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).

[Tabazan]

Hello,


I don't own the 135mm, but the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS is a stunning lense for macro, portrait, street photography and even close sport (that's how I use it anyway).


What's more, the IS is very efficient (new Canon stab is great), and it's, well, absolutely sharp.


This lense impressed me much than the 70-200 f2.8 (maybe because there were less expectations, but it rarely leaves my 7D)


Ok, it's less versatile than the 24-105 (or any zoom) but that's another problem.

[barba]

I don't think you can go wrong here. I would go with the 100mm L (I own it and like it a lot). The much cheaper, but very nice, 85mm 1.8 may be good to pick up for the dance.

[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

[Sheiky]

I don't think you can go wrong here. I would go with the 100mm L (I own it and like it a lot). The much cheaper, but very nice, 85mm 1.8 may be good to pick up for the dance.

With perhaps a 100mm 2.8 non-L macro lens?? That would make a killer combo. Best on both ends...

[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.

[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