| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2014 02:59:49 AM · #1 |
I might have the cash for a second hand lens.
Candidates:
1) Canon 135mm f/2 L
2) Canon EF 100MM f/2.8L Macro
A have an itch for 2)
Both cost almost the same.
Thanks |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 03:15:27 AM · #2 |
I've owned the Canon 100mm f/2.8L for a couple of years and it is a wonderful lens...my favorite of all the lenses I own. I don't think you can go wrong with that lens.
Can't vouch for the Canon 135mm f/2L as I've never used it. |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 08:54:37 AM · #3 |
| The 100mm macro is fantastic... |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 09:15:37 AM · #4 |
Both are OUTSTANDING lenses. Can not go wrong with either.
It's more a question of what is the intended use/purpose for the lens? |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 09:19:27 AM · #5 |
No.2 would be my choice. Outstanding macro lens and great for portraits
|
|
|
|
09/01/2014 09:21:15 AM · #6 |
Portrait, street, blurred back/foreground and others :)
I saw some outstanding photos taken with the 135 but I would love to have the macro capabilites. The IS could be very helpful for night street slices of life.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2014 09:22:54 AM · #7 |
| Don't think there's a finer lens out there for portraits than the 135L. |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 09:35:05 AM · #8 |
do you want portrait or macro? because if macro isn't important, the 135L is just magic.
if you don't believe me I'll send you some examples.. |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 10:18:12 AM · #9 |
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens. |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 10:21:56 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens. |
Its designed more for FF, certainly not an ideal portrait lens for crop sensor. |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 10:31:56 AM · #11 |
I owned the 100 non IS and used it on my 40D. It was my best set up. I felt very sad when it got stolen.
 |
|
|
|
09/01/2014 06:50:37 PM · #12 |
Considering your level of experience, and the fact that you have already owned one of the lenses, why ask us?
I suspect that in your heart you know which one you want. If you are looking for validation, yes it's a wonderful lens, now go buy it. |
|
|
|
09/02/2014 08:37:05 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens. |
Its designed more for FF, certainly not an ideal portrait lens for crop sensor. |
Both of them are very long for indoor work on an APS-C body... but then again the OP has a 6D :-)
Personally, where I have the room, I like lurrrve long focal lengths for portraiture. Not at all afraid to use 200mm, even beyond.
Even though the 135/2 is a fantastic lens, if I had neither, I would get the 100/2.8 IS Macro first. Damn flexible lens, and by all accounts a great piece of glass. Has to be to beat its predecessor. |
|
|
|
09/02/2014 09:06:23 AM · #14 |
i use two portrait lenses.. an 85 and a 135. both are fantastic, one indoors, one out. one reason i never got a 100 is because its stuck right in the middle of both those focal lengths and i dont do macro enough to justify getting one.
in your case, you have neither.
i'd go for the 100/2.8L, you wont destroy a background as easily as you will with a 135/2. the 135/2 is flat out tack sharp wide open which leads to crazy sharp images with just dreamy fore and background bokeh that just completely isolates your subject and a full body at f/2 gives an blur effect i cant even describe.
if its sharp, at 100mm on a FF 2.8 should be enough since you will be standing closer to your subject given 85mm and 1.8 on a FF is hard to even get two eyes in focus.
given your lens selection, I'd choose the single 100/2.8 for its versatility. if portraits are you thing though I'd get a 135 AND also get the cheaper 85/1.8, its hard to beat the image quality of that combo for portraits.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 05:50:07 AM EDT.
