Anyone owned the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro and the 135 f/2 L?

Messages
824
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the 100mm Macro L IS. I like it a lot for portraits. However I'm very tempted by the 135 f/2 L, but I'm not sure it's different enough to the 100mm to justify it. I'd really like to hear from anyone who has owned both - is the 135mm worth owning if you already have the 100mm?

Thank you :)
 
100mm is in the bag and I had the opportunity to test out 135mm. The f/2 aperture does create rather special out of focus rendering, while the macro is very neutral and clinical. Obviously the macro has image stabilisation and much close focusing distance for tight headshots. Otherwise there is little between the two if you shoot stopped down with studio lights.
 
Had the 135 and it is without doubt one of Canons best ever lenses I bought mine to undertake a family wedding and it has produced some lovely images The lens can be a restrictive in tight spaces but the 100L Marco gives a little more versatility I would not bother buying the 135 as the 100 is still a great lens. If you had neither I would recommend the 135
 
Thanks to you both. I'm less inclined toward it now.

Bit of an odd question - but at MFD how much of an average person would be in frame with the 135L? The whole of their head and shoulders or just part of their face?
 
Thanks to you both. I'm less inclined toward it now.

Bit of an odd question - but at MFD how much of an average person would be in frame with the 135L? The whole of their head and shoulders or just part of their face?

Assuming the info I've found and my maths is correct (MFD 90cm, 15 degree fov) on a FF it would be approx 24cm x 16cm so probably not a whole face. Yes I'm bored. :)

I also really wanted to buy the 135L being totally sold on the look of a lot of images from it but ended up with the 100L macro instead. I'm not a portrait photographer and the macro is, I think, more versatile.
Now I'd only get the 135 if I had a lottery win or suddenly became obsessed with portraiture. You can only reasonably carry so many lenses.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the info I've found and my maths is correct (MFD 90cm, 15 degree fov) on a FF it would be approx 24cm x 16cm so probably not a whole face. Yes I'm bored. :)

I also really wanted to buy the 135L being totally sold on the look of a lot of images from it but ended up with the 100L macro instead. I'm not a portrait photographer and the macro is, I think, more versatile.
Now I'd only get the 135 if I had a lottery win or suddenly became obsessed with portraiture. You can only reasonably carry so many lenses.
Thanks, good to know how much area I'd have at MFD, and I think your advice is sensible.

Maybe if I can find one for a decent secondhand price I'll pick one up with the expectation of selling it on, but I pretty much agree with everyone that it's not that logical to own both.
 
I have both. I shoot the odd wedding and the 135 is invaluable. Amazing IQ and great bokeh. I don't use it that often but it's one I'll probably never sell. The macro is a nice lens and great for close up stuff, but personally I think the 135 takes more pleasing portrait type images.
 
I have both. I shoot the odd wedding and the 135 is invaluable. Amazing IQ and great bokeh. I don't use it that often but it's one I'll probably never sell. The macro is a nice lens and great for close up stuff, but personally I think the 135 takes more pleasing portrait type images.
You're not helping. I'd almost talked myself out of it and now you come along and say exactly what I wanted to hear in the first place! ;)

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback. I think one of the concerns I have is that it'll end up like my 200L, a lens I like but rarely use.

I'm going to sell my underused 200L and Sigma 50mm 1.4 first, and then probably look for a secondhand 135L at a good price. Worse case I sell it on in a few months time and lose out on £30-50, I suspect it's worth the gamble as many owners seem to love the 135L.
 
135 is a step above 200L, which is still a good lens. Well, the 200mm is no special, considering there is a sharper f/2.8 stabilised zoom around. 135mm has f/2 aperture and absolutely insane out of focus rending wide open. I would be looking to do a swap if I were you in the first instance. Or maybe have a think about 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II which is also incredibly good.
 
To my mind (and eyes), the 135 wide open gives the perfect DOF for a head shot (anyone else's opinion might well be at variance with this, though). If you're happy with head shots at 100mm f/2.8 (for the avoidance of doubt, I do NOT mean that in any kind of disparaging way), then there's no real reason to splash out on an additional lens, unless, like me, you keep lusting after more kit.
 
Back
Top