135mm f2L vs. 100mm f2

[andybernhagen]

I've read a lot of comparisons of prime lenses, but I haven't really been able

to find a good comparison on these two lenses. If anyone owns both or knows

where I can find a good review/test images, I would appreciate it. I'm looking

into getting either one for shooting high school basketball, but I don't know if

the extra 35mm is worth a $410 difference unless it is a much better lens than

the 100.

[bueh]

<b><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=0">Here</a></b> you go. I have the 100mm f/2 and it's a swell lens. I guess the 135mm "L" is better (and wide open DTP seems to agree), but since for me money and hand-holdablility is an issue, I can live with the less expensive lens.

[brucecyr]

Photozone tests of 135:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_135_2/index.htm

 

and 100mm:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100_2/index.htm

 

show both are PDG, but 135mm is up to 10% sharper, and that happens wider open than the 100mm.

 

Both are so good that the real issue is whether you need the extra 35mm of reach.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, I use both for indoor sport on a 5D. The 100/2 is fine for that purpose. The 135/2 is however significantly better. Canon make one of the better 135 f2 out there. For a 1.6X body, 135mm may be too long for indoor sport unless you only are confined to the stands.

[alexdi]

The 100/2 is optimized for portrait distances. Distant subjects, particularly wide open at f/2, don't show that much detail.

 

The 135/2 is a true telephoto and excellent at any distance. The contrast is also higher than the 100/2, and it's significantly sharper at f/2 and f/2.8.

 

In terms of AF, build, and handling, they're both excellent.

 

DI

[rainer_t]

-- "The 100/2 is optimized for portrait distances."

 

Any link that supports this theory?

[savas_kyprianides]

Ranier, it's the focal length and personal preference. It works in a pinch if that's the only lens

you have near that range, or can't afford or don't wish to buy the 135.

[paul_sauer]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

[William Michael]

>>> I'm looking into getting either one for shooting high school basketball, but I don't know if the extra 35mm is worth a $410 difference unless it is a much better lens than the 100. <<<

 

I have used both. The 135 is sharper and has more contrast wide open.

 

Where is your viewpoint?

 

What is your camera body?

 

And what other lenses do you have?

 

These three criteria will have more influence upon the purchasing decision outlined in the question, IMO. Both the 100mm and the 135mm perform adequately inside a gym.

 

WW

[ant_nio_ferreira]

And the 135 is compatible with TCs. And it is a perfect lens, only too big and too expensive

when compared with the 100. The 85 1.8 is a bit better, smaller and cheaper than the 100.

[lester_wareham]

Yes as Antonio says the 135/f2 is compatible with the TC and takes them very well by all accounts, this is possibly more significant than being sharper.

 

The 100/f2 is smaller and lighter as well as cheaper, you will only be able to use independent TCs plus it will probably cope less well with them being less natively sharp.

 

Much depends what you want to do with these lenes and what else you have.

 

I would say that rather than the 100/f2 I would go for the 100/f2.8 macro which is a much more flexible lens. If however you really need the speed then go for the 85/1.8, if you need the reach or want to use the lens with TCs get the 135/f2.

[grant g]

If you are comparing at f/2, then I think the 135L is significantly sharper and has better color and contrast.

 

I had both for a few months and sold the 100/2 shortly thereafter.

[alexdi]

Rainer, any lens design is optimized for a certain distance or range of distances. Canon Lens Work has some notes on this, though most lenses tend to be just fine even in the unoptimized range.

 

The 100/2 is a portrait lens on an FF body. On a crop body, people tend to use it as a telephoto, but it really isn't. I found my copy to be weak at telephoto distances and ultimately sold it. Maybe it was a dud, though I doubt it. Very sharp with close subjects.

 

DI