Looks like the biggest factor for me now is go with the 135L, since I already have the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Although, all the samples from the 135L really do make my decision much more easier. On the other hand, samples from the 100L are also visually stunning!
For my intentions (portraits, kids), then I think I'll splurge on the 135L.
I don't have the new 100/2.8, but what I've heard about the new 100/2.8L IS, plastic, plastic, plastic, but maybe it isn't an issue at all.
My 135L will never go
petkel had a thread about that. It is much lighter than you'd expect when you go to pick it up (because of the engineered plastic), but I don't consider it to be a bad thing, actually, it's nicely light.
I have the 100mm L IS, and it is a great lens. Ignore comments about plastic -- the new Airbus is plastic, the material is solid and has taken its share of knocks well. It is sharp, and on a cropped sensor it will out-resolve the camera. And who knows, you may actually find macro photography addictive...
Oh, and 4 stops IS? The question is really why wouldn't you get it...
picfox wrote:
I don't have the new 100/2.8, but what I've heard about the new 100/2.8L IS, plastic, plastic, plastic, but maybe it isn't an issue at all.
My 135L will never go
You do know that the 135/2L is plastic, plastic, plastic too, right? It's just an older, less obvious plastic.
I am well pleased with the 100L performance for BIF photography , although I haven't done it yet on anything more difficult than seagulls, ducks and geese . However, I have a hunch the lens will do very well because it has as good IQ as the old version plus there is an improved AF response at "normal" telephoto distances. The outdoor flower shooting season is also coming up when 100L will be used a lot......and IS should come handy as well.
However, 135L is a different lens, a superfast telephoto for sports, low light events, portraits etc. One stop of light faster is a big deal when it comes to subject isolation, shutter speed as well as focusing ability in reduced light and/or on low contrast targets. Moreover, the 135L AF drive speed is similarly high anywhere in the focusing distance range.....if that happens to matter to you.
I also prefer its IQ as well as the build and "feel" in hand.
Again, it is difficult to compare a macro lens with a nice "normal" telephoto capability against one of the highest regarded telephoto lenses by Canon.
However, if you need macro, then 100L is your lens. If you need a high performance telephoto lens in that kind of FL, then 135L is as good as Canon can make them.
If you are looking to have IS first and foremost, then perhaps you should get yourself 70-200 f/4 IS.
PetKal wrote:
...the lens will do very well because it has as good IQ as the old version plus there is an improved AF response at "normal" telephoto distances.
This is what is was referring to in my earlier post. I agree.
135L has also a plastic exterior barrel, up to and including the filter threads part. Except the lens mount (of course) only the wide focus ring is metal. Comparatively for example there is less metal on the exterior of 135L compared with a 24L MkI But 135L feels better built (than the 24LI). I would personally love sealing and IS on the 135L but only if the later won't degrade IQ. My 2c.
Dave Jr wrote:
There is a little more to it than that. The AF on the 100L is extremely quick and responsive, you can shoot sports with this lens, something I'd never say about the non-L 100 macro. I have shot series of my dog running at me with the 100L that rival those from my 70-200 2.8.
with all due respect, the 70-200 IS is not the "fastest" focussing lens out there.
In fact I recently sold my 100 mm 2.8 macro (non IS) and it focussed faster than my 70-200 2.8L IS as well, nevertheless both of these lenses do not compare with the 135L IN FOCUS SPEED and RESPONSIVENESS, even with the 1.4x converter on the 135, it is still faster than the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Peter, I did not say that the 100L is faster focusing than the 135L, I was just saying that, in addition to the advantage of IS (over the prior 100 macro), the 100L ALSO has improved AF speed and performance over the older model. That is my experience, anyway, YMMV.
In fact I recently sold my 100 mm 2.8 macro (non IS) and it focussed faster than my 70-200 2.8L IS as well, nevertheless both of these lenses do not compare with the 135L IN FOCUS SPEED and RESPONSIVENESS, even with the 1.4x converter on the 135, it is still faster than the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Not compared to the MkII. I have all three (135L,100L and 70-200 MkII) and the 70-200 MkII wins hands down. The 135L is quick, definitely quicker than the 100L, but the 70-200 is in a league of its own.
In my experience the 135L focus can be a bit fidgety. If I do a quick focus change the first shot will be almost but not quite in focus while the second shot is typically dead on. Typically it's just the initial shots that are problematic - once it has found the correct focus it tends to stick with it. This doesn't happen all the time, but often enough for me to always take multiple shots in a series when I use it. Of course, it may just be my copy.
I had the same question for a while. I just bought one 135mm today. Although the current Canon rebate brings down the price of 100mm IS a lot, I couldn't resist the quality of background blur and bokek from 135mm.
denoir wrote:
In my experience the 135L focus can be a bit fidgety. If I do a quick focus change the first shot will be almost but not quite in focus while the second shot is typically dead on. Typically it's just the initial shots that are problematic - once it has found the correct focus it tends to stick with it.
That's odd........the lens doesn't look for nor "finds the correct focus"....the camera does that. The lens AF drive simply moves to wherever the camera requests and then it stops. That process is very fast with 135L, assuming that there is enough light/contrast.
If you observe anything different, then your camera or lens might deffective, or you are shooting in Servo AF mode unwittingly, or you are photographing a moving target where all kinds of weird things can happen.
PetKal wrote:
If you observe anything different, then your camera or lens might deffective, or you are shooting in Servo AF mode unwittingly, or you are photographing a moving target where all kinds of weird things can happen.
It may be the lens or the camera. When it comes to the lens it's a question of the precision of the motor. The camera tells the lens to move, it does and the camera measures focus again and corrects for the error by issuing new move commands. The first sets of movements by the USM wil be an order of magnitude larger than the subsequent minor corrections so the chances are much bigger of the motor overshooting or undershooting.
It happens mostly in single AF. In servo AF it has more time to adjust and the first shot is usually OK. I did suspect the camera (a 7D) but as it happens rarely with other glass, I'm inclined to suspect the 135L lens. (It's not a question of micro focus adjustment as it is as likely to back focus as it is to front focus).
, although I haven't done it yet on anything more difficult than seagulls, ducks and geese . However, I have a hunch the lens will do very well because it has as good IQ as the old version plus there is an improved AF response at "normal" telephoto distances. The outdoor flower shooting season is also coming up when 100L will be used a lot......and IS should come handy as well.