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 (see enclosed example). 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.
Mar 19, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #8260388 « 135L or 100L macro »
, although I haven\'t done it yet on anything more difficult than seagulls, ducks and geese (see enclosed example). 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.