# 135L or 100 Macro IS?



## xvnm (Jan 17, 2014)

Hi,

I think I may soon have a couple hundred bucks to spare on a shinny new lens. I'm wondering if I should get the 135L or the 100 Macro IS. They cost the same here in Canada. What would you recommend? I'm an amateur, not a professional, and I just want to have fun taking beautiful pictures. My current equipment is listed below.


----------



## noncho (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, you have some portrait lens, but you don't have macro. 
If you want to shoot macro - get 100L, I have just bought Sigma 105 2.8 OS macro because I like to have macro lens.

135/2 is another beer


----------



## unfocused (Jan 17, 2014)

135 "L" : 1 stop faster, slightly longer, No IS, No Macro

100 Macro "L" : Macro, IS, 1 stop slower, not quite as long.

I went for the 100 Macro "L" and while I've considered the 135, I just haven't found a good reason for it. Some users rave about the Boca, but that's not my thing and I find the 100 "L" is an excellent longer portrait lens. But then again, I did end up with the 85mm 1.8 and the 200 2.8 "L" so another lens in the bag just seemed crazy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2014)

Both. Neither. The TS-E 90mm. The MP-E 65mm. The 200/2.8L II. 

Sorry, I'm just not sure what to recommend. Perhaps you could tell us what sort of pictures you want to take? For example, if you want to shoot macro, the 135L is pretty much useless. If you want to shoot fast action in dim light, the 135L is a far better choice.


----------



## dcm (Jan 17, 2014)

Maybe the real question is which one do you want first. I ended up with both for the reasons that Neuro cited. The macro came first in my case - needed for some copy stand work a few years ago with my 550D/T2i and I already had a 70-200L for reach. I got the 100L for the flexibility IS gives me in the field and it does nice portraits as well. The 135 is a recent addition for shooting low light indoor events and its even nicer for portraits on 6D.


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 17, 2014)

What Neuro said. I have both. For macro work there is only one option. If you never have done macro shooting before, you might try the macro lens first. You might find that you don't do much macro or don't like it; in which case you can then trade it for a 135mm f/2L. 

For portraiture (face and bust on FF; maybe just face on crops), either one can do the job very nicely. 

If you think you will need the focal length for indoor sports (I use it for ice skating), then the 135mm f/2L is a much better choice. A 70-200mm f/2.8L would also be sufficient for this type of shooting. 

For me personally, I have found that I don't have a big interest in macro. So for me, the 135L would be the better of the two, if I could only get one.

Hope this helps.

--Jason


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 17, 2014)

I would vote for the 100L. 135L is bit limiting on APS-C. It shines for portraiture on FF, but it's a bit too long on APS-C to be used the same way. If you want a more general purpose telezoom, then a 70-xxx makes more sense than either 100L or 135L.

The macro is nice because it allows you to take a general pic and then focus close on details. You don't have to use it 1:1. Even using it at 0.25-0.5x will give you greater magnification that most lenses and gives you more freedom to compose your smaller subjects.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 18, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I would vote for the 100L. 135L is bit limiting on APS-C. It shines for portraiture on FF, but it's a bit too long on APS-C to be used the same way. If you want a more general purpose telezoom, then a 70-xxx makes more sense than either 100L or 135L.
> 
> The macro is nice because it allows you to take a general pic and then focus close on details. You don't have to use it 1:1. Even using it at 0.25-0.5x will give you greater magnification that most lenses and gives you more freedom to compose your smaller subjects.



+1

The 100L Macro probably makes more sense on an APS-C body, 135mm is pretty long and the 100L's macro capability makes it more versatile. 

These are two of Canon's best lenses! I own both and they are two of my favorites.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 18, 2014)

bholliman said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I would vote for the 100L. 135L is bit limiting on APS-C. It shines for portraiture on FF, but it's a bit too long on APS-C to be used the same way. If you want a more general purpose telezoom, then a 70-xxx makes more sense than either 100L or 135L.
> ...


I agree. I have both, but I use the 100 a lot more. On a crop camera the 135 will be fairly long and not very useful indoors. And with the 100 you get both IS and the macro functionality on top. 

If you had a FF body it would be a closer call though. The 135 is a phenomenal lens and considering its continued popularity amongst the pros, being such an old design, tells a story.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 18, 2014)

xvnm said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think I may soon have a couple hundred bucks to spare on a shinny new lens. I'm wondering if I should get the 135L or the 100 Macro IS. They cost the same here in Canada. What would you recommend? I'm an amateur, not a professional, and I just want to have fun taking beautiful pictures. My current equipment is listed below.



You have too many IS prime lenses, so you'll probably go for the 100L since it has IS. It's spelled "shiny"...sorry but I just had to say something!


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 21, 2014)

xvnm said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think I may soon have a couple hundred bucks to spare on a shinny new lens. I'm wondering if I should get the 135L or the 100 Macro IS. They cost the same here in Canada. What would you recommend? I'm an amateur, not a professional, and I just want to have fun taking beautiful pictures. My current equipment is listed below.




If it's just for fun you'll definitely have fun with the macro, the one time I borrowed I didn't want to let it go. It's definitely on my short list. However, since you already have an 85mm and just wanted more reach, you won't be disappointed with the 135L, which is just pure magic for portraits and candids. I plan to own both in the end and if you try both you'll understand why. But if just one I'd pick the 100L now if I didn't acquire the 135L first.


----------



## wackocrash5150 (Jan 25, 2014)

I just picked up a 100mm Macro L earlier this week and absolutely love it. 100mm super sharp portrait lens with macro capability? Where's the down side? lol No regrets.


----------



## Badger (Jan 25, 2014)

In a similar dilemma. Have decided that as soon as there are extra funds, to go with the 100mm IS as of all my current equipment, I don't have a macro lens. Will also serve as a great portrait lens.


----------



## wackocrash5150 (Jan 25, 2014)

Can't speak of the 135L as I have never tried one, but I took this one at the dining room table, drinking a cup of joe with my cousin. I'd literally only owned the 100L macro for about 30 minutes when I snapped this one hand-held.

I knew it was a keeper after that.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

The 135 f/2 can certainly be used for macro photography, just add an extension tube. Even more extreme is adding a TC + an extension tube! It autofocuses faster than the 100L (such as for sports or faster portraiture), has better bokeh, and isn't really any less sharp. 

In my opinion, the only downsides to the 135 are its focal length and lack of IS. It's a bit too long for most portraiture in my opinion. As for the lack of IS...it's an f/2 aperture, but if you buy a lens to shoot handheld at 1/15 of a second, you're out of luck there. I have other lenses for that, though.

To each their own...in my opinion the Canon 100L is a poor value...the Tamron and Sigma stabilized macros are just as good for 20 to 30% less money. The Sigma is now well under $600!


----------

