I have found the 100 f/2 to be so good that I have not yet had the courage
to slap down the money and get the 135 f/2L. By most accounts, the L should
be even better, but the 100 is already so good that it's hard for me to justify
trying the L, especially when my tele primes (on my crop bodies) already fall
into a nice progression: 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400mm.
The 100 f/2 has good color, good bokeh, good resolution, and quick autofocus.
I even enjoy it for landscapes.
rceres wrote:
By the way, when will Canon release the 135 f1.4L? Or even the 135 2.0LII with IS and better flare control?
Would you pay 5 times more for it (f1.4L) and get large increase in size?
I am shooting lot with 135L, no need in IS, it will decrease lens IQ. Less moving parts inside - better lens IQ. That is why primes are always better than zooms.
LM Hernandez wrote:
Question for the pros: Considering that both, the prime 100mm 2.0 and the 135mm 2.0 L lenses are great. good IQ, sharp. bright. fast. ideal for portraits...
Is the 135 L really worth the extra $500?
Thanks in advance,
LM
Just get back from Barcelona, 135L simply amazing lens!!!
How can anyone go wrong with either lens ?
However, FL issues aside, I'd take the 135L for the following three reasons:
(1) nicer bokeh.
(3) speedier AF drive.
(3) sharper
