Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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 2016 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro

  
 
Michaelparris
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I'm getting one just don't know which one. Found good deals on all. I know this is an age old question but what the hell thought id ask it again....any advice from those who have shot with them?

Edited on Jun 12, 2016 at 10:59 AM · View previous versions



Jun 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Subject?


Jun 12, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Michaelparris
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro



Not sure what you are talking about
dgdg wrote:
Subject?




Jun 12, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Michaelparris
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro



If you mean what will my subjects be. Walk around, street and pprtrait....also have the 85L....I'm using it on an A7 mk2
Michaelparris wrote:
Not sure what you are talking about





Jun 12, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Try deleting your duplicate post BEFORE someone replies to it:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1435401



Jun 12, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Abbott Schindl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Yes, do delete your duplicate post.

To your question: No macro need, so forget the macro. 135 might complement your 85; the 100 is too close to the 85 for me. I'd be more inclined to look at the 24-105L and just carry 1 lens unless you really need the faster aperture.



Jun 12, 2016 at 11:18 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I do a lot of macro so I might lean towards the 100/2.8. If you don't do macro I'd probably rather have f/2. The 135 sounds cooler to me, I suspect it would be the better lens, and I like 135mm. But I think 100mm and 135mm are pretty similar fl.

Just saw you had the 85 so that would make the 100 less-needed imo. 135 or macro, if no macro needed, then 135.



Jun 12, 2016 at 01:55 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I've got the 100/2 and am fond of it ... but that's to split the diff @ 85 / 135 for its versatility.

If you're keeping the 85, the 100/2 doesn't really gain you much @ FL. Unless you go for the macro (that you don't shoot macro, currently), I see little reason to consider a 100mm FL. By default, that then leaves you to only consider the 135 ... unless you think you might want to venture into macro territory.

Portrait & street ... a quick review of your website, definitely the 135 to mate with the 85. 100/2 ONLY IF you want to split the diff and dump your 85.

The other thing about having the 85 / 135 pairing ... is that the 85 on Canon crop (1.6X) is the same FOV as 135 on FF, so you can go with say 5D +135 & 80D +85 to have two bodies shooting very close to same FOV ... OR ... you can reverse the approach and go 5D+ 85 & 80D + 135 for a much wider ranging FOV.

The 100mm FL mated with the 85mm doesn't give you the same kind of mix / match options if you go with mixed body platforms for your backup / variance.



Jun 12, 2016 at 02:45 PM
bcguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I'm with the Bug on this one.


Jun 12, 2016 at 08:49 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


How does the 100 f2 take a Canon 500D - well?

The 135 f2L takes an EF 1.4 Ext. II - nicely pushing it out to a very usable 190mm f2.8.

Bit of light reading:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/671510






Jun 12, 2016 at 10:38 PM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Yes, sorry, your intended photography subjects.

The 135 is a great portrait lens.
I think for walk around and street photography, the 135 will be difficult to use. My walk around family photography depends on a normal zoom like a 24-105 or similar.
As said above, a zoom works well for walk around if you are looking for something a little longer.

David



Jun 12, 2016 at 11:52 PM
RexGig0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I use the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and 135L, finding plenty of reasons to justify having both. The Macro L has, of course, macro capability and compatibility with Canon's macro flash units*, plus Image Stabilization, dust/weather resistance, and, for me, excellent handling qualities. The 135L has a bit more reach, another stop of available aperture, faster AF speed, and compatibility with EF Extenders. Either can be a good portrait lens, at the appropriate distance. I have used both lenses on APS-C, APS-H, and 5D-series "full" frame cameras.

Macro is important to me. I shoot crime scene/forensic/evidentiary images at work, and, as an antidote to that toxic aspect of photography, shoot plenty of flowers, fungi, other features of plants, and little creatures during personal time. I actually bought a second EF 100/2.8L Macro IS, when the price, with rebate, dropped to $850 US. While I do not claim to be a "professional" photographer, the images I shoot for official purposes are certainly important, and spares of my most-importance equipment seem well-justified.

The fast AF of the 135L is good for children and pets. Indoor youth swimming was the final prompt I needed, at the time, to buy my 135L. When paired with the Extender 1.4x III, AF is a bit slower.

I never seriously considered the EF 100/2, after buying the 100L Macro, and then the 135L.

*An inexpensive adapter ring is necessary, which doubles as a thread protector and short hood. The same size ring fits the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens.




Jun 13, 2016 at 04:38 AM
Coltrane
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I have all 3. For macro or if you shoot in low light venues (churches, museums), then the 100mm 2.8 with the IS is best. For portraits, the 100mm f2 and the 135mm are tops. If money is a concern, the 100mm f2 is great. However, if I had the 85mm L and needed to make a choice among these 3, I would opt for the 135mm.


Jun 13, 2016 at 07:29 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Good point @ IS feature ... if it fits the application.

Imo, that would be almost like having two lenses of same FL ... one fast, one slow with IS. If IS is that advantageous to one's style of shooting.



Jun 13, 2016 at 07:39 AM
Michaelparris
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Thanks ya'll


Jun 13, 2016 at 08:52 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


It sounds like you've got some money burning a hole in your pocket.

I have both the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm f2. I think they complement each other nicely.

I bought the 135 mainly for portraits and it has turned out to be my all time favorite portrait lens. However, it has proven itself very useful for travel photography. I used it extensively during our trip to Tuscany, alternating between it and my 17-40.



Jun 13, 2016 at 08:55 AM
pjbishop
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


The 135 f/2 is superb, fast to focus and does very well with extenders. I recently replaced the original 100 f/2.8 Macro with the IS version. I'm not sure I don't regret letting the original go because I got some favorite shots, very sharp though hand-held, with that non-IS lens and also used it on the tripod inside to shoot artwork. I haven't yet determined whether I'm going to like the new one as much. I have to give it a good trial. The 85 f/1.8 lens is a nice lens, too, one of Canon's best bargains - no way equal, though, to the 135. If you want the best compromise, maybe the 100 Macro IS is the way to go.


Jun 23, 2016 at 04:46 PM
Mike V
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


I've got both.

I find the 100mm is better for carry around.
Far more versatile.
With the close focus and the IS there are just so many great shots you can get.
The image quality is great too.

The 135mm is much harder.
You have to be pretty careful hand held to get a really sharp image.
That tiny bit extra focal length means you have to be extra careful with your framing.

The thing is, that if you nail it, the 135mm is really nice.
The 100mm is a bit sterile, a bit flat.
The 135mm has much more character.
If you put in the extra effort, you can get some great images with the 135mm.
Also remember it can let in twice the light.

When I got the 100mm, I intended to sell the 135mm, but a just can't let it go.
There is a tiny bit of magic in the 135mm, you just have to coax it out.



Jun 23, 2016 at 06:18 PM
gheller
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


Don't forget about the Sigma 150 / 2.8 Macro

I am a full time wedding photographer, and used to use the 135L. Because the DOF was *so* shallow, I typically stopped it down to 2.8 and even 4.

Now, with the Sigma, I have a bit extra reach as well as a stunning macro when I need it.

Has optical stabilization (which I rarely use), but nice when needed.

Quite a bit heavier than the others you are looking at, but an incredible lens

greg







Jun 24, 2016 at 04:25 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 100 f2 vs 135L vs 100 2.8 macro


On the Sigma 150/2.8 OS: while it is a nice lens, it is no 135L alternative. It's not sharp wide-open at f/2.8, and AF is not snappy at all; it's slower than the 100/2.8L, which is noticeably slower than the 135/2L (and likely the 100/2 USM, if that lens is anything like the 85/1.8 USM).

I tried it briefly as a longer alternative to the 100L, and returned it as I found the compromises not to be worth the investment.



Jun 24, 2016 at 04:37 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.