# 135mm vs. 100mm macro



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Apr 15, 2013)

I just bought the 135mm and am looking forward to using it; however, I was torn before I bought with the possibility of getting the 100mm L. I am planning on using this range for weddings, portraits, and general events. Would you choose the 100 because of the IS? Interested in your thoughts! Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2013)

I'd choose the 100L if I needed macro, else the 135L.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Apr 16, 2013)

I have the non L 100 macro and love that lens, but I just didn't know if the upgrade was justifiable..


----------



## eml58 (Apr 16, 2013)

I have both the 135f/2 L & 100f/2.8 L IS Macro, but i use them for two completely different things, 135 I use for People, City streets, anywhere I need f/2, 100 I use purely for Macro, Underwater Macro, for this the 100 has no competition, not even the Nikons 105 (Crap Lens), I've tried the 100 for People etc, but although I find the Lens as Sharp as a button, I do find in low light the Auto Focus can begin to hunt, as it's primarily a Macro Lens, you may find the 135 is your Lens for Weddings/People etc as has been suggested, cant fault this Lens either, sharp, fast, wonderful in Low Light.


----------



## DCM1024 (Apr 16, 2013)

I purchased both the 100L Macro and the 135L. I love both and consider them to have separate usages. I have not missed IS with the 135 - used it at a low light wedding reception this past Saturday, and am very happy with the results. So far, I find I am using the 135 more than the 100.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 16, 2013)

if u bought the 135 then that is the best one! i use the 100 for the close up detail work on a job though


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 16, 2013)

With the 135L and the 70-200L II, the 100L would most likely be used for macro only. The IS is nice for macro applications handheld, but I wouldn't think that it would be a high priority. Look to fill your other lens needs first. The 100L may be a nice upgrade, but it might not be the best bang for your buck.


----------



## leftnose (Apr 16, 2013)

I have them both as well. As said above, they're different lenses and I use them for different purposes. I tend to use the 135 for general photography and the 100L in studio (I don't do portraits).


----------



## Pi (Apr 16, 2013)

I agree with the overall opinion. I own them both, and the 100L is not as good as I expected for non-macro.


----------



## westr70 (Apr 16, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I have both the 135f/2 L & 100f/2.8 L IS Macro, but i use them for two completely different things, 135 I use for People, City streets, anywhere I need f/2, 100 I use purely for Macro, Underwater Macro, for this the 100 has no competition, not even the Nikons 105 (Crap Lens), I've tried the 100 for People etc, but although I find the Lens as Sharp as a button, I do find in low light the Auto Focus can begin to hunt, as it's primarily a Macro Lens, you may find the 135 is your Lens for Weddings/People etc as has been suggested, cant fault this Lens either, sharp, fast, wonderful in Low Light.



+1, same experience. I'd take the 135 over the 100 anything but macro. Both are wonderful lens.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Apr 25, 2013)

I also own both of them, I had a 100 non-L at first but wanted the IS, so got the 100L instead. I bothered quite a time if I'd need the 135L. Though they are not far away from each other regarding their focal lengths, they are both useful in their own ways. I used the 100L for macros a lot in the beginning (obviously) but also as a portrait lens. Also I have it with me, next to a wider lens, when I am only hiking around or so because it got an IS, and it's weather sealed while the 135L is not. Keep that in mind for snow or rain, I had a shoot with a girl when it snowed heavily and I could have cancelled that without the 100L. I use the 135L almost only for portrait work and then from a tripod.

The 135L is a bit better regarding sharpness and image quality but they are still both very, very sharp, probably the sharpest lenses in that price segment. If you can afford it, get both, unless you only plan indoor use or in very good weather conditions / at daylight, then I would consider the 135L.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Apr 25, 2013)

Have both but prefer the 135 for most any portrait work depending on the setting, distance. I find the 135 has a smoother bokeh than the 100. Don't really miss the IS but it would be nice. 

Personally, I'm excited about what Sigma has to offer with a 135 f1.8 OS. I just rented the new Zeiss 135mm and will have that next week for testing.

I know it wasn't in your question but the 'older' 200mm f2.8L II makes a great portrait lens also, given you can step back 500 yards or so! ;D

You really can't go wrong with either the 100 or 135. Both are sharp and consistent. 

Best of luck.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 26, 2013)

I have the 100mmL and my assistant has the 135... Indoors, handheld or monopod, i get a much much better keeper rate... it's not even close. Outdoors, it's debatable.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 26, 2013)

I have a 135L and have been borrowing a 100L Macro for the past 5 months.

The 100L is a great Macro lens, but the 135L is much better for portraits and general purpose photography.


----------



## mifho (Apr 26, 2013)

100L = inanimate objects
135L = animate objects


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2013)

I have both. The 100L for macro, the 135 for everything else in that focal length range where I need f/2.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 27, 2013)

The 135L IMO is the best portrait lens just under the 200 f/2. The 100L is a good all use lens but won't do anything for portraits that a 70-200 2.8 couldn't do. 

If you need a macro, the answer is obvious. If you want a portrait lens, the answer should be obvious.


----------



## Zv (Apr 27, 2013)

I would say they are made for two separate applications. If you need an excellent portrait lens for low light etc then the 135L is the way to go. The IS would only be useful for stationary subjects, for me that doesn't translate to portraits as people tend to move about and figit a lot! The 135L has the extra stop advantage which would give faster shutter speeds if used in conjunction with a higher ISO. You want somewhere around 1/200 s or faster and f/2.8 in my opinion is just not fast enough in low light without hitting the really high ISO levels.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 27, 2013)

For your uses, I would buy the 135 f/2 and a 25mm extension tube (or set of Kenko tubes). For wedding/event "macro" you're usually not going for a true 1:1, and the extension tube will get you to .41x. Plus, you can use the 1.4x and 2x extenders with it. It was my first L and is still my favorite lens.


----------



## sleepnever (Apr 28, 2013)

I bought the 100L just recently because I like the fun/challenge of finding interesting macro subjects, but also it doubles as a great portrait lens. This thing is insane wide open on my 5D3 at 2.8 and only gets better as I stop down. My 24-70L Mk1 hasn't been on my camera for a while. The IS is nice and the lens has actually taught me to use MF instead of AF.

I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 28, 2013)

sleepnever said:


> I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?


Because with the 135mm you can get 1/200s at f/2 at ISO 1600 or less in just about any lighting, even indoors in poor lighting. I would be more leery of the 200mm because the non-IS model is a f/2.8. Ultimately they're both great lenses (the 135 and 100 macro) and unless you shoot indoor sports (and need f/2) or macro (and need true 1:1) or have unsteady hands (and need IS), you can't go wrong with either lens.


----------



## Pi (Apr 28, 2013)

sleepnever said:


> I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?



Because of this?


----------

