I am thinking of getting the 135 with extension tubes to so I can use it as a portrait lens (especially female faces) and for occasional macro shooting, mainly flowers and butterflies. I have a 7D.
I don't know much about extension tubes or how close I could get with the 135 and how well this would work out.
The other option I can think of is to go with the 100L but I think the difference between F2 and F2.8 for female portraits might prove to be more flattering as well as flatten features better with the longer focal length.
I should add that the 85L is out of my price range.
If any of you have thoughts on this and even have some images with the 135 both for closeups (stopped down I guess) and for portraits wide open, I'd love to see them and also get your advice.
Everyone loves the 135 but I just don't know if it can serve two purposes.
I am thinking of getting the 135 with extension tubes to so I can use it as a portrait lens (especially female faces) ... I have a 7D.
... the difference between F2 and F2.8 for female portraits might prove to be more flattering as well as flatten features better with the longer focal length.
...
If any of you have thoughts on this and even have some images with the 135 both for closeups (stopped down I guess) and for portraits wide open, I'd love to see them and also get your advice.
...
Larry
I'm not sure how a wider aperture would be considered "more flattering" for a face, male or female. It's perspective (a function of distance from subject) that determines whether features appear to be flattened or not; that's what's normally referred to by the term "flattering" in the context of portraits. And 135mm on a 1.6x crop camera is relatively long for portraits; it does indeed provide a flattening perspective. The effects of the wider aperture are narrower depth of field (potentially too much - one does not necessarily always want only the eyes, or even only one eye, in focus) and more separation from the background, with the background (or any foreground elements) blurrier.
I'll see if I can dredge up a portrait or two from the 135 & 40D; if so, I'll post them in a subsequent reply.
Thanks for sharing. I can see the difference in DOF between the two. They are wonderful shots and the lens seems to bring out the vibrancy in the scene. Nice bokeh on both
For my 5D MK II, the 135mmL is a great portrait lens. I almost never use it on my 7D, its too long.
On the other hand, I prefer my 100mm L on my 7D for macro over my 5D MK II. it just seems to match up well with the 7D. I like to hand hold a camera for Macro shots, and even on the crop camera, its very good handheld.
scarletknight64 wrote:
Ian, thanks, any particular reason for going the 100L vs 135 with tubes?
Is would be one reason if you like to walk around and do handled macro.
It's not the be all and end all for macro though.
But as the chart above shows Even with 25mm of extension you still have less then half sized macro. And your total focal range between near focus and the farthest achievable focus is roughly 300mm or about a foot .
You could of course combine more tubes but then you are getting a very small window of focus. And also tubes act like Tc's in robbing you of light.
The 100L goes down to full 1:1 macro and will also focus anywhere to infinity Without messing with swapping tubes or removing them.
Don't get me wrong, the 135L is a seller lens. And if it was to be used as portrait lens or indoor sport lens then don't hesitate . But for macro it would not be my choice.
Of course most 100mm macro lenses are great so pick up a 135 and any cheaper macro lens and your good to go
I always advocate renting to help you decide; you can use a 135L for a week for $40 or $50, and you'll learn more about the lens in 7 days than reading about it could ever show you...I know I've saved lots of money and hassle through renting first.
I used full set of kenkos on my 135L to do some macro, but I found that at close focusing distances there was focus shift (that i have never seen using the lens normally).
Also with 68mm of extension the magnification was not so great, good for frogs or larger targets but not so great for insects.
I have 7D, 100/2.8L and had the 135/2. The 135/2L is a much more dedicated lens while the 100/2.8L can do it all. So, if your primary target is shooting is portraits get the 135/2L and tubes but if your primary target is shooting macro then my recommendation would be the 100/2.8L.
Yes - 100L is better for both. I have a 72mm Sigma close up filter that I throw in my bag with the 135 that does a pretty nice job of increasing the magnification without degrading the IQ much. It makes the 135 just a tad more versatile and you don't have to take it off the body to use it.
I've followed your comments from time to time on this site and there is always a wisdom and practicality that comes through.
I love the extra stop F2 vs F2.8 for subject isolation but on the other hand love the IS on the 100 which is where I'm hung up.
I'm headed to Butterfly World in Florida in a couple of weeks where a macro can really shine.
I agree that the 100L can do both but the 135 would be better for portraits
Maybe I'll buy the 100 and look for a good used copy of the 135.
Thank you for your advice
To GC5, that's the sort of trade-off I'm considering although more likely the tubes route than filter if I go for the 135. How do you find handholding the 135. Do you need to keep your shutter speed above say 1/200.
I'm on a 7d.
Thanks to all of you.
As mentioned, if you have images from the 135 with a closeup adapter of any kind, I'd love to see them
Depending on what your macro subject will be, there are other options to consider. One that surprised me by how well it works for hand-held macro (very close work with wildflowers, for example) is combining extension tubes with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens. The image stabilization is quite useful when handholding this sort of stuff, and I was surprised at how nice the bokeh is with this setup. (The 24-105 is not normally known for particularly lovely bokeh.)
Dan
scarletknight64 wrote:
Hi,
I am thinking of getting the 135 with extension tubes to so I can use it as a portrait lens (especially female faces) and for occasional macro shooting, mainly flowers and butterflies. I have a 7D.
I don't know much about extension tubes or how close I could get with the 135 and how well this would work out.
The other option I can think of is to go with the 100L but I think the difference between F2 and F2.8 for female portraits might prove to be more flattering as well as flatten features better with the longer focal length.
I should add that the 85L is out of my price range.
If any of you have thoughts on this and even have some images with the 135 both for closeups (stopped down I guess) and for portraits wide open, I'd love to see them and also get your advice.
Everyone loves the 135 but I just don't know if it can serve two purposes.
