135L vs 100 f2 Which do you prefer?

[Rob Gardner]

OK, I'm going to throw in a twist here - for the money I'd go with the Canon 85 1.8 and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro - possibly the sharpest lens made. First the 85mm 1.8 - for me its a magic lens that can do no wrong - on 1-series bodies (FF and 1.3 crop) this lens never disappoints. I've owned the 135L and its clearly a nice lens, but not THAT nice for the money (as card-carrying member and past President of the Cheap B*stard Camera Club). Throw on top of that the Sigma 150mm EX Macro and you will have depth and versatility like never before. Take a look at the Fred Miranda reviews on the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=280 - never has a non-Canon L lens received such positive reviews. As either portrait or macro, its simply stunning and a total go-to lens. You should be able to find both the Canon 85 1.8 and the Sigma for under $800 used.

[Tom Alicoate]

Rob,


Thanks, I have never heard of that sigma before. I will take a look at it. Is there anything to know about using a macro as a normal portrait lens? Is it just slower to focuswith the ability to focus close?


Tom

[Rob Gardner]

Tom - You are exactly right. The Sigma 150mm macro has a three-position focusing limiter switch to try and cut down on the hunting for focus. Under normal lighting for portraiture, I don't have a problem with the AF, but there are cicrumstances where it hunts. Its sharpness and overall IQ is what sets it apart, though. Ditto the 85 1.8 - and it does have fast and accurate AF - I often use it for indoor basketball. It's a very very versatile lens with little if any shortcomings (I can't think of any at the moment...)


Rob

[George Slusher]

The 135mm may be a bit long at home with your 40D--it's the equivalent of a 216mm lens on a full-frame camera. The 100mm is like a 160mm on a full-frame camera. It will depend upon your circumstances. On the other hand, you may find the longer reach of the 135mm f/2L useful for


I don't have the 135mm f/2L, but I do have the 100mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8, both of which are very nice lenses. (Check Bryan's reviews of them here.) They are not only cheaper than the 135mm f/2L, but quite a bit smaller/lighter. I've used both for indoor sports (equestrian events).


Here's another suggestion: if you can get by with one stop less--f/2.8 vs f/2, consider the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. It's sharper than any of the others mentioned and has no CA, flaring, etc., to speak of. For a little bit more than the 100mm f/2 (but less than the 135mm f/2L), you'd get the added benefit of one of the best macro lenses around. It can focus to 1:1 image size and focuses quite quickly in reasonable light. Again, check Bryan's review: as he says, "
The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is an excellent macro lens - and may be Canon's most fun per dollar lens." I would agree. The only reason that I have the 100mm f/2 is for those indoor sports shots.


There's yet another suggestion. Again, if you can get by with one stop less (may not work for those school plays!), the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus works very nicely. If you set the "soft focus" control to "0," it's not bad. (The biggest drawback I've found is that it doesn't have the USM focussing system. It's OK, but not as quick to focus.) It's also quite cheap at $295. For the price of the 135mm f/2L, you could get a lens and a flash or two lenses.


B&H Prices: 135mm f/2L = $935; 100mm f/2 = $410; 100mm f/2.8 Macro = $490.

[yc2073]

I have the 200 f/2.8L II (a supposedly similar lens to the 135L)and 100mm f/2.0. I'd say the 200L is better hands down! I use both shooting indoor face and headshots of my 4 year old (adults don't like pictures taken this way - too much got revealed). 100mmf/2 is not a bad lens at all. Just the 200 (or in your case the 135L) is so much better.

[Colin]

OK, I'm going to throw in a twist here - for the money I'd go with the Canon 85 1.8 and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro - possibly the sharpest lens made.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Bryan's ISO crop comparisons seem to favor the 135L ever so slightly. The Sigma looks at first appearance to be a bit superior when both are wide open, but when the 135 is stopped down to f/2.8, it looks a little sharper, had has more even illumination.


I had a sigma 150 f/2.8 macro for a little while, and it seems like a nice lens, and I haven't had a 135L. But I'd lean toward a 135L. Actually, I'm thinking maybe I'll toss my 50 f/1.2L (I'm getting pissed at the autofocus at short range, and the bokeh is great, but it only gets you so far) and if I can get enough to make it relatively painless, get a 135L... But then I think, I really love my 70-200 so very much, and I'd only be gaining one stop, and the gain in resolution, though nice, isn't really what's limiting what I do, it's me []


Better to sit on my hands maybe []

[Tom Alicoate]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I have decided on the 135L even if I have to save my pennies for a little while. Hopefully it will be in stock at B&amp;H by then.


Tom

[Alan]

There is definitely some work required to get good photos with a flash, and not make them look like a flash was involved.

Yes. For some uses, you'll find it very easy to learn. For example, find a white wall and white cieling, point your flash at where they meet, put it on Manual, 1/250, f/5.6, and shoot. It's like having a twenty foot soft box you can fit in your pocket and setup in seconds.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Tom, let me second Daniel's suggestion here. These settings are precisely the same ones I use, using an 580EXII, and it's just as Daniel says: it's like having a soft box in your pocket.


Those settings give you a good shutter speed that will help freeze the subject, yet a good depth of field for pleasing looking photos. You will see the room flooded with light, and nary a shadow to deal with.


Sometimes, bumping up the ISO will also be necessary, if the room isn't well lit.


As to the lens, my vote is for the 135 L.