135 mm f/2.0 L vs 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS

[Superman]

Hi everyone, just wanted to get some opinions. I had a good quarter and I am looking to purchase a new lens. Which do you think is more fun and more versitile - the 135 mm f/2.0 L or the 100 mm f/2.8 L Macro IS?


I don't have an absolutely tightly defined use for the lens or a pressing need. Just looking for something to add to what I got already, which is:


t1i, 50 mm f/1.8, 17 mm f/4.0 L, 70-200 mm f/4.0 L.


From what I have read and understand, the 135 mm is awesome for indoor sports/events and when there there is enough space, great for portraits. The 100 mm is pretty good too but might not be as awesome in as the 135 mm in terms of IQ. But it does open up the ability for macro which might be fun.


My subjects so far are mainly my 5 year daughter and soon will be our 2nd daughter which we are expecting in August. My 5 year old does do some dance which is the reason I first considered the 135 mm. I am wondering if the 100 mm will be good enough for the same purpose? In other words, is having the added macro option compelling enough argument to compromise my indoor event shooting?


Truth be told, I hope to own both the lens eventually. Just wondering which one I should get 1st or (here comes a can of worms) do I scrap this whole idea and get the 24-105 mm f/4.0 L IS and solve the gap between my 17-40 and 70-200.

[Jon Ruyle]

My advice is to not consider IQ at all when choosing between these lenses. Both are about as good as it gets.


Basically, you just have to choose between IS + macro capability and the extra stop (f/2) of the 135.


Keep in mind that the 135 only has an advantage for *moving* subjects indoors. For relatively still subjects, IS gives the macro a big edge. If I had to choose one for pics of kids in lowish light, I would choose the macro, but then... I don't try to capture action. For this (dancing people) the 135 of course has the advantage. Keep in mind though, that even with the extra stop, it is difficult to get good sharp pictures of action in low light (at least for me it is).


The MFD of the 135 might be a factor for baby pictures. If you like head shots or head and shoulder pictures, (this may sound like a joke, but it is not) the macro may be the better way to go for this reason. Another thing to consider that many people do not: when taking pictures of small people the dof is shallower and background blur more pronounced than when taking pictures of big people. For babies, I usually use f/4 or slower on full frame (which is about f/2.8 on a crop body). Stopping down negates the advantage of the 135.


In my mind, the macro has the edge for versitility becuase of the IS and macro capability. I would only get the 135 if I was primarily shooting action or if I was in love with the background blur it gives at f/2 (which I happen to be).

[DavidEccleston]

I'm no expert, so if someone says something that contradicts me, believe them!


If you're going to shoot dance, you'll probably want fast lenses. While the 24-105mm is great, it's not good for stopping motion in dim lighting indoors (where I expect dance to occur), without using flashes. That said, even the 24-70mm may be too slow if the lighting is poor, leaving you the option of fast primes. You can determine how fast of a lens you need using the ones you've got. You can also determine how you'd like those primes from your 70-200mm


Using your 70-200mm, take some shots of the dance using f/4, at what you consider acceptable noise levels (don't use the expanded ISO 12800). Whether you're fine with the noise at 3200, 1600, or 800 is personalpreference. What shutter speeds were required? We can use that to determine which lens would be required in the available light.


The 24-105mm f/4 would give you the same speeds, which may be fine, or may be too slow.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 would give you double the speed OR less noise by reducing the ISO (and thinner DOF)
The 135mm f/2 would give you quadruple speed, OR double speed with less noise, OR much less noise (and even thinner DOF)


You can determine how you'd like using the 135 and 100mm prime lenses with your existing 70-200mm too. Zoom to 135 and leave it there. Take pictures like that for a day. The next day, try the same at 100mm.



<div>While 135mm is considered great for portraits, I think that's based on a FF body, and is considered long on a rebel. It doesn't mean you can't use it, just that it's not typical. Typically portraits are 85-135mm, which is 50-85mm for your camera. As a long low light prime, it may be your best option for the dance, though you really could use a good general purpose zoom.</div>

[neuroanatomist]

Jon is correct in that both lenses have top-notch IQ. The 100mm L macro lens is a hair sharper at f/2.8 than the 135mm at f/2; with both at f/2.8 there's effectively no difference in sharpness (and either of them will be shaper than your current lenses wide open).


The 17-40mm, 24-105mm, and 70-200mm f/4 lenses are the 'holy trinity' f/4 zoom setup - broad coverage at constant f/4. That set of lenses is a compromise (narrower aperture but smaller/lighter/cheaper). IMO, having f/4 zooms also requires supplementation with faster primes. Frankly, even the f/2.8 zooms (I have the 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/2.8's) are sometimes too slow - particularly for indoor action.


Fundamentally, if you're buying a lens without a defined use, you need to make a somewhat arbitrary choice.


I do think the 135mm f/2 is a bit on the long side for indoor portraits on a crop body. I use an 85mm f/1.8 for that purpose (and I'm contemplating the 85mm f/1.2L II).


I have theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS lens, and it really is a fun lens. Do you have a good tripod/head? You'll definitely need that to 'open up the ability for macro'.


If you really want to capture your daughter's dancing, you'll want something at f/2, IMO - if not the 135mm f/2L then the 100mm f/2 (which is a great value and has excellent but not-quite-L optical performance).

[Sheiky]

I would recommend the 100mm macro. I only have the non-L version, but I can imagine the characteristics. A 135L looks pretty great to me, but personally I think you're better of with the 100mm macro. It's a great lens. Good image-quality. Nice depth of field. Good bokeh. A very good IS-system. The ability of macro-photography, which is really awesome! And to be honest, a 5-year old dancer is easy to capture inside with f2.8 [] It's not like they move so fast like they will be doing later in their careers [:P]

I have theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color:red;"]LMacro IS lens, and it really is a fun lens. Do you have a good tripod/head? You'll definitely need that to 'open up the ability for macro'.

Could you show me some great macro-photos with the use of a tripod? I can't understand what is so important about it. My subjects all move to fast to even consider using a tripod... Even the smallest movement on such magnification results in a blur, not to mention the wind blowing againts the leaves they are on etc. I could understand a IS-flash combination though, but a tripod looks to static to me.

If you really want to capture your daughter's dancing, you'll want something at f/2

I still believe it could be done with "only" f2.8, I've seen someone shooting pretty great photos at a kickboxing game with a 200mm 2.8L this weekend, and to be honest I think you'll be just fine with a shutterspeed of about 1/200 for 5-year olds..


Just kick me if I'm wrong [A]


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

Could you show me some great macro-photos with the use of a tripod? I can't understand what is so important about it. My subjects all move to fast to even consider using a tripod... Even the smallest movement on such magnification results in a blur, not to mention the wind blowing againts the leaves they are on etc. I could understand a IS-flash combination though, but a tripod looks to static to me.

The issue is depth of field. If you're ok with a shallow DoF, or you're shooting on a very bright day or with a flash, you can do without the tripod. If it's cloudy outside and you want to shoot something with some depth (f/8-11), your exposures push into the 0.5 s range (partly due to the light-loss resulting from close-focusing - at 1:1 magnification you lose ~2 stops of light). That's too long to handhold, even with IS.


Obviously, if you're shooting crawling buggies, then you need a faster shutter speed, so you have to go with a wide aperture (and likely get just the eye and maybe part of the head in focus), or add light with a flash.

[Sheiky]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't reply earlier to the answers on my own question [] I seem to have less time for TDP lately, but I'll catch up, get my priorities straight []

The issue is depth of field. If you're ok with a shallow DoF, or you're shooting on a very bright day or with a flash

You are right John, I do shoot most of my macro's with the help of my 430EX2 flash. Probably 99,9% of the shots and I often ask myself if light isn't too flat or how I could improve my shots.

Obviously, if you're shooting crawling buggies, then you need a faster shutter speed, so you have to go with a wide aperture (and likely get just the eye and maybe part of the head in focus), or add light with a flash.

Well this is part of the "problem" for me (problem = I don't get it why a tripod is such a necessity when shooting macro [:P]) I mainly shoot when walking around and discovering strange little creatures and often they don't really sit still. A tripod or IS wouldn't help me out in those cases. I don't lure creatures or something so a tripod also seems to be to static for my uses (or my tripod is just a piece of crap [A])


As far as the depth of field issue goes...It doesn't really matter if I use f16 or even smaller, my FF sensor doesn't like too much depth of field anyways. Man...it's something to get used to and in a few cases I wished I still had a crop-body for those benefits.



<div>

I'll go you one better. Okay, not a great macro shot. Butthiswas not only shot with a tripod, but is a composite image made from several pictures of the same subject (its called "focus stacking" or something). The grasshopper stayed perfectly still for over a minute while I took about a dozen shots using a tripod and macro rails.

I don't have a lot of opportunities where bugs stay still for such long times. I heard about the technique though and I probably will try it out once. Did you use some kind of front/backwards-slider on your tripod? Do those things even exist? I can't image that you move your tripod for each shot [:P] To be very honest Jon, it looks like the eye isn't really 100% sharp, but it could also look like it, because the rest looks pretty sharp to me (perhaps the eyes aren't that shiny?)...interesting technique, nicely done!



<div>

Thiswas also shot with a tripod, though I did use a flash also.

My true respect for that, getting so close with a tripod...the 65mm lens hasn't got much space in front of the lens if I'm correct? Very nice shot! I felt free to look in your picasa for more macro-shots, nice ones [Y] hope you didn't mind?


I assumed you used your twin-flash for all these shots? I want to upgrade my macro-gear if I can, perhaps trading the 430 flash for a 580 or a dedicated macro-flash. Or perhaps do get the L-macro lens with IS...I'm not sure what to get...and what impact it will have on my shots.



<div>

Some bugs move. Some don't

Amen to that [H]
</div>






<div>

Right now, taking into consideration my daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.

You'll be happy with it [] Good choice mister Superman [H]


Jan
</div>



</div>






</div>

[Jon Ruyle]

Did you use some kind of front/backwards-slider on your tripod? Do those things even exist? I can't image that you move your tripod for each shot [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

No, I didn't move the tripod each time. The camera moves perhaps a millimeter each time, maybe a fraction of a millimeter. I used macro rails. You turn a knob and the camera moves a tiny bit.

the 65mm lens hasn't got much space in front of the lens if I'm correct?

Yeah, but the lens gets pretty long as you get close. So at least the camera is pretty far away

hope you didn't mind?

Of course not. (If I did, I wouldn't put them out on the internet ) Thanks for looking!

To be very honest Jon, it looks like the eye isn't really 100% sharp, but it could also look like it, because the rest looks pretty sharp to me

Well, the whole pic isn't *that* sharp, but the eye looks about the same to me as the rest of it. Did you try zooming in with the magnifying glass icon? Sometimes more detail appears when you do that


BTW, speaking of the eye, do you see the twin reflections from the twin flash? You'll get that effect, so if you hate it you might consider a ring instead.

Or perhaps do get the L-macro lens with IS...I'm not sure what to get...and what impact it will have on my shots

My IS macro came Friday. As much as I like it (so far), I would think that if you like to shoot moving bugs, a dedicated macro flash would have more impact than upgrading to the L macro from the non-L. I use the flash for pretty much all of my shots at about 1x or beyond. The standard flash was okay, but it got more difficult as I got closer

Right now, taking into consideration my
daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term
plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the
winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next
target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.

[Y]

[Jon Ruyle]

Could you show me some great macro-photos with the use of a tripod? I can't understand what is so important about it. My subjects all move to fast to even consider using a tripod... Even the smallest movement on such magnification results in a blur, not to mention the wind blowing againts the leaves they are on etc. I could understand a IS-flash combination though, but a tripod looks to static to me.

I'll go you one better. Okay, not a great macro shot. But this was not only shot with a tripod, but is a composite image made from several pictures of the same subject (its called "focus stacking" or something). The grasshopper stayed perfectly still for over a minute while I took about a dozen shots using a tripod and macro rails.


This was also shot with a tripod, though I did use a flash also.


Some bugs move. Some don't

[Superman]

I do have a tripod, Giottos w/Manfrotto 486rc2 head - it's not bad, servicable.


I can live with the f/4 zooms b/c most of the stuff I do with the zooms are out doors with decent to good lighting (day at the park, zoo, amusement park, bbq - stuff like that). I agree with your point about adding fast primes - hence the though behind getting the 135 mm f/2 L. I figure I will at some point also get the 85 mm f/1.8 and maybe even a wider on like the 35 mm f/1.4 L or the 28 mm f/1.8. Indoors I figure I will be able to foot zoom most of the time.


I also agree 135 mm is a little long indoors (that's where the 85 and 35 come in - but much farther down the road, can live with the nifty fifty for now). If/when I do get the 135 mm it will be primarily for my daughter's dance stuff and hopefully down the road some indoor sports - especially when she is able to move really fast.


Right now, taking into consideration my daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments


Clark