p.2 #2 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
Tom K. wrote:
I have had both. If I were you I would get the 100L. It is canon's sharpest lens. Seriously. The IS is worth it's weight in gold. As a portrait lens it is absolutely incredible. Literally no distortion either. The ability to shoot close up is also a wonderful thing to have. It is one of canon's most versatile and finest lenses. I shoot with it wide open all the time and it is astonishingly sharp. The bokeh on the 100L is also gorgeous. The 135 is a great lens. Not as great as the 100L though.
To sum it up. The 100L is an astonishingly great portrait lens. Once I bought I never used the 135 again. It's that good. ...Show more →
I think you are underselling the 135L. I have both too and think they are both wonderful lenses, but that 135L IQ is sublime and bokeh is beautiful. I shoot it wide open a huge % of time I have it and it constantly amazes me how good it is. Also the AF speed of the 135L is lightning fast. I would have sold the 135L if the macro had of been f/2 or even f/2.4 as a compromise. There is a noticeable difference between f/2 and f/2.8 IMO in background blur which is why I won't sell the 135L even though I also have the superb 70-200 f/2.8L II
p.2 #3 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
If the IS on the 70-400 f4L was loud and grinding, you probably had a faulty lens.
In a quiet room I can hear the IS (a soft 'sliding' sound, with occasional clicks), however as Gochugogi says people around you can't hear it and normal background noise masks it.
Have you tried another sample of the lens?
RE 135 Vs 100L: As you already have the 200L f/2.8 II, which is an excellent lens itself, I would go with the 100L Macro.
Both are marvellous lenses, but the 100L offers very close focussing, which I've found handy for taking baby pictures (tiny hands etc), as well as bugs and flowers etc. The IS is valuable to have as well.
Of course the 135L does focus pretty close (0.9m), and offers f/2. The thin DOF is stunning but requires care, I often stop down to get both eyes in focus, and if you're stopping down to f/2.8 anyway, you may as well have the macro.
p.2 #4 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
scottam10 wrote:
Of course the 135L does focus pretty close (0.9m), and offers f/2. The thin DOF is stunning but requires care, I often stop down to get both eyes in focus, and if you're stopping down to f/2.8 anyway, you may as well have the macro.
Yes and no. 135L will be even sharper at f/2.8.,buy probably not much in it. The main benefit will be IS. You need to keep the shutter speed up with the 135L. Oh that it were f/2 IS.
p.2 #5 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think you are underselling the 135L. I have both too and think they are both wonderful lenses, but that 135L IQ is sublime and bokeh is beautiful. I shoot it wide open a huge % of time I have it and it constantly amazes me how good it is. Also the AF speed of the 135L is lightning fast. I would have sold the 135L if the macro had of been f/2 or even f/2.4 as a compromise. There is a noticeable difference between f/2 and f/2.8 IMO in background blur which is why I won't sell the 135L even though I also have the superb 70-200 f/2.8L II...Show more →
Excellent points. We all have different needs. The 100L to me is absolutely stunning. It's IS is very important to me. Close focusing distance as well. The 135L in capable hands can produce amazing images. I used to shoot it wide open all the time. Lack of IS hurts it for me. I also believe the 100L is sharper wide open.
p.2 #6 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
I struggled with the same decision about 6 months ago and went with the 100 L because of IS and recently took some shots of my daughters friends 6 month old and they came out great. I had the Zeiss 135 before I switched from Sony to Canon and the pictures have that something special which I assume the canon does also which is why I am still lusting the 135L.
p.2 #7 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
scalesusa wrote:
I have both and I'm keeping both. The 100L is great for macro, but for low light theater, f/2.8 doesn't cut it. The 135mmL is sharp at f/2, and thats where it stays in low light.
different users have different requirements, so try to match your requirements.
That's pretty much how I use them. Right now I'm working on a project photographing professional classical orchestras and the 135 f/2 gets a lot of use in the low light backstage.
On the other hand, the 100mm f/2.8 macro is also a great portrait lens.
Again, it isn't at all about which has "better IQ."
p.2 #8 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
Wobble wrote:
Which camera body do you use? The crop factor comes in to play.
I chose the 100mm L IS Macro mostly due to the dual purpose capability and a good middle ground between the 85L and the 135L.
Yet, the 135L is one of the holy trinity.
Same here, IQ Is very comparable. I chose the 100L also for the dual use and the IS.
p.2 #15 · How is IQ between 135mm L and 100mm L marcro IS?
hvu2012 wrote:
Hi,
i'm torn between 135mm L and 100mm L macro IS. I already have 200mm L II.
Does anyone try both and compare? I would like to hear your opinion on these lens. I shoot mostly portrait, architecture, not much macro. Pictures for example would be nice.
Thanks very much.
The 100mm is a more versatile lens and its more modern design with better coatings so its more apochromatic. Since you already have the 200 the 135 is imho too close in focal length. Id go with the 85L or the 100L. It should be a good match to the 200. I had the 200 for a while and its a great lens, very underrated. I needed the flexibility of the 70-200 zoom so I sold it.
i've used to shoot 200LII with 1D2 and loved the combo so much