p.1 #1 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
A little background.
Primary on portrait shoots I have been using a 2 prime setup of a 50 F1.2 and 100 F2.8 to keep things light.
With my newspaper work, I use a two zoom setup of 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8, a bit heavier setup.
Sometimes I will substitute my 100mm for the 70-200 if I know I will have a lot of room to shoot although, I try to stay away from so I don't have the slug that heavy zoom around while I am interacting with a model even though it gives me a bit more quality bokeh.
So I am thinking maybe a 135 F2 is a great alternative to the weight vs bokeh issue? Is that overkill owning both the 100 F2.8 and a 135 F2? Will I notice a large enough difference in bokeh to justify this expense?
p.1 #2 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
You will notice a difference in separation and background blur, when shooting wide-open against a 'busy' background; otherwise, not so much.
For many years, I carried the 135/2L and 85/1.8 as backup to the 70-200/2.8L IS I/II at events, but I rarely used them for handheld shooting, because the IS zooms do that so well. A few years ago, I replaced the 135 and 85 (not 85/1.2L) with the 100/2.8 L IS Macro for this backup role (where it does a better job, for handheld shooting in low light), plus it brings 1:1 macro to the table.
p.1 #3 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I think it is overkill. Yes, they are not identical lenses. No, the differences are pretty small. If you have the 135 you are unlikely to get much use from the 100.
It is also worth considering that you aren't going to get that much more background blur from f/2 compared to f/2.8.
I had the 135 f/2 for a long time. It was and is a beautiful lens and produces excellent results. However, with the 70-200mm in hand I found that the 135 was more and more staying in the bag, and eventually I didn't take it out enough to warrant keeping it.
p.1 #4 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Personally I didn't like the 135L at all. I'm in a minority but I found it an odd and difficult lens to use. Most will disagree but I never experienced the 135L magic at all
I'd just stick with the 100mm macro, for me a great length and the option of macro if you need it, plus IS.
p.1 #7 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I'm also a big fan of the 100mm f2. Compared to the 135mm f2, the 100mm f2 is a smaller, lighter and less expensive lens. For portraits, I seem to use the 100mm f2 more than I use my 100mm 2.8 macro and my 135mm.
p.1 #8 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I was considering the 100 f/2 to complement my 135L, but figured that 100 was overkill and too close from a focal length perspective. I went with the 85 f/1.8 instead. Since you already have the 100 f/2.8 I would skip the 135L. The 70-200 f/4 IS would probably be a better overall fit.
p.1 #10 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Sell both and get the 100 f/2.
Just kidding. A little.
Edit: so to elaborate on this comment a bit more, I am with some others who find the 135mm focal length awkward to use on full frame, while I feel the 100 f/2 is an overlooked gem in Canon's prime lineup. The 100mm macro lenses are more popular, but for news or portraits, I prefer the speed and rendering of the 100 f/2, and enjoy sharing this with others. (But of course if you need a macro... and sorry for taking this off-topic.)
p.1 #11 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I own the 100/2.8 L, and have considered also getting the 135/2. However, after trying out a friend's 135/2, I decided against that route. While the images have a dreamy bokeh look to them on the 135/2, I prefer the sharpness and close up/macro capability of the 100/2.8 more, and even with the 100/2.8 I can get some great bokeh still.
So yes, IMHO having both lenses would be overkill, although one could argue having a unique use for both.
p.1 #12 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
garyvot wrote:
Sell both and get the 100 f/2.
Just kidding. A little.
Edit: so to elaborate on this comment a bit more, I am with some others who find the 135mm focal length awkward to use on full frame, while I feel the 100 f/2 is an overlooked gem in Canon's prime lineup. The 100mm macro lenses are more popular, but for news or portraits, I prefer the speed and rendering of the 100 f/2, and enjoy sharing this with others. (But of course if you need a macro... and sorry for taking this off-topic.)
As I've said I didn't like the 135L but the rendering on the (IMO more useful) 100 f2 is as good and it's far cheaper.
But if you already have a 100L macro it's probably not worth it
p.1 #13 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I own them both and I do not think it is overkill. I have taken pictures with the 135/2 I could not have taken with the 100/2.8L or a 70-200/2.8. The 100/2.8 is a macro lens so it can take pictures the 135/2 could never take. Do I use the 135/2 much, no not very much. Is that importend? not to me it's a hobby.
p.1 #14 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Darned, I must have overkilled myself badly 'cause I have 105/2.8, 135/1.8 and 150/2.8. Now I'm tempted to add 90/2.8 into arsenal Oh, and also that 100/2.8L looks interesting...
p.1 #15 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I own both the 135L and 100L I use them both for different things. I wouldn't want to get rid of either. I've shot portraits with the 100L but they don't look the same as the 135. So IMO, no overkill.
p.1 #16 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Geert Koning wrote:
I own them both and I do not think it is overkill. I have taken pictures with the 135/2 I could not have taken with the 100/2.8L or a 70-200/2.8. The 100/2.8 is a macro lens so it can take pictures the 135/2 could never take. Do I use the 135/2 much, no not very much. Is that importend? not to me it's a hobby.
I may be mistaken, but I thought that the comparison was between the 135mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.
If the question is whether it is worth owning the 135mm f/2 and the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens, that is a very different issue since the macro provides capabilities not available from the 135mm f/2. For macro photographers, the 100mm macro would be the main choice, and the question would become whether or not the 135mm f/2 provided enough additional utility (especially for those who also have the 79-200mm f/2.8) for make it worthwhile.
As a former owner of the excellent 135mm f/2 I had no question that it was a very good lens. However, I simply ended up not using it enough (hardly at all, actually) once I had the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
p.1 #19 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
I do like the idea of having one macro lens and from that point of view it makes sense but if used mostly as a portrait lens, well lots of people have multiple 50mm lenses so I guess it depends on you personal view but it makes less sense to me.
I had the 135 f2 and 100 f2 but not at the same time.
I had the 135 and Sigma 150 2.8 APO, sold the 135 (though I did love that lens), later got the 100 f2 which was a better fit at some venues but am now using a (Sony) 85 1.8 much more so the 100 is gone.
Plenty of different combinations. For me now 85 and 150 works but 100/150 or even 85/100/150 also worked (with one as a macro).
That coming Sigma 1.4 sure looks tempting though (not that I can afford it now).
