RexGig0 Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
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.
|