# Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro vs Canon TS-E f/4.0 L Macro



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

I think this may be conversation that may be of interest to a few; do we or don't we replace our 100mm L lenses for the upcoming 135mm TS-E L Macro?

Each has 9 aperture blades but the TS-E comes in at nearly twice the weight

The 100mm also stops down to f/2.8 vs f/4.0 but gives up 35mm to the new lens

A biggy may be the native 2:1 advantage the 135 has over the 100mm's 1:1. A further plus would be the tilt & shift offered by the 135mm

If we were to score the two lenses, the new TS-E 135mm may just pip the 100mm but would you replace your 100mm or add in another macro lens to your kit?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

No I'm looking at it differently, I'm probably going to get the TS-E 90, it has the same 1:2 max reproduction ration and is a more useful focal length for me, and I'll get the 85 f1.4 for the portrait work I do that will also double up as a fine event work tool. The 100L will probably get sold.

Currently I use the 100L as a double duty product and portrait lens, I feel the two will give me more flexibility for both. It will be an expensive upgrade, two expensive lenses for one cheap one, but the only thing that keeps me able to pay the bills is my ability to deliver consistency and quality others don't, the 11-24 has proven to be a great investment in that regard.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2017)

Hey Private

So if you dabbled in the macro world, what would you have done? I'm just wondering if the extra weight of the 135 may mean it's less friendly when it comes to handheld macro


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> A biggy may be the native 2:1 advantage the 135 has over the 100mm's 1:1. A further plus would be the tilt & shift offered by the 135mm



You've got that backwards (thanks, no doubt, to CRguy's error). The TS 135/4L has a 0.5x (1:2) max mag, compared to the 1x (1:1) of the 100L. So you're trading magnification (as well as AF, IS, and weather sealing) for tilt/shift. 

I'll definitely be keeping my 100/2.8L macro, although I will consider picking up the 135 TS at some point.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 25, 2017)

Keeping my 100L, definitely. I have no idea how to use a TS-E...


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 26, 2017)

I'm very interested in the new TS-E lenses for macro. What I'm looking closely at is the 50mm and the 90mm. The 135mm won't offer that much magnification once you have tubes on it relative to the 50mm. With the 50mm and 68mm of tubes you can get 1.86x mag. The 135mm gets to 1:1 with 68mm of tubes.

The 90mm is a nice compromise between the two. This is the one I think I will be most interested in.



Sabaki said:


> Hey Private
> 
> So if you dabbled in the macro world, what would you have done? I'm just wondering if the extra weight of the 135 may mean it's less friendly when it comes to handheld macro



I'm using the MP-E 65mm for most of my stuff, which weighs 731g. Compared to the TS-E weights (915g-1110g) it's a lightweight. All that mech of the TS comes at a price. Then think that you'll be adding an MT-24EX (or MT-26RT) onto that. It will be a rather heavy setup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> It will be a rather heavy setup.



You just need to man up.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 26, 2017)

The current TS-E 90 has been one of my macro choices (with tubes) along with the MP-E65

The 135 is of distinct interest for macro and other (larger) product work.

Just put up some tests of the 90 and tubes to give a bit better idea of what T&S can and can't do for those unfamiliar

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/


----------



## LDS (Aug 26, 2017)

The 100L macro has AF and IS. The TS-E are manual focus and no stabilization. While their use cases may overlap in some situations, they are different lenses aimed at different uses.

I often carry around the 100L on excursions for some quick handheld close-ups, while I'm interested in the TS-E, I can't see using one in the same way.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 26, 2017)

LDS said:


> The 100L macro has AF and IS. The TS-E are manual focus and no stabilization. While their use cases may overlap in some situations, they are different lenses aimed at different uses.
> 
> I often carry around the 100L on excursions for some quick handheld close-ups, while I'm interested in the TS-E, I can't see using one in the same way.



Serious macro usually is absent of autofocus. Even with tubes that can transfer autofocus, the image becomes too dark for the autofocus system. Manual focus really isn't that hard. I usually set my magnification and then move the camera forward or back to "focus". Trying to move a focus ring while also trying to remain still for razor-thin DoF has a lot of moving parts 



neuroanatomist said:


> You just need to man up.



Your lack of diffusion disgusts me. ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2017)

I predict that the 135mm TS-E will be a big seller, but its not a replacement for a 100mm L Macro. The 1:2 magnification is nice, but I consider a full Macro to be 1:1. 

I likely will not get one, I did not find enough use for my TS-/E 90 to justify the high price.


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 27, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> I think this may be conversation that may be of interest to a few; do we or don't we replace our 100mm L lenses for the upcoming 135mm TS-E L Macro?
> 
> Each has 9 aperture blades but the TS-E comes in at nearly twice the weight
> 
> ...



You may be able to buy 2 or 3 100mm L macro lenses compared to buying one 135mm macro T/S lens...


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 27, 2017)

Entirely different lenses for entirely different uses. Typically if you're using a tilt-shift for macro work it's something like product photography where you may need to get something like an entire plate in focus front-to-back, and you can take as much time as you need to get it _exactly_ right. A faster, IS-equipped lens is more along the lines of things you have more limited & unpredictable time and conditions for, such as insects, or grabbing a quick close-up of rings at a wedding, stitched detail at a fashion show, etc. Of course reinforcing that is the fact the 100mm is full 1:1 while the new TS-Es are only 'half-macro', which further suggests the TS-Es being more intended for something like standard product (where you might be working in a smaller studio space so need close-focusing, but not true macro) and the 100mm is more for what we more typically think of 'macro' as being.

So as far as the different functionalities go, I think it should be a pretty easy decision to make. Shooting weddings, events, insects, flowers, or looking for something which can double as a general-purpose telephoto? Get the 100mm. Do you specifically need a tilt-shift? Then the 90mm or 135mm are your only options, and of the two the 90mm should have the most technical-neutral perspective and distortion (or lack of).

It _is_ a little bizarre that one of the new TS-Es is 135mm, which is a focal length more commonly used for portraits and not often used in product photography due to the slight distortion and perspective compression, while 100mm (or equivalent, for larger format systems) is a more typical choice for such things. I can understand why the focal lengths would cause confusion. If I were to snap my fingers and magic up two lenses, I'd be giving the 135mm the IS and faster aperture and the 100mm would be sitting on a tilt-shift mount. But the TS-E 90mm to 100mm should be near-enough to not be noticeably different, and the 100mm for sure works well as a portrait/wedding/event/etc lens, so overall I'd just say hell, forget the TS-E 135mm exists. There _are_ a few very niche uses for a tilt-shift lens longer than 100mm but they're so specialised (other than plain old 'because I can') that if you _need_ it you'd already know it and not be questioning it. (And most of those uses usually rely on larger formats; it could be that Canon didn't bother introducing a longer TS-E until now because the 5DS R is their first camera which can realistically compete with larger formats.)


edit: disclaimer: I'm buying 'em all (the 90mm as a replacement for my well-worn existing TS-E 90mm; I already own the 100mm; the 135mm just because I dunno, it might prove fun to mess around with here and there) so I don't really have a horse in this race, so to speak.


----------



## krisbell (Nov 15, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> Your lack of diffusion disgusts me. ;D



+1

Lol - I saw the first picture and was thinking the exact same thing, and then scrolled down to see this. Great minds think alike...but I guess simple ones do too!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 15, 2017)

@ Drainpipe: may we have a front view of your rig? And is that a MP-E with an extender?


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 15, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> Just put up some tests of the 90 and tubes to give a bit better idea of what T&S can and can't do for those unfamiliar: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/



Firstly, looking at the pictures I still don't know what is a TS lens capable of and how to use it. Does it increase or decrease the depth of field at a given aperture? A subject on a non-flat/horizontal surface will look like it was on flat/horizontal surface? Secondly, there are no macro shots.
To see the difference between the EF 100mm f/2.8 and the TS-E 135mm f/4 using tubes and the tilt function we need some pictures of smaller flowers and insects right beside each other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Does it increase or decrease the depth of field at a given aperture?



Neither. It changes the orientation of the depth of field 'slice' relative to the sensor plane (without tilt, they are parallel). Imagine shooting a flat piece of paper with text, if the page is parallel to the sensor all of it will be in focus, but if you tilt the page, and the DOF is thin, only a portion of the page will be in focus. If you apply appropriate tilt with a TS lens, at the same aperture you can get the entire tilted page back in focus.


----------



## Drainpipe (Nov 16, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> @ Drainpipe: may we have a front view of your rig? And is that a MP-E with an extender?



Ask and ye shall receive  The gopro was for filming some of my jaunts. Worked well for the big bugs, not much to see with the little guys.

Yes, I was running my MP-E with a 1.4x extender for a while. Have since stopped using it, sharpness wasn’t the greatest.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 16, 2017)

Thanks - very interesting and impressive! From my limited perspective, it appears that macro brings out a very creative side of serious photographers.



Drainpipe said:


> Ask and ye shall receive  The gopro was for filming some of my jaunts. Worked well for the big bugs, not much to see with the little guys.
> 
> Yes, I was running my MP-E with a 1.4x extender for a while. Have since stopped using it, sharpness wasn’t the greatest.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 16, 2017)

People seem to be saying that a 135mm TS-E would have limited uses.
What would those limited uses typically be.
Would it be an unusual portrait lens.


----------



## Drainpipe (Nov 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> People seem to be saying that a 135mm TS-E would have limited uses.
> What would those limited uses typically be.
> Would it be an unusual portrait lens.



There’s a lot of talk that it will make for a great product photography lens. Considering the .5x this is what I think most pros will buy it for. 

I don’t think it would make a bad portrait lens, and you can be selective with the focus plane to get a little shallower DoF which I think will look unique. I doubt it’s going to replace the 135 f/2 or equivalent because of the lack of autofocus.


----------

