# 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L



## Haydn1971 (Dec 9, 2012)

I'd like to start doing macro photography, I'm not into faffing with flash, tripods and such, I like to handhold and shoot... I have a 135mm 2.0L and was pondering if I got a 100mm 2.8L macro, would I still use the 135mm ? It's currently one of the three lenses I use most. I'm aware of focal length change, but what about the look of the images ? The colour and soft focus areas, Is there a difference to the look when used as a normal telephoto at similar lengths to the 135mm ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2012)

I have both. The 135L is a better choice for portraits and for low light action, The former because of the thinner DoF and better bokeh, the latter because of the faster aperture and faster AF.


----------



## bobbysamat (Dec 10, 2012)

i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me. the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld. at least for me. i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it. i'd say about 10 of those were handheld. that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 10, 2012)

bobbysamat said:


> i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me. the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld. at least for me. i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it. i'd say about 10 of those were handheld. that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.



Why would the macro have a shallower DoF? For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135. Or is there something different about macro lenses? Some clarification is appreciated.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 10, 2012)

Thanks for the reply, some real world comments on macro would be good too....

Looks like I'm getting a lensbaby composer for Xmas from my wife, that opens some additional macro possibilities too ;-)


----------



## PackLight (Dec 10, 2012)

The 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro is an excellent choice if you want to start doing macro. If you want to start doing macro and you only want to do it hand held it is the best choice IMO. I own it and use it for just that reason, it is great.

If you still owned the 135mm after you bought the 100mm you would probably use it for the benefits described by others.

Reading between the lines maybe? Are you asking if you should sell your 135mm and replace it with the 100mm?
If so the 100mm will substitute for the 135, and do many things it can do but probably not as well. The 135mm would have a very hard time taking a 1/1 picture of a lady bug, hand held and image stabilized. IMO and for my uses the 100mm would be the more versatile of the two. But I prefer bug portraits over people portraits.


----------



## PackLight (Dec 10, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> bobbysamat said:
> 
> 
> > i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me. the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld. at least for me. i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it. i'd say about 10 of those were handheld. that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.
> ...



Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV, just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.

@bobbysamat do you have the Non L version of the 100mm which does not have IS? What makes the 100mm f/2.8 L IS great is the fact it does have hybrid IS and can be hand held.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 10, 2012)

PackLight said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > bobbysamat said:
> ...



+1. IQ wise, they're the same. I had the non-L. Very sharp from edge to edge and renders the colors nicely. It's just that with the non-L version, I limit myself from 1/150 to 1/200 (I had to use flash) handheld. I can go as low as 1/100 or 1/60 but it will require a lot, lot of patience to shoot. I think with IS, I can handheld more for at least 2-3 stops.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 10, 2012)

Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.



This. Or compare this vs. this.


----------



## PackLight (Dec 10, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.



Check this out;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.
Second Edit; it was really a minute.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.



It was a full minute, actually.


----------



## PackLight (Dec 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.
> ...



;D I noticed that after I typed it....


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 10, 2012)

Or some "real world" examples, as they like to say:




Vi &lt;3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr




Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr




Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr




Pink Velcro by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

I've had the L & non-L versions. Didn't notice a difference. Didn't miss IS. I have the 135 f/2 now.
Oh, and that top one was shot on Ai-Servo, focus speed is just fine. The fun thing about a macro lens is that you can basically use it like a "zoom" since there is such a small MFD.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 10, 2012)

I wish you all the luck in the world with your 1:1 Macro handheld images. Then again I drink coffee.


----------



## Kernuak (Dec 10, 2012)

Another consideration, with the Kenko extension tubes set, you can get close to 1:1 (I think it's something like 90% life size from memory) when attached to the 135 and you can get some really unusual, very low DoF results with it. In fact the depth of field at f/2 on the 135 with extensions tubes and minimum focal distance is about the thickness of a petal. It isn't to everyone's taste, but if you want to try something different, you've still got more traditional near macro shots as well.




Wood Sorrel by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr



Artistic Gallerina by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

For what it's worth, I often handhold for macro, simply because most of the time, I'd miss the shot if I had to set up a tripod (although the first example was with a tripod and the second with a thin bean bag on the ground, as flowers and fungi don't move very quick). Also, with even the slightest breeze, macro is awkward, so I need to increase the shutterspeed anyway. I have the non-IS 100mm macro, which I use for most macro shots and only use the 135 for the more creative shots, as it is slightly unbalanced with 68mm of extension tubes.


----------



## Trovador (Dec 10, 2012)

I have the 100L, awesome lens. I always use it handheld for 1:1 macros, works like a charm. Some of my pics as examples can be found here:

http://www.ruddyflorentino.com/#!nature|c3c1


----------



## Jesse (Dec 10, 2012)

Interesting. Well I sold my 100 2.0 for the 100L because its hybrid IS makes it one of the best lenses for video.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 11, 2012)

PackLight said:


> just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.



That's what I thought.


----------



## jondave (Dec 11, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.
> ...



If identically framed for both 100mm lenses, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing, DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

For most uses the 100mm macro should be able to replace the 135mm. Comparing the two -

IQ - similar
100mm macro benefits - shorter MFD, 1:1 magnification, Hybrid IS
135mm benefits - longer reach, 1 stop faster

So unless you're a sports shooter, you can simply walk up closer to your subject and turn on IS to negate the 135mm's reach and 1-stop advantage.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 11, 2012)

> If *identically framed for both 100mm lenses*, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the *same framing[
> /b], DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.
> *


*

+1 but at the same aperture.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters (to get 2X magnification) 
Total Depth of field: 0.97m

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 100
Focus distance: 6.75 (to get 2X magnification)
Total Depth of field: 0.81m

But you forgot. If you need that bokeh so bad for portraiture, 135 is still a lot better than 100mm due to its bigger aperture at F2.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters
Total Depth of field: 0.69m


Source Magnification: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Magnification-Value.aspx
Source DOF calculator: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm*


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 11, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> > If *identically framed for both 100mm lenses*, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the *same framing[
> > /b], DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.
> > *
> 
> ...


*

Exactly. I said at their  widest  apertures, the 135 should have a shallower DoF.



sagittariansrock said:



For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135.

Click to expand...


I didn't want to rake up a DoF/FoV conversation- I merely wanted to confirm that a 100mm macro lens is just another 100mm lens, with a   really  small MFD.*


----------



## bycostello (Dec 11, 2012)

they do seem to overlap quite a bit... i'd sell to fund the purchase...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I merely wanted to confirm that a 100mm macro lens is just another 100mm lens, with a *  really *_ small MFD.
> _


_

Yes.



jondave said:



But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing, DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.

Click to expand...


No.



verysimplejason said:



+1 but at the same aperture.

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 135
Focus distance: 10 meters (to get 2X magnification) 
*Total Depth of field: 0.97m*

Body: FF
Aperture: F2.8
Focal length: 100
Focus distance: 6.75 (to get 2X magnification)
*Total Depth of field: 0.81m*

Click to expand...


No2 

Your math is wrong. 135mm at 10 m will have a wider FoV than 100mm at 6.75 m. For the same framing as 135mm at 10 m, the 100mm lens would be at a distance of 7.4 m [i.e. 10 m / (135mm/100mm)]. When you plug those numbers into your DoF Calculator of choice, you will find that for the same aperture the DoF is identical.

Here's the way it works: when comparing on a given sensor size (so we can ignore the circle of confusion), three factors determine DoF.


Aperture: wider = shallower
Focal length: longer = shallower
Subject distance: closer = shallower

When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out. When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture. So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing._


----------



## PackLight (Dec 11, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV......



It was worth a try....


----------



## The Bad Duck (Dec 11, 2012)

Also, perhaps a bit obvious, but the 135 gives more compression that might be a bit more flattering. 
Even more obvious is the working distance, most people are not thrilled at a big lens up their nose. They seem to want some space, favouring the 135. On the other hand, in a smaller room the 100 might be more suitable. 

50 or 85 mm can give more intimate portratist since go are forcing yourself into the models comfort zone. However then you might have issues with distortion. 

It´s always a compromise no matter how much money you throw at your gear. That is why I like the gear-planning so much.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 11, 2012)

"When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out. When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture. So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing."

Mind blown. So would this work for all lenses? Eg. a 24mm and 200mm?


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2012)

As someone who just received a 135 f/2 yesterday and has worked with a 100 2.8 Macro for some time I can tell you they serve very different purposes. And to boot, the Macro is no where as sharp and cannot even come close to the gorgeous melting out of focus that the 135 produces. My new favorite lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

Jesse said:


> _"When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out. When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture. So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing."_
> 
> Mind blown. So would this work for all lenses? Eg. a 24mm and 200mm?



24mm f/4, 200mm f/4, 600mm f/4 - for the same FoV, the DoF will be the same (mostly...at very wide angles, the relationship breaks down a little bit, but even then it's <10% difference). Obviously, you'll be further away, the longer the lens. Also, different rules apply at macro distances (1:1 or close to it).


----------

