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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · 135 for macro shots
  
 
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 135 for macro shots


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.

Thanks,
Larry



Feb 04, 2012 at 08:51 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 135 for macro shots


Here's magnification info for the 135/2L with Canon extension tubes, the 500D closeup lens, and Canon Extenders. This info is obtained using screen captures of the 'protected' EF Lens manual.

I sometimes use a 500D with mine. I also have a 12mm tube, but generally only use it to reduce the MFD of telephoto lenses, and sometimes to get higher mag with one of my Mamiya M645 macros. I use Extenders all over the place.


















Feb 04, 2012 at 09:12 PM
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · 135 for macro shots


Thanks Jcolwell, that's useful information. If I read it correctly, I can get more magnification with tubes, maybe even in combination and get closer.

This is all a little new to me so maybe I'm misunderstanding the charts.

If you have any images to share, I'd love to see them.

Overall, I think you are saying that this is a viable way to go, true?



Feb 04, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · 135 for macro shots


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) ... 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.

I haven't used my 135 with tubes.



Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 135 for macro shots


This one was at f3.2:





These were at f2:










I uploaded these to my web hosting site four years ago, when I was pretty new to DSLRs and image editing; I see that they're only 72 dpi. They don't really reflect the actual IQ of the images, but they should give some flavor of the perspective you'd get with your 60D and 135.



Feb 04, 2012 at 09:32 PM
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · 135 for macro shots


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




Feb 04, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · 135 for macro shots


I think if you want to use 1 lens for both applications I would go the 100L route.


Feb 04, 2012 at 09:44 PM
scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · 135 for macro shots


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.













And for portraits, there is this handsome fellow










Feb 04, 2012 at 09:53 PM
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · 135 for macro shots


Ian, thanks, any particular reason for going the 100L vs 135 with tubes?




Feb 04, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · 135 for macro shots


One huge one would be IS.


Feb 04, 2012 at 10:20 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · 135 for macro shots


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



Feb 04, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Tenn.Jer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · 135 for macro shots


135L is my favorite portrait lens on my 5DII; I find the telephoto helps me get a more spontaneous look, since the subject is farther away; with my camera-weary teenagers, this is a huge advantage.
And, even though my skills may not illustrate it well, it is sharp, sharp, sharp, wide-open...the photos below were casual snaps around the dinner table at Christmas...the relatives were a bit more relaxed when I wasn't pointing a giant white 70-200 f/2.8 at them...

Just last summer, I sold my venerable 100mm macro in order to get the newer 100L with IS; I've found myself more and more shooting hand-held closeups, and the stabilization is a tremendous help. If you shoot more tripod-mounted macro/close up than hand-held, the 135L with extenders could be a one-lens solution for you...for now .

(edit: I just realized all of them were shot with a "1.3x crop sensor"; oops. Well, it works well with a Mark IV, too; I get upper body frames from even farther away...I also second Ian's suggestion; it is hard to go wrong with any brand of the 100mm macros...)






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF135mm f/2L USM lens    135mm    f/2.0    1/160s    6400 ISO    -0.7 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF135mm f/2L USM lens    135mm    f/2.0    1/160s    2000 ISO    -0.7 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF135mm f/2L USM lens    135mm    f/2.0    1/160s    1250 ISO    -0.7 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF135mm f/2L USM lens    135mm    f/2.0    1/125s    1600 ISO    -0.7 EV  




Feb 04, 2012 at 11:03 PM
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · 135 for macro shots


Tenn-jer,

Those are really special shots. The really capture a feeling.

IS is really tempting as some wrote.

I guess if this were clearcut, I wouldn't be so up in the air.

I think I'll check my local dealer and try the 135 and maybe he has some tubes to try also.

Anyway if anyone has close up images of the 135, I'd love to see them.

Thanks for all your help. I'm now leaning 135 for the faster lens and probably faster af



Feb 04, 2012 at 11:35 PM
WestFalcon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · 135 for macro shots


I have both and my 135 stays on the shelf most of the time.....the 100 is far more versatile in my opinion


Feb 04, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Tenn.Jer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · 135 for macro shots


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.


Feb 04, 2012 at 11:44 PM
NDP_2010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · 135 for macro shots


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.



Feb 05, 2012 at 06:03 AM
ymp90
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · 135 for macro shots


I have both, including 12mm tube.

100L is way better for macro at any magnification, plus it goes to 1:1.

I like 100L better for portraits. About as sharp as 135L, but with better contrast.

If I need shutter speed, I'll go for 135, all other cases -- 100L.



Feb 05, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · 135 for macro shots


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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Feb 05, 2012 at 10:16 AM
GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · 135 for macro shots


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.


Feb 05, 2012 at 01:05 PM
scarletknight64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · 135 for macro shots


Yakim,

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

Larry



Feb 05, 2012 at 04:53 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password