the 100L. It's a great lens, it's made for macro and I find it a bit 'harsh' fpr portraits. That being said, 85-100 is the best FL for portraits like you make. I find a 135 very often too "flat", as if the head of the subject gets a bit compressed. Portraits being shot with an 85 or 100 look much more pleasant and natural in general. Use your eyes, and judge yourself. There are many pictures here and in other Internet places where you can see samples of the lenses you contemplate.

The 85/1.8 is from colour and residual abberrations a different lens from the 85L and I can see why you wouldn't like it enough to contemplate that glass. It's is a lens that I dismissed after many years of use for exactly this reason. But don't make the mistake to assume the 100/2.0 is exactly like that! It is a totally different lens. It is made for portraiture, even more than the 85/1.8 and to my perception from your photography it would fit much better than any of the lenses you mentioned, except maybe the 135L if you really like that focal length. The 100/2.0 has fast AF like the 85/1.8 and build quality is about the same. The opening speed of 2.0 speaks for itself. It's fast enough and creates great bokeh for portraits. The character of the 100/2.0 however is much different from the 85/1.8. Chromatic abberrations are less, but so is resistance to flare. The whole character of the 100/2.0 is "milder". a contrast with more open shadows and midtones than the 85. Real microcontrast harpness comes in at 2.8 but at 2.0 it's a little softer, which is not always bad for women and babyskin ;-) This is the greatest difference with the 100L macro lens. That lens has a great microcontrast, which by itself is great for ''definition" and what a lot of photographers call sharpness, but it's macro contrast is more linear. The linearity of it's bokeh makes it often too harsh for my taste for portaiture with a mood, like Ï see from your 5D and the 35/1.4.

We all know you fell in love with that full frame camera and the 35L. And it's for a reason. A full frame camera in your hands started to sing because you shoot photo's with "emotion". We have seen it in your 35L shots. I believe that photography with emotion is better served with either the 100/2.0 or the 135L instead of the macro. Just make a decision on your preference for focal length. Then maybe the 100L macro is EOSfun for later. Decisions decisions

Dec 16, 2011 at 01:06 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end