Canon 100mm f2.0 vs 135 f2.8 soft focus

<p>If you have used both the lenses, is the image quality of 100mm f2.0 significantly better than 135 f2.8?<br>

<em>'Photozone says 135mm is able to delivery very good performance figures in all aspects. Nonetheless there´re many lenses including zooms which are capable to deliver similar and even better.'</em><br>

I have used 135mm about 10 years ago on a film camera and I like the image quality, especially the background blur at f2.8.<br>

I am looking for a prime telephoto that is not heavy for portraits on a crop body. <em><br /></em></p>

<p>You want the 85 f1.8, this gives you a film equivalent (the exact same image from the same place, including depth of field and angle of view) of a 135 f2.8 on a Canon 1.6 crop camera. Oh and it is a really good lens and cheaper than the 100 f2 as well.</p>

<p>Recently, I sold my 85mm I had for over 10 years. Its focal length was close to my 60mm macro. I am looking for a longer length than 85mm.</p>

<p>I have the 135mm soft focus but not the 100mm f2.0. I do have the 85mm f1.8 that according to test is very similar to the 100mm. The 135mm is a specialty lens used to create diffused images, however when it is not in soft-focus mode, it does provide surprisngly sharp images, but not as sharp or as contrasty as my 85mm f1.8. </p>

<p>The 135 soft focus is a rare lens these days, I never used it but I can say that the bokeh on the 100/2 is very nice, almost as good as the 135/2 I have also owned. And the bokeh of the 100/2 is even better at f2.<br>

Personally I don't see a reason to go with the 135 soft focus. The 100/2 is more modern, compact, have USM, larger aperture and the price is very similar to the 135 soft focus.</p>

<p>The 100mm/2 is an outstanding lens for portraits and sports. Julien is correct. It is almost as good as the 135mm/2. There's no reason to go with the 135mm 2.8</p>