135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits? - FM Forums

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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

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?

RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

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

misternikko wrote:
why does everyone think that?? lol it cracks me up because no one here likes that show at all...its so not miami, at least the miami ive know for the 14 years ive been here.

is jersey shore really like jersey shore lol?
Having been to miami, I know this. It just makes me think of it.

Jersey shore is more like a bunch of rejects from ny that want to make Italians look bad.

Dec 16, 2011 at 07:50 PM

mspringfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

misternikko wrote:

i would feel really guilty buying the original 70-200 knowing someone could show up next to me with the exact same skill set and the mk2 version and potentially blow me out of the water because I skimped on my tool and didnt buy the updated version. I know this kinda makes no sense being that I bought the 5Dc over the 5D2 but I actually read that a lot of people preferred the original version so I rationalized with that. I havent read anyone saying they kept the original 70-200

Trust me... Although the new 70-200 mk2 version is better than the original it certainly won't "blow you out of the water". As for sharpness I have owned both the original IS version and the non-IS version and I can say from experience that the non-IS version is sharper and is very close to the sharpness of the new IS mk2. I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the IS part of the equation.

Your assumption on the 100 F2 is correct. It does have some purple fringing wide open but not quite as much as the 85 1.8s that I have used.

Dec 16, 2011 at 07:53 PM

Mr645
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

What about the 135mm F2.8? Focus is old tech, but plenty sharp, beautiful images. Plus the unique SF feature. Cheap too

Dec 16, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

mspringfield wrote:

Trust me... Although the new 70-200 mk2 version is better than the original it certainly won't "blow you out of the water". As for sharpness I have owned both the original IS version and the non-IS version and I can say from experience that the non-IS version is sharper and is very close to the sharpness of the new IS mk2. I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the IS part of the equation.

Your assumption on the 100 F2 is correct. It does have some purple fringing wide open but not quite as much as the 85 1.8s that I have used.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is the sharpest non super-tele prime Canon makes. It's sharper than the 100 macro, and certainly much better than either of the previous 70-200s.

Dec 16, 2011 at 10:49 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Sp12 wrote:
mspringfield wrote:

Trust me... Although the new 70-200 mk2 version is better than the original it certainly won't "blow you out of the water". As for sharpness I have owned both the original IS version and the non-IS version and I can say from experience that the non-IS version is sharper and is very close to the sharpness of the new IS mk2. I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the IS part of the equation.

Your assumption on the 100 F2 is correct. It does have some purple fringing wide open but not quite as much as the 85 1.8s that I have used.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is the sharpest non super-tele prime Canon makes. It's sharper than the 100 macro, and certainly much better than either of the previous 70-200s.

Did you mean to state 70-200IS II? Because the IS V1 is at the bottom of the stack for sharpness behind the VII and non IS.

Dec 16, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Brit-007
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

The one lens that has not been mentioned especially for portraiture is the 85mm f1.8 It is a great lens and has the perfect perspective for portraits of people. It is a light lens, pretty solid, sharp and is reasonable on the price.

Dec 16, 2011 at 11:04 PM

misternikko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Been mentioned a whole bunch actually

a lot of people like it, I used to have it and the 100/2 was mentioned too. I don't really care for the fringing on the 85/1.8

Dec 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM

mspringfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

artsupreme wrote:
Sp12 wrote:
mspringfield wrote:

Trust me... Although the new 70-200 mk2 version is better than the original it certainly won't "blow you out of the water". As for sharpness I have owned both the original IS version and the non-IS version and I can say from experience that the non-IS version is sharper and is very close to the sharpness of the new IS mk2. I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the IS part of the equation.

Your assumption on the 100 F2 is correct. It does have some purple fringing wide open but not quite as much as the 85 1.8s that I have used.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is the sharpest non super-tele prime Canon makes. It's sharper than the 100 macro, and certainly much better than either of the previous 70-200s.

Did you mean to state 70-200IS II? Because the IS V1 is at the bottom of the stack for sharpness behind the VII and non IS.

I agree. The original IS is the bottom of the 3 Canon 70-200 2.8's but you are talking about 3 very sharp lenses and it is still extremely sharp. To see the difference you really have to start pixel peeping especially after running them through post.

Dec 17, 2011 at 01:15 AM

mspringfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

Sp12 wrote:
mspringfield wrote:

Trust me... Although the new 70-200 mk2 version is better than the original it certainly won't "blow you out of the water". As for sharpness I have owned both the original IS version and the non-IS version and I can say from experience that the non-IS version is sharper and is very close to the sharpness of the new IS mk2. I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the IS part of the equation.

Your assumption on the 100 F2 is correct. It does have some purple fringing wide open but not quite as much as the 85 1.8s that I have used.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is the sharpest non super-tele prime Canon makes. It's sharper than the 100 macro, and certainly much better than either of the previous 70-200s.

Oh. I am not saying the new version 2 isn't the sharpest of the 3 but people are acting like the original is all of a sudden crap. I am pointing out that while it is not as sharp as the new one it is still a very good, very sharp lens.

Dec 17, 2011 at 01:21 AM

Mike V
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

You won't be disappointed with the 100L, it is awesome.

If your gut feel is that the 100L is for you, go for it.

However I agree with some of the other posters.
The 135L has a bit more character.
It has a very nice look, especially for portraits.

Dec 17, 2011 at 11:57 AM

pjbishop
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

We could get up a synchronized marching group with our 135s, be in Macy's parade maybe.

Dec 17, 2011 at 02:39 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

artsupreme wrote:

Did you mean to state 70-200IS II? Because the IS V1 is at the bottom of the stack for sharpness behind the VII and non IS.

Clearly. Not only did I mention "either" of the previous 70-200 (implying the non IS, and the 1st gen IS), but the original IS was only moderately sharp (beaten handily by the Sigma 70-200 OS). I consider adding the II unnecessary at this point as the other Canon 70-200 2.8s are not worth talking about with the Sigma out.

Dec 17, 2011 at 03:40 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · 135L vs 100 2.8L IS for Portraits?

I had the 135L but rarely used it for portraits. As a matter of fact, it was my least-used lens. I find it too long for portraits indoors and too short for most other things. My choice of lenses for portraits indoors is either the 85L or 100L.

Some sample shots with the 100L.

Dec 18, 2011 at 06:07 AM

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