Need some input please. Trying to decide btwn the 100L IS macro and 135L. I use a 70-200 2.8L IS extensively and often in dark churches I'm shooting 2.8 1/30 3200. My next longest lens is an 85 1.8 and I'm looking for something slightly longer to backup/supplant the 70-200 in case something happens to it. Plus the zoom is heavy and bulky and a pain to use sometimes.
As I see it, the 135L has the ideal reach and better capability to freeze subjects, BUT the 100L should be able to shoot in darker situations (4-stop IS), and of course it has the macro capability. I have a 50 macro that I use on occasion, but closer focus would be nice.
Anybody use both and have a favorite? I'm thinking the 100L is going to be a bit more versatile, and I'm leaning that direction, but I'm torn. Both cost about the same. This is on 5D and 5D2's btw.
Lyndon, don't forget that even though the IS will help with camera shake in slow shutter speed situations, it will not effectively stop motion blur if your subjects are not static. I would think that in a situation where your ss is less than lets say 125 then your subjects are going to be blurry, This is where timing and practice come in. So if I where in your situation, I would choose the 135L because it will give you a stop more light allowing more shutter speed.
Not that you needed this breakdown in the least, but someone else may.
I was thinking about mounting the 135L on the 5D2 and bumping up to 6400, would give me 1/125. But you're right, that's right on the edge.
The 100 f2 would put me right in 85 1.8 territory. At least the 100L would give me much lower light capability and macro. Forgot to mention too, if I got the macro I could sell the 50 macro and effectively drop the cost ~$200.
lwrnclightner,
Yup understood. Faster shutter speed would be ideal. For the most part though a steady 1/30 is fast enough for my usage.
I was thinking about mounting the 135L on the 5D2 and bumping up to 6400, would give me 1/125. But you're right, that's right on the edge.
The 100 f2 would put me right in 85 1.8 territory. At least the 100L would give me much lower light capability and macro. Forgot to mention too, if I got the macro I could sell the 50 macro and effectively drop the cost ~$200.
Yeah, 1/125 for the 135L is far from ideal.
I agree, for certain applications the 100L seems more suitable. I had to make the same decision a while ago... and ended up with the 100 f2, because the 1 stop advantage is more important to me than the IS. I use my 24-70L for ringshots (and other semi-macro stuff) during weddings. This involves some cropping but that is OK, the 5D2 provides me with more than enough of them to begin with.
I have the older 28-70L, which I also use for ring shots when I can't be bothered to swap out for the 50 macro. Not as close focusing as the 24-70L unfortunately. The fifty makes nice shots, but stopping it down for dof leaves me with little shutter speed to play with. I'm hoping the new IS on the 100L will be effective.
I sold my 135/2 when I bought the 100 macro IS. The macro IS is a nice lens. IS works very well. However, if you're looking at very low light, you'll have more AF hunt with the macro than the 135/2. Also, in general, the AF on the macro will be noticeably slower. It's slower than your zoom, your 85 and the 135. Not to say it's bad at all, but the 135 is an AF beast. In fact I ended up buying it back although I could "make do" with only the 100 if I had to.
135 f2 all the way. You are not going to get 4 stops out of the 100mm macro IS, I don't care what Canon says. You will get 2 stops at best, even then you still have to use your best hand holding techniques. IS will not stop motion blur as pointed out already by someone above and I think that is very important during the church ceremonies. Usually they are moving just enough that 1/30th is iffy but borderline.
On another note ISO 6400 at 8.5x11 print on the 1D MKIII is very pleasant right from raw to print without noise reduction. Sure the trained eye can see some noise, but the clients have always been astounded with the quality. The MK3 in 1 shot AF locks focus so damn quick in low light it is ridiculous. Just a thought and they have come down in price quite a bit.
I have used 1D2,1D3 combo and more recently 1D3, 5DII combo and find ISO 6400 awesome for the night time indoor shots where flash is not allowed (lol). I to use the 70-200 f2.8 L IS extensively in the churches.
The suggested 100mm f2 is not a bad idea but that is so close to your 85mm. I think you need a 200 f2 L IS??
How did we take photos before ISO bazillion and f1.0 super IS lenses? It was possible ya know!
4 stops doesn't seem hard to believe; I get 3 stops out of the 70-200's IS and that's a far older system. Still, point taken. I have been using a 1D2/5D combo for 3 years, so iso 3200 has been the max. Luckily they've been very clean 3200's. Just sold the 1D2 for a 5D2, wanting to go full frame for both cameras. The 5D2 6400 is somewhat noisier than the 5D 3200 but still very useable, I look forward to taking advantage of it this season.
The kicker for me is AF performance. If the 135L has that much faster AF, it may sway me.
"I think you need a 200 f2 L IS??" Sheesh, and I thought the 70-200 was heavy!
"How did we take photos before ISO bazillion and f1.0 super IS lenses? It was possible ya know!" I started out with a 1D (iso 1600 max on only 4 Mp), and it was "possible" but not fun....
The kicker for me is AF performance. If the 135L has that much faster AF, it may sway me.
Then a 1D Mark III would take care of all your problems. ISO 6400, blazing fast AF especially on initial focus lock in low light. I don't see the 135 f2 being any faster than my 70-200 f2.8 IS and I own both. Only difference in speed is that you don't have to wait for the initial IS spin up to settle.
4 stops doesn't seem hard to believe; I get 3 stops out of the 70-200's IS and that's a far older system. Still, point taken.
Do you really get 3 stops all the time? I can consistently get 2 stops, but 3 is limited to certain occasions and not the norm. Even then when pushing everything the 3 stops gained it marginal and produces an OK image but not one that is tack sharp like in the 1-2 stop range.
Re: the 1D3 suggestion, no, I'm happy with the 5D's. I shot for several years with the original 1D and then the 1D2 and never really liked the bulkiness, especially with the big 70-200. And then sometimes you mount a flash (and I even had a stroboframe plus flash on occasion). The cam becomes a bear on long 10-12 hour days. And (I'm gonna take heat for this from people who can't believe it's true), I find the 5D to AF faster and more confidently in low light. Who knows, maybe the 1D3 does better. But with my 1D2 vs 5D this was definitely the case.
I'm really just looking for a backup lens to the 70-200. If it were to break on me, the longest lens I fall back to is the 85. The 135L looks more and more appealing.
I do get 3 stops out of the 70-200 IS. 1/30 at 200mm is no problem, and if I'm real careful I can use 1/20 (slightly more than 3 stops). Not tripod-level sharp maybe, but comparable to 1/200 with IS off.
If you ever get a chance to try a 1d3 in low light it will change you I promise. I understand the bulk issue but you only need to use it during the low light times, oh wait thats most of the time lol! enjoy your 135 f2 its a magical lens!
I have the 135mm since last week, and odd enough I seem to be getting quite sharp shots at 1/60th of a second on my 1d mark III. Somehow for me, the balance of this lens on this body is perfect and I'm able to hold it quite still. I also have a 70-200 (which I'll keep, by the way), and when I use that on 135mm without IS, I really need a faster shutterspeed.
I use a monopod or tripod for ceremonies. 70-200IS works beautifully on a monopod. I would find the 135 too short for most of the church's I photograph in. Also why not just pick up another 70-200.
I see you purchased the 135, just chipin' in my 2cents
Lyndon Chen wrote:
Thanks evertdoorn, I hope the same holds true in my case. I'll be receiving a 135L in a few days and I'm very much looking forward to it.
You might also find the 1.4x handy. Works very well with the zoom and the 135. If the 135 was intended to be a backup to the zoom it would get you 2 lenses for the price of 1-1/4.
Photodan34 wrote:
Also why not just pick up another 70-200.
Cost, for one thing. Also, I don't have space in the bag for a 2nd 70-200. The 135L, in addition to being a backup telephoto, should add some new wrinkles to shooting portraits.
Lyndon, you'll really enjoy the 135 for weddings. I've used both it and a 70-200L IS (for weddings)...
I prefer the look our of the 135L, but also, when you're spending 8 hours lugging around gear, squatting, leaning, balancing to get the right images, having a lighter, less conspicuous lens like the 135L can make a big difference in the actual shooting itself.
I found it easier to do the job when I wasn't pointing a big, white bazooka at everyone.
)