I read in one of the reviews of the 135 f2 that with a 500D it could be successfully used as a .7magnification macro lens. I have a 100 F2.8 macro already and am getting the 135, could the 135 truly replace the 100? I don't use the macro lens all that much, but love the pictures I get from it when I do.
Extension tubes work better with shorter lenses while closeup lenses work better with longer lenses. The 500D is excellent and it should fulfill most of your macro needs unless you went 1:1 a lot.
I use my 135 with extension tubes sometimes; with a full set of Kenko tubes (68mm) you will get to about two thirds life size. Image quality is very good but it depends on how much use you think you will get from it as to whether it's worth it. Most of the time for macro I still use my sigma 105mm, I only bother with the 135 if I want a bit more working distance between me and the subject. The 135 is also fast enough at autofocusing to be worth trying for subjects like dragonflies, butterflies etc in flight.
I have a friend with a set of tubes, I'll give that a try when the 135 gets here. It will be nice to compare the two different options side by side. If I can eliminate one lens from my gear, that would be helpful!
In my experience, the 135f2L is one of the best lenses to take more magnification. The image quality of most other lenses breaks earlier. In my experience upto 1:2 works quite nicely but after that you start seeing blurring and magnification becomes "empty".
Thus, if you need more than 1:2 or even that often, you'll get better results with a dedicated macro lens. But if your typical magnification is around 1:4, you don't need a macro at all. Unless you have situations where you need to quickly go from telephotography to macrophotography or do that all the time. Then having a closeup lens or extension tubes becomes cumbersome as you need to constantly add and remove them.
I generally don't take my 100mm macro about with me much. But my 135L is in my walkabouts bag, so it often doubles as a make-do macro lens. I rarely use a maco at 1:1 and I find my 135L pretty much covers most of the magnification that I need. I use 40D and 5D bodies, so I have the extra reach of the crop if I need it. I also pack a 12mm tube and a 1.4x TC.
The 100mm macro USM is sharper than a 135L with tubes. The Macro lens is better optimised for close work than the 135L. Over 1m focus distance and my 135L is slightly sharper. The 135L bokeh at close distances is less sweet as the 100mm macro and the 135L sometimes suffers from a slight halo at really close focus distances. But if it's the only lens in my bag that can get the shot, it does pretty darn well.
Hey gazzajagman, how far away from those dragonflies were you? Were those taken with both the 12mm tube AND the 1.4 TC? If those and Wayne's flower were perfect examples of what I can expect, then those are close enough magnification for me! Selling the 100 macro would allow me to recoup some of the funds I use to pay for the 135!
If you decide on the Kenko set, I recommend getting it from Ebay (from a seller called HK supplies)... you can get the set for about $125, much cheaper than the $170+ listed price from most U.S. stores.
Ho Jo, my dragon flies were shot with just a 1.4x tc and no extention tubes...which was silly becuse I had them in my bag at the time....duhhh! I was pretty much at min focus distance with the 135L, converter and 40D. I'm sure I could have gotten a lot closer using a 12mm or 25mm tube. I guess that's the joy of hind sight.
I would advise that you stop down though, but you'll need to do that anyhow to get some Depth of field.
I've been shopping for a macro. I hadn't thought to use the 1.4x, so I looked it up and found it doesn't affect the MFD; thanks for the tip! I've been looking into tubes and the 500D too, though they seem like a hassle to have to remove for non-macro shots...
I tried a set of Kenko tubes on my 135/2L and 85/1.2L and found that the mounts on the tubes weren't tight enough to hold the lens perpendicular to the sensor plane. As the result, with more than one tube mounted between either of these lenses and my 5D, the lens tilted down slightly due to the weight of the lens pulling the tubes apart slightly on the top of their mounts. I tried the tubes on my 300/4L IS and even with the lens mounted on a tripod, the weight of the body would induce the same same sag in the tubes.
I shot a few images with the 135/2L and different combinations of tubes and wasn't that happy with the overall IQ - the centre of the frame was pretty good, but after shooting with a 100 USM Macro for a while, I didn't care for the IQ in the areas outside of the centre frame which had a haziness and lack of sharpness (looked very much like lots of spherical abberation) that I didn't care for.
I returned the tubes for a refund and purchased a 180L to provide more working distance than the 100M and better IQ than the 135L with tubes. Not exactly a budget or lightweight solution though.
