do I want the 100mm f2 or the 135mm f2?

mrjames

mrjames

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,240
Edit My Images
Yes
So i'm in the market for a f2 short telephoto for when I need that extra stop- I mainly photograph events, and sometimes 2.8 just isn't fast enough

it will also be used for portraits because the 70-200 2.8 IS is just a bit heavy, and a bit intimidating for my subjects


i've always wanted the 100mm f2, but I have the money for the 135mm, and now i'm also thinking about the 85mm 1.8, or perhaps even sigma 85 1.4- although I like to be small and light


I see great pictures made with the 135, and less great pictures made with the 100mm- is that a case of the L lens just being better, better color, bokeh etc? or is it a case of better photographers automatically buy the L lens, when they could make pictures that were just as good with the non L


I suppose I could justify the 85mm and the 135mm, although if I had to get just the one right now i'm not sure what it would be- perhaps the 100mm and then I could decide if it was too short, or too long. With 22mp you can crop, but you can't go wider

the other lenses I have are 16-35, 24-70, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8 IS, 150 macro



the quicker AF of the 135mm does not interest me, I don't really photograph action, I also don't care for the better build quality. I actually prefer the lighter weight and small size of the 100mm/85mm, but if the L lens really has some extra 'magic', that can be quantifiably picked out in a blind test, and can't be re-produced on the non L with 2 clicks in lightroom then I would spend the extra money



I know people are going to come in and comment to say 'the 135 f2 is a great lens', I know that, I want to know answers from someone that's put 10,000 frames through the 100mm f2 and the 135mm f2

I know that I can't really make judgements on something until i've put a few 1000 frames on it, and after that many frames often I will see something I just can't quantify- for example shooting my 1ds2 and my 5d2 side by side to compare leaves no conclusive winner, but after shooting an event with both cameras/lenses, when scanning through the images after I will often think 'that looks great' and without even looking at the exif I will pick out the 1ds2 images time and time again- can't put my finger on why but just prefer them for some reason
 
The 85 and 100mm are really very close and I believe the little 85 just has an edge. The L is obviously a bit longer and has loads of colour pop and contrast. The L glass wins if you ask me, but you could live with non-L if needed.

re - 1ds. Better focus, and much more "natural", less pre-processed RAW files with absolutely minimal AA filter. You'll want 5D3 or 1Dx to see better than that
 
I've owned all three of those lenses over the years although only one at a time, and don't have any if them now. For my use (portraits and general short telephoto use) I preferred the 85 and that's the one I'd pick now if I was in the market.
 
I haven't had the 100 f2 but I've had the 85L the 100L macro and the 135L. Also I tested out the 85 f1.8. The 135 I found hands down best for portraits. The smoothness of the bokeh, the way it rendered the colours, and the contrast were much better. The 85L had too many idiosyncrasies for me, the 85 1.8 was just too harsh. The 100L macro was actually very nice but not as good and of course that is only f2.8. From what I've heard the optical quality of the 100 f2 is similar to the 85. That being so I feel you would notice a big difference between the 2.

The 35l and the 135l are a killer combo
 
Last edited:
which camera you shooting on? I had the 100mm f2 and (picture confirms what I remember) remember never liking it on FF, great on a crop though.

8052855953_5e305b7aaa_c.jpg
 
It's worth bearing in mind that the L-series lenses are built to more stringent tolerance so will have less batch-variance. The 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 are consumer-grade and while normally highly rated will have wider process-variance resulting in different users experiencing different levels of decentering etc.
 
magicolor1 said:
It's worth bearing in mind that the L-series lenses are built to more stringent tolerance so will have less batch-variance. The 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 are consumer-grade and while normally highly rated will have wider process-variance resulting in different users experiencing different levels of decentering etc.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Plenty of L lenses also have some smaller or bigger issues. Obviously that doesn't change the fact 135L produces nicer image :)
 
daugirdas said:
I doubt it.
Click to expand...

It's an undeniable fact! That's one of the reasons you pay more for L-series lenses. Leica lenses take it to its logical extreme at one end of the scale, and at the other end something like the Canon 50 1.8 is optically great as long as you get a good one and it's centered properly and you don't flex it etc etc.!
 
Last edited:
magicolor1 said:
It's an undeniable fact! That's one of the reasons you pay more for L-series lenses. Leica lenses take it to its logical extreme at one end of the scale, and at the other end something like the Canon 50 1.8 is optically great as long as you get a good one and it's centered properly and you don't flex it etc etc.!
Click to expand...

Canon 50 1.8 is anything but optically great. L lenses cost more because they use more and more expensive glass elements, etc. I wish they took qc as seriously as they should
 
daugirdas said:
The 85 and 100mm are really very close and I believe the little 85 just has an edge. The L is obviously a bit longer and has loads of colour pop and contrast. The L glass wins if you ask me, but you could live with non-L if needed.

re - 1ds. Better focus, and much more "natural", less pre-processed RAW files with absolutely minimal AA filter. You'll want 5D3 or 1Dx to see better than that
Click to expand...


I actually have a 5d3 now, and I swear the files aren't as nice as the 1ds2 files- I read somewhere that to improve the high iso performance came at a detriment to low iso performance- i guess that's true!


RichardTaylor said:
I own both the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm f2 L.
Boith are used on a Canon 40D and 5D.
The 135mm f2 is great lens and my favourite lens to use (but not my most used lens).
The 85mm is also very good and is my choice when I do not have a lot of working room.
Click to expand...

I fear that I may also end up owning the 2 lenses...


I decided on the 85 because I really want the lens for low light event shooting without jacking up the iso, I can shoot at 1/30 with the 70-200 at 2.8 but have problems with motion blur unless people are really still, if I shoot at 1/60 I feel I can probably hand hold the 85mm, where as the 100mm f2 would be blurry, even more so with the 135. If things get more active then i'll switch to 1/125 and then no problems handholding the lens

for my uses I think the 135mm is only useful when things move and you're pushing the shutter past 1/125, otherwise the 70-200 is better in low light

I've just bought an 85mm, if I really really love it then I might consider the 85L or the sigma 1.4, but then i'm losing the small and light properties. I was considering upgrading my 70-200 to a mk2 but think I might get a 135 f2 instead- then consider the 70-200 as an f4 lens and use the 85 and 135mm lenses at f2-2.8 (hell maybe i'll even replace the 2.8 with an f4!)

strumstrum said:
which camera you shooting on? I had the 100mm f2 and (picture confirms what I remember) remember never liking it on FF, great on a crop though.
Click to expand...


5d2 and 5d3
 
mrjames said:
I actually have a 5d3 now, and I swear the files aren't as nice as the 1ds2 files- I read somewhere that to improve the high iso performance came at a detriment to low iso performance- i guess that's true!




I fear that I may also end up owning the 2 lenses...


I decided on the 85 because I really want the lens for low light event shooting without jacking up the iso, I can shoot at 1/30 with the 70-200 at 2.8 but have problems with motion blur unless people are really still, if I shoot at 1/60 I feel I can probably hand hold the 85mm, where as the 100mm f2 would be blurry, even more so with the 135. If things get more active then i'll switch to 1/125 and then no problems handholding the lens

for my uses I think the 135mm is only useful when things move and you're pushing the shutter past 1/125, otherwise the 70-200 is better in low light

I've just bought an 85mm, if I really really love it then I might consider the 85L or the sigma 1.4, but then i'm losing the small and light properties. I was considering upgrading my 70-200 to a mk2 but think I might get a 135 f2 instead- then consider the 70-200 as an f4 lens and use the 85 and 135mm lenses at f2-2.8 (hell maybe i'll even replace the 2.8 with an f4!)




5d2 and 5d3
Click to expand...

1. I had plenty of time to compare 1Ds2 with 5D3 over a year now. The shadows are certainly cleaner (but not 100% clean). The highlights are probably a tad oversaturated on 5D and look very slightly less natural. There is not a lot difference at ISO100.

2. I get blur on 85mm below 1/100s and like 1/60s on 24-70mm. 70-200mm is in a different league with IS.
 
daugirdas said:
1. I had plenty of time to compare 1Ds2 with 5D3 over a year now. The shadows are certainly cleaner (but not 100% clean). The highlights are probably a tad oversaturated on 5D and look very slightly less natural. There is not a lot difference at ISO100.

2. I get blur on 85mm below 1/100s and like 1/60s on 24-70mm. 70-200mm is in a different league with IS.
Click to expand...

interesting

well i'll see how slow I can handhold
I shot a 5d classic for years with a 3200 limit, so I was regularly shooting 1/30 with a 50mm
 
mrjames said:
interesting

well i'll see how slow I can handhold
I shot a 5d classic for years with a 3200 limit, so I was regularly shooting 1/30 with a 50mm
Click to expand...

that is properly pushing it :) I imagine there was some blur in those

It may depend on your hands and your posture. I personally find it much easier to handhold bulkier lenses - it gives good second point of grip. 85mm is kind of small even with the hood.
 
daugirdas said:
that is properly pushing it :) I imagine there was some blur in those

It may depend on your hands and your posture. I personally find it much easier to handhold bulkier lenses - it gives good second point of grip. 85mm is kind of small even with the hood.
Click to expand...

yeah it would require good technique, properly pushed into the shoulder, a smooth release, breathing- but it was consistently sharp


that was using battery grips though, I don't use grips anymore so i'll see how that changes thing- maybe the grip adds more stability
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top