Canon 100mm l vs 135mm l

Muzzieman

Muzzieman

Messages
568
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, I'm looking into purchasing one of the afore mentioned lenses. I know there is debate about this but does anyone have real world experience of using these for portraiture? My thinking is I would like the 135 but already have the 2.8 and don't use it favouring my 70-200 f4. Mainly due it not having a usm motor, the noise is awful! My thinking also revolves around the 100's dual usage any advice apreaciated. Thanks.
 
I've heard good reports about the ability of the 100 as a portrait lens however the 135 is supposed to be uber sharp but the 100 is cheaper and there's the macro thing.
 
Do you want an uber sharp portrait lens?

Personally I think sharpness is overrated or if not overrated then fixated on a little too much. For example my old Rokkors are blisteringly sharp in the centre of the frame once stopped down a bit and I don't expect any of the modern lenses you mention will be disappointing.

I don't know what camera you have but assuming that you're happy with the working distance these lenses will need any of them should be just fine and the macro although being a focal length already covered by your zoom will at least give you another use.
 
I use a 5d mk iii and have focal length from 17mm all the way to 400 covered. If money where no object an 85 f1.2 would be my choice but as portraiture is only a small part of my business at the moment I can't justify the cost versus income standard I have to set myself. By I obviously I mean her! Lol.
 
Both lenses create superb images, colours, smooth out of focus areas and sharp detail (both lenses are sharp wide open). Both are well built. The 135 is very fast focusing and opens up to f2. The 100 can hunt a little without the limiter switch on (as any macro does), the 100 has IS of course too.

In short, they're both excellent. I've owned both, but I'm a sucker for wide aperture lenses so I prefer the 135, though I daresay the 100 is probably more versatile.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
This should help

I'd pick 135 for portraits if you don't need the is, but then I own the 100 and am very happy with it all round
Click to expand...
Seen it. Was after real world responses though. Which I have got, thanks guys. Although I think the only way I'm gonna be able to decide is to try both out.
 
I had both at one point now have neither - If I was keeping one of those for portraits and space wasn't an issue, it would be the 135. But, this is if there was a non studio background. I prefer how the 135 renders out of focus parts - bokeh etc and, being F2 can be a bonus.
 
What about a 100mm f/2.0 ? Much cheaper than the 100L, and IME very close in IQ to the 135L.
I have both these lenses and although the 135 is the better lens for me I doubt I could tell the difference in quality if used for portraits.

It doesn't sound like the macro function is needed, but I expect f/2 could be useful.
 
135mm is a stunning portrait and I have used with some success as macro. 100mm for my money is not quite as sharp in myexperience. I also agree with Dave that the 100mm f2 is also a great lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top