# EF 135 L USM or EF 100 L Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

I was told that macro lenses are always sharper compared to non macro lenses but I was also told that the EF 135 L is called the "Lord of the Red Rings" because it is so incredible sharp, so which one of them is sharper, especially at maximum aperture?


----------



## noncho (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*

Both are sharp enough, you should pick the most suitable for your needs.


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> I was told that macro lenses are always sharper compared to non macro lenses but I was also told that the EF 135 L is called the "Lord of the Red Rings" because it is so incredible sharp, so which one of them is sharper, especially at maximum aperture?



the 135mm f2L is slightly sharper.
but it is not really noticeable , maybe only at lab level test , you will be able to discern that resolution difference at wider aperture.
so consider if you need IS or f2 , your focal length preference , and of course , if you need weather sealing or macro or both.
if you do need macro capable optics , then you should get the 100L or even better the Sigma 150,which is actually sharper than both the 100L and the 135mmL.
if you do not need macro , then you need weather sealing and IS , if not go for the 135mm L.
I had both and kept the 135mm f2L and added the Sigma 180mm macro and use my Nikon 200mmf4 Micro Nikkor via an adapter.
but having said all above , I much prefer my 85mmf1.2Lmk2 lens over all those 100-180 range primes.
and if you are ok with only mf lens , you should also consider the Zeiss 135mm f2APO, it is outstanding , maybe even better than the Leica 125mm f2.5 macro in S mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*

I think the slight difference in real-world sharpness is secondary to the difference in closest focusing distance. Remember the 135mm doesn't let you get closer than 3 feet from your subject, which, IMO, really makes it a more specialized lens--portraits, some street photography, landscape panoramas...

I wouldn't sell either my ef 100mm 2.8 macro (non-L) or my 135 because they are so very different. I always bring the macro on a nature hike, but I never use it for portraits. I love the colors, contrast, and bokeh of the 135mm too much.

If you are doing events, remember you can't easily get good detail shots (without lots of cropping) with the 135. In fact, for weddings, presentations, etc, the 135mm is often limited to set-up type shots, because you have a fixed focal length and have to remain at least 3 feet from your subjects. With something like a 70-200mm, you have about the same MFD, but more options with focal length.

If you really love portraits, the 135mm may be Canon's very best value. It is very sharp at f/2, and so sharp at f/2.8 and up that pores and little problems with makeup become a real issue in Photoshop.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



MLfan3 said:


> and of course , if you need weather sealing



Both are L lenses and so I thought both are weather sealed? Am I wrong?


----------



## J.R. (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > and of course , if you need weather sealing
> ...



The 135L is not weather sealed

For sharpness, you'll be splitting hairs comparing the 135L with the 100L. Sharpness with both lenses is outstanding.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



J.R. said:


> The 135L is not weather sealed
> 
> For sharpness, you'll be splitting hairs comparing the 135L with the 100L. Sharpness with both lenses is outstanding.



Splitting hairs aka pixel peeping is my hobby! 8)


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



noncho said:


> Both are sharp enough, you should pick the most suitable for your needs.



I was told this so many times before when I got my Sigma 30/1.4 or my EF 50/1.4 and you know what? Both are soft like jelly at maximum aperture.  
The only thing that can cure my trauma caused by this soft lenses is a razor-sharp lens, the sharpest one. No compromises no more. And when I say sharp I mean sharp not only at small apertures but of course at maximum aperture. Until now I only heard about sharp lenses but never saw them. Just another myth on forums?


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



MLfan3 said:


> even better the Sigma 150,which is actually sharper than both the 100L and the 135mmL.


Very funny! Is this sharper (especially at full aperture as OP asked)?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=807&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## J.R. (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > The 135L is not weather sealed
> ...



That exactly was my point. 

Both lenses are very sharp and distinguishing between the two is extremely tough, even at pixel level detail


----------



## Viggo (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Both are sharp enough, you should pick the most suitable for your needs.
> ...



I bought the 200 f2 L, that's closest in focal to the 135 and it's so sharp at f2 that it can't be compared even slightly to anything but the 300 and 400. And even then they only let half the light in. And you get IS and weather sealing that you don't from the 135. 

The most incredible lens, for me and a few others, in every aspect from Canon ever.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



J.R. said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Thank you, so I will go for the 100 L IS USM Macro as I like macro ability almost as much as sharpness.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > and of course , if you need weather sealing
> ...



L lens does not mean weather sealed.


----------



## pwp (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> Thank you, so I will go for the 100 L IS USM Macro as I like macro ability almost as much as sharpness.


Good call. 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned about the 100L macro is the fact it has IS...this alone will deliver sharper hand-held images at lower shutter speeds than the 135L. 
Both totally brilliant lenses, but the 100 will deliver a higher percentage of keepers.

-pw


----------



## Dukinald (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



With canon rebates and bestbuy pricing, you might just be able to get one at around $800.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Both are sharp enough, you should pick the most suitable for your needs.
> ...



If you want "a razor sharp lens, the sharpest one", it is likely to be the 200/2L or the 24/3.5L TS-E. But I agree with the advice to pick the lens most suitable for your needs.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



zlatko said:


> If you want "a razor sharp lens, the sharpest one", it is likely to be the 200/2L or the 24/3.5L TS-E. But I agree with the advice to pick the lens most suitable for your needs.



Damn, this TS-E 24 seems to be a really freaking piece of monster glass, the filter is 82 mm compared to "only" 72 mm on the EF 85/1.2L which itself is already a big chunk of glass! 
But unfortunately it is only an E without the F and I rely very often on autofocus.

The mentioned 200/2 L is without IS too long on APS-C to be used hand-held at availabe light in twilights or at nights imho.


----------



## surapon (Sep 30, 2013)

Joshua said:


> I was told that macro lenses are always sharper compared to non macro lenses but I was also told that the EF 135 L is called the "Lord of the Red Rings" because it is so incredible sharp, so which one of them is sharper, especially at maximum aperture?



Dear Joshua.
Here is the MTF. Charts from Canon Manufacture, and Most of our friends can Read/ Understand and Help us by Explain to us too.
In my Limited Knowledge of MTF. chart reading, I understand that EF 100 L is sharper than EF 135 L, Which I have both of them---Yes, May be I am total wrong--Yes, We need our friend help us.
Good Luck
Surapon

PS, Sorry, I Type the Wrong letter , Not EFG, Should be EF 135 F/2 L in the Photo.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

surapon said:


> Which I have both of them



You have both of them? You lucky basterd! ;D

Thank you for the MTF tables, I really think both are just fine for me. I am looking forward to order the 100 L IS as soon as I will get my check from my new employer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



Joshua said:


> The mentioned 200/2 L is without IS too long on APS-C to be used hand-held at availabe light in twilights or at nights imho.



The 200mm f2 has IS, it has the four stop version. The 200 f2.8 does not.


----------



## surapon (Sep 30, 2013)

Joshua said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Which I have both of them
> ...



Ha, Ha, Ha---I love your Great Words " You have both of them? You lucky basterd! ;D "---Yes, I Have a smart Wife , who Let me buy every things/ Toys as I want----Yes, I have Lenses from 8mm. fisheye to 600 mm.= Plus most L lenses + Normal special Lenses in between.
Yes, My wife have full trunk of Jewelry and big Diamonds, plus many MB. cars-------Ha, Ha, Ha = Very fair to me.
Surapon


----------



## kirispupis (Sep 30, 2013)

Why does it matter which one is sharper? They are both great lenses designed for completely different purposes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2013)

With both lenses wide open the macro is sharper across the frame than the 135, BUT, at f2.8 the 135 has better corner sharpness than the macro.

At f8 your 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame than the macro or the 135.


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> At f8 your 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame than the macro or the 135.



That well may be but I use my lenses most of the time wide open as I prefer short times to avoid camera shaking. And to realise short times when light is poor you need wide open lenses, no chance for f/8. Also the corners are of a lesser interest to me, therefore no need for small f-numbers. I want lenses that are sharp as sharp can be wide open (in the middle). The sharpest lens only at small f-numbers is of no use for me.


----------



## John (Sep 30, 2013)

i have both those lenses and they are both very sharp. but....i use them for different purposes. i don't do much macro work so the 135 is a much more useful lens for me. i use it for portraits and indoor sports (basketball, volleyball, wrestling). if i had to have one or the other, then i would get the 135. i wish that the 135 had IS and i have heard that canon may update it to an IS version in the next year. it seems odd to me that you are comparing the 135 to the 100 macro since they are lenses that most would probably be used for different things. i would pick the one that you intend to use the most. for me that is the 135. no question about it. but it is really nice to have the 100 macro when i need it which isn't very often.


----------



## surapon (Sep 30, 2013)

Joshua said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > At f8 your 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame than the macro or the 135.
> ...



Dear Joshua.
Just my Idea, Now past 2-3 years, The Camera are design so great at Low ISO up to 1600 with minimum noise, We do not need wide Opening of F. Stop any way, Except to get the total Back ground Blur, I use 2-3 stop above Total Open Wide F. stop of the Lens that I use ( If I use 85 mm 1.2 L II, I will use 1.8, or 2.0 in the dark area), and still get the best sharpest of the Lens in the dark area.
Just My Idea.
But I love to use F. stop at 1.2 ( by set up Canon at AV. mode, and ISO = 100) with Cir. PL, 4 ND, or 8 ND. Filter in the sunshine day and get rid of the unwanted Background. Please see the photos below.
Nice to talk to you.
Surapon


----------



## Joshua (Sep 30, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Joshua.
> Just my Idea, Now past 2-3 years, The Camera are design so great at Low ISO up to 1600 with minimum noise, We do not need wide Opening of F. Stop any way, Except to get the total Back ground Blur, I use 2-3 stop above Total Open Wide F. stop of the Lens that I use ( If I use 85 mm 1.2 L II, I will use 1.8, or 2.0 in the dark area), and still get the best sharpest of the Lens in the dark area.
> Just My Idea.
> But I love to use F. stop at 1.2 ( by set up Canon at AV. mode, and ISO = 100) with Cir. PL, 4 ND, or 8 ND. Filter in the sunshine day and get rid of the unwanted Background. Please see the photos below.
> ...



Your pictures are awsome, you definitely deserve every single lens you have. Kudos! I will try to make use of your tips to get the same results.


----------



## surapon (Sep 30, 2013)

Joshua said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Joshua.
> ...



Thank you, Sir, Dear Joshua.
Thanks for your Good words, I just try to learn the Good tricks and the New Skill from Every friends in this CR. too, Plus go back to learn at the Community college in every semester---To improve my Skill of my love Hobby.
Surapon


----------



## J.R. (Oct 1, 2013)

Just a quick question guys ... if you were to see images taken with both the 100L and the 135L, would you be able to tell which image was taken with which lens? 

Also, if you would be able to identify the lens used solely on the basis of sharpness?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Just a quick question guys ... if you were to see images taken with both the 100L and the 135L, would you be able to tell which image was taken with which lens?
> 
> Also, if you would be able to identify the lens used solely on the basis of sharpness?



No you absolutely can not tell the lens used 99% of the time and never because of sharpness, I have posted images before shot with both and even the most stubborn 135 protagonist got one right out of twelve!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2013)

surapon said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > I was told that macro lenses are always sharper compared to non macro lenses but I was also told that the EF 135 L is called the "Lord of the Red Rings" because it is so incredible sharp, so which one of them is sharper, especially at maximum aperture?
> ...


 
What those charts show is that the 100L has higher resolution in the center, but the 135L is better as you get to the edges. Both are good but in a different way, I have both and love both for different uses.

That's why a "which is sharper" answer really does not tell the whole story. There are too many critical lens parameters to evaluate, and acutance is only one of them, and might not be the most important for many photographers.
You did not ask about distortion, viginetting, chromatic abberations, bokeh, coma, AF speed, magnification, MFD, or any of the other factors that one might also need in their lens.

DXO will throw all those factors in a blender and come up with a number, which is usually misleading. Some will talk of real world photography, which means they have special powers that no one else has to compare lenses. They throw out terms that are undefined and can't be measured like color, micro contrast, 3D look, and so on.

In short, you are on your own!! Read all the reviews, and see which reviewer seems to value the same sort of lens characteristics that you do, and take his or her advice. 

If you are into portraits, one set of values
Astronomy, another set
Wildlife, another set
Sports Photographers have their preferred attributes
Low light photography ...
Macro photography
Document and copy lenses
Vacation lenses
Wedding lenses

I'm sure there are others.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 1, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



tron said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > even better the Sigma 150,which is actually sharper than both the 100L and the 135mmL.
> ...



Based on those charts, the Sigma is not as sharp... the 100L seems to beat out even the 135 F2 wide open. At F2.8 both are very close. Up to F4, the 100L is better but F5.6 and beyond, the 135mm is sharper especially at the corners..


----------



## tron (Oct 1, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



K-amps said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 said:
> ...


Exactly my point!


----------



## MLfan3 (Oct 1, 2013)

*Re: EF 135 USM L or EF 100 Macro IS USM - which one is sharper?*



YuengLinger said:


> I think the slight difference in real-world sharpness is secondary to the difference in closest focusing distance. Remember the 135mm doesn't let you get closer than 3 feet from your subject, which, IMO, really makes it a more specialized lens--portraits, some street photography, landscape panoramas...
> 
> I wouldn't sell either my ef 100mm 2.8 macro (non-L) or my 135 because they are so very different. I always bring the macro on a nature hike, but I never use it for portraits. I love the colors, contrast, and bokeh of the 135mm too much.
> 
> ...



right , you said sum it up very well and that's why I think he should pick it by feature set not by IQ.
but if you are extremely picky , then you will see the 135mm f2L is sharper aperture to aperture comparison, if you go SLRGEAR.COM, you will see clearly visualized graph that shows that resolution difference of the 2 lenses clearly.
I think pure macro lenses have a bit less resolving power in general use but with a bit better contrast level, I also think this general rule apply to all slr and mirrorless mount mid tele primes.


----------



## surapon (Oct 1, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



+ 1,000 for me.
Thank you, Sir, Dear teacher Mr. Mt Spokane.
Thanks for explain to us " What those charts show is that the 100L has higher resolution in the center, but the 135L is better as you get to the edges. Both are good but in a different way "
I need to learn how to read the MTF. Chart, Yes, I will soon.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Holly (Oct 6, 2013)

100L is sharp, but 135L is incredibly sharp.


----------

