Any reason to own 100L and 135L

<p>I currently have 24L/50L/100L along with F4 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-300L) I Love my setup since I shoot a wide variety ranging from landscapes, portraits, events, macro, travel etc. </p>

<p>I use to own a 70-200 2.8 II that I loved but I hated the bulk so I switched to the 70-300L but I miss having a longer faster lens. Right now the price is pretty low for the 135 and I am thinking more and more about picking one up but does it really make sense with my current lineup?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Doesn't really make sense. Personally I'd have a 135L over the macro as that has the extra stop and produces a unique shallow dof. It certainly adds a lot of "style" that the 70-300L won't have. Unless you take a lot of macro, I'd dump that and get some extension tubes or close up lens and get the 135L instead.</p>

<p>I bought the135 first and then the 100 macro: you have the (better) 100 macro and you are considering the 135/2.<br>

I think that if your (main) passion is people as opposed bugs and flowers – you’ll get a lot of use from the 135/2, so yes I think there is space for both lenses in your kit.<br>

I would not sell the macro lens if I were you – a macro lens is something handy to have, but it does not replace an F/2 lens for ‘people’ – IMO: and the extra 35mm reach is both fun and useful to have available – and the (much faster) AF is … well ... fantastic.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks, I just responded to your email William. Great info. </p>

<p>I should say I do have some extension tubes that I use with my macro lens on occasion and its amazing how close you can get. I should also point out the 100L is my wife's favorite lens so when we are out together its usually all she shoots with.</p>

<p>I do feel I would probably get more use out of the 135 but I don't think I could ever part with my macro. </p>

<p>For your set of primes and disregarding the zooms, I think the 200mm f2.8L might be the addition to make. I have not used the lens so I have no experience with it so there might be disagreement. The "jump" from your 100mm to 200mm is a good one and it would fill out your primes nicely. Good luck!</p>

<p>Yep I thought about the 200 but its just not a FL I would use as often. I may add a Kenko 1.4X at some point to use on my 70-300 as well.</p>

I have both the 100L and 135L. I mainly use the

135 when I need a fast telephoto for low light,

but most of the time, I'll reach for the 70-300L

if there will be anything close to decent light.

I've had the 135 since film. With the high iso I

can shoot with digital, I just don't find myself

using the 135 often.

 

Eric

The EF135mm f/2L is one Canon's very best lenses. Also look at the EF200mm f/2.8. I agree about the bulk & weight of

the EF70-200mn f/2.8L lenses.

<p>I went ahead and ordered the 135. Thanks all.</p>

<p>Hi Tommy,</p>

<p>I've kept my 135/2 even though I use my 70-200/4 L IS a lot more. Being sharp wide open, the prime is a superb lens for lower light. And I frequently find myself at 135mm (on both full frame and crop).</p>

<p>Have fun with yours.</p>

<p>Thanks Mark, I find I use my 70-300L a lot. When I sold the 70-200 2.8 I figured the extra range and smaller size made the 70-300L a great choice for me but honestly sometimes I think having just a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 would be all I need.</p>

<p>With F4 zooms and primes shooting is certainly more fun but it just makes for a lot of lenses that are all very similar. Hoping the 135 lives up to the reputation, I loved the image quality the 70-200 had.</p>

<p>I am in exactly the same situation as Mark. I use the 135 for dedicated portraits and when I want a change or low light work (paired with the 200/2.8) I have to say though the 70-200f4IS gets most use as the results are pretty indistinguishable at 135.</p>

<p>I just got my 135 and it is very nice. I can see why many use this as a macro lens the MFD is pretty short. While it is somewhat similar to the 100L it is a bit longer and so much easier to handle compared to the 70-200 2.8's. which it is pretty much replacing. </p>

<p>A few photos testing it out at 2.0.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49877689@N04/8382183098/in/photostream<br>