Portraits.... 100 macro or 135 f/2?

[brian_noneya]

<table id="post14856133" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr valign="top">

<td id="td_post_14856133" >

My intent is not for another "what should I buy" thread, but I simply need a little guidance from people with experience. <br /><br />I will soon have in my hands a 5DII. I have been shooting portraits for years on crop bodies with the 100mm macro. The 135 f/2 is a stretch for me, but doable. <br /><br />I don't think the focal length will be a concern to me since effectively the 100mm was serving me as though it were a 160mm. My question is this, how much difference am I going to see (on a full frame) between the 135 f/2 L and the regular ole 100mm f/2.8 macro, say stopped down to f/4?

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[jim r]

Brian, you can always compensate for field of view with your feet or by re-locating your tripod. However you will see a much bigger

change in overall image quality (IMHO). The change to a FF sensor and a step up to one of the best Canon L lenses will be the reason.

[jeff_palmucci]

The 100mm macro is very sharp. Excellent for portraits. If the 135 is a stretch, stick with the 5d2 and 100. You can always

upgrade later if you find it lacking. Which you won't.

[Robin Smith]

<p>No difference - but I would still rather have the 135 (for when you need f2)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>You can play around with slrgear.com's interactive charts to find this answer:</p>

<p>For the macro:<br>

<a href="http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/all">http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/all</a></p>

<p>For the 135/2:<br>

<a href="http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/158/cat/all">http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/158/cat/all</a></p>

<p>Click on the blur chart to open it, and then play around with the aperture slider. Open both charts to compare them side by side.</p>

[steve_torelli]

<p>I'll second Jim's opinion. The 135 on FF can do wonderful things. It's a great lens.<br>

Good Luck.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I used to shoot most of my headshot portraits with 85mm, but have done more with the 135mm in the past couple of years. Great focal length and amazing glass for the price. I like to pair it with the 35L.<br>

Don't stop down. <br>

<a title="kids by ian_taylor_photography, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7476815592_c44e13746a_m.jpg" alt="kids" width="240" height="160" /></a></p>

<p><a title="kid by ian_taylor_photography, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/6391749907_22f5b8d5c4_m.jpg" alt="kid" width="240" height="160" /></a></p>

[nathangardner]

Stopped down you won't tell a difference. Wide open, the 135 will be more pleasing for portraits. The 85 1.8 is a great

portrait lens as well, and more affordable.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Two points:</p>

<p>First, what lens do you already have that covers this focal length range, if any? For example, if you have one of the 70-200mm L zooms (f/4 or f/2.8) you should certainly try making portraits with those. Many people do and many people like the results a great deal.</p>

<p>Second, both of the primes you are considering can be used to make fine portrait and other work. Yes, the 135 opens one stop larger and has a somewhat longer focal length and the macro can double as, well, a macro. If you don't have a preference regarding focal length among them, you'll likely need to do a bit of self-analysis. Do you want macro capability? If so, the answer is clear. Does cost matter much to you? That can also be a tie-breaker. </p>

<p>I own the 135 and it is a fine lens. I do not own the macro, but I know folks who do and among them are people who use it for much of their portrait work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Zero effective (or at least minimal) if both are stopped @ F4... OTOH, for portraits, you will appreciate being able to open the 135 up to f2 It can make a HUGE impact on the presence and impact of a portrait. I like to think there's something special about the 135/2 because of that...</p>

[aubreyp]

<p>One advantage of the 135 is that you can put a (1.4) focal extender on it and have a 190 f2.8 as well. I've done that a bit with mine and been pleased with the results.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>My intent is not for another "what should I buy" thread, but I simply need a little guidance from people with experience. . My question is this, how much difference am I going to see (on a full frame) between the 135 f/2 L and the regular ole 100mm f/2.8 macro, say stopped down to f/4?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have both Lenses and I use both for Portraiture using 5D’s.<br /> I do not believe I could tell any difference between the lenses in an A/B of the final print, if both were used at F/4. Maybe in some conditions (bright mottled background as one example) the difference in Bokeh of the135/2 would give that lens away.'<br /> In some situations I could pick the FL and the FL would give them away.<br /> I do use both lenses wide open, also.<br /> An extra stop can be significant and is for me as I tend to not use Flash all that much.<br /> But the FL difference for me is also significant.<br /> <br /> As to guidence . . .<br /> If I were in your shoes, I would wait until I got the 5dMkII and I would use the 100/2.8 with the camera, and in the meantime arrange to rent or borrow a 135/2 - there is no substitute for first hand doing and there are many other elements than just whether or not there is and difference at F/4: and it occurs to me that these other elements might not be recognized by you at this time.</p>

<p>WW<br /> FYI =<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>I really like William's advice regarding waiting until you have the 5D2 in hand and trying the 100mm macro first since you already have it.</p>

<p>I own the non-IS macro and the 135L (on 5D2). Both very nice lenses. But I don't shoot that many portraits with them. If I'm going to be outdoors (read: plenty of room) the 135L is just a mega fun lens to use. It is very fast and the bokeh is well - awesome. But I think the bokeh of the 100 macro is pleasing as well.</p>

<p>If this is mainly for studio work with controlled lighting and a lot of f8 shots where space it tight I think you will really like the wider FOV that you get when the 100mm is on the Full Frame.</p>

<p>There are two things I have against the 135L. First, no image stabiliization. Its not a mega big deal but at this focal length it can be a nuisance . Second, the minimum focus distance (or should I say lack thereof). If you want to get in close the macro is probably your better option.</p>

<p>I have often wondered if it would be best to sell the non-IS macro and 135L and replace with a 100mm macro IS. I see threads on this topic from time to time as well. But I have yet to see one where someone has come back and said they did it - let alone that it worked out for them. There is just something about the 135L - hard to part with :)</p>

<p>I'm with the others who recommend the 85mm focal length on full frame. If I was doing a lot of portraits I'd give a lot more thought to the 85mm f1.8 than I would the 135L. You can pick them used for $300, they are fast and sharp wide open with very nice bokeh.</p>

 

[matthijs]

For headshots F2 @ 135 yields too shallow a depth of field. (F2.8 @ 100 mm too)

The tip of the nose and the edges of ears will be unsharp.

 

For half or full body that changes.

 

I'm with those that write, try first. You can always buy later.

 

M.

[markonestudios]

<p>I was in similar dilemma for a while. A couple of months ago, I managed to try out the 135 on a 5D Mark III albeit in a cramped camera store. What an amazing combination! I also have Tamron's 28-75 lens which has some macro capabilities, so I decided to skip the 100mm macro. I'm just gearing up to purchase the 135L.</p>

<p>In your case, WW's advice is right on the money. Wait and try your new camera with your current lens before you splash out....</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Shooting portraits with a macro lens you get used to the idea that you can get as close to your subject as you want. This is quite a luxury and only really appreciated when you go back to a non-macro lens and have to take steps backwards to keep in focus. With the 135 you will have to step back more, both because of the greater magnification at any given distance and *possibly* because of the minimum focus distance. Then again, tasteful portraits are not usually mega-close-ups.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>First question: Do you prefer the focal length of the 135 or the 100 or are you neutral. </p>

<p>Significance: If you prefer one or the other focal length, you simply get that FL and don't worry about the rest. If you like 100mm, the macro is not your only choice, but there is another question below. In fact, if you like 135mm the L is not your only choice either.</p>

<p>Second question: If you are neutral regarding the difference between the 135mm and 100mm focal lengths, do you care about the macro capability of the 100mm lens?</p>

<p>If the answer is yes, you would likely (well, certainly, actually) want to get the 100mm macro for tis capabilities with close-up work. (Be aware that, despite what an earlier poster wrote, you most certainly do not need macro capability for portrait work.) However... if you will work from the tripod and cost is a consideration, you might also consider the older non-IS 100mm Canon macro, also an excellent lens, also providing f/2.8, and much less expensive. If you need IS - e.g. generally don't work from the tripod - then the newer IS-equipped macro is perhaps going to be your lens. If you don't need IS, then the older lens will be just as good in this capacity.</p>

<p>If the answer is no, you probably would choose the 135 for its larger aperture - but there are other things to think about that don't quite make this a slam dunk decision either.</p>

<p>Some of those "other things" - There are some excellent non-L primes to look at in this focal length range as well. Despite the all-to-common forum mythology, a L lens is not always the best choice nor is it always true that the L lens will provide better performance that will make your photography better. For example:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you like 100mm and don't care about macro ability, you could also consider the excellent non-L EF 100mm f/2 Canon prime. This will get you the narrower DOF of the 135mm lens's f/2 aperture, outstanding image quality, and a price just a bit less than that of the non-L 100mm f/2.8 macro. </li>

<li>There is also a non-L 135mm f/2.8 lens from Canon. I don't know much about it, but reviews seem quite positive.</li>

<li>The EF 85mm f/1.8 Canon lens is a great performer, too. I own both L and non-L primes and I regard the performance of this lens to be at the same level as that of many L primes.</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>First question: Do you prefer the focal length of the 135 or the 100 or are you neutral. </p>

<p>Significance: If you prefer one or the other focal length, you simply get that FL and don't worry about the rest. If you like 100mm, the macro is not your only choice, but there is another question below. In fact, if you like 135mm the L is not your only choice either.</p>

<p>Second question: If you are neutral regarding the difference between the 135mm and 100mm focal lengths, do you care about the macro capability of the 100mm lens?</p>

<p>If the answer is yes, you would likely (well, certainly, actually) want to get the 100mm macro for tis capabilities with close-up work. (Be aware that, despite what an earlier poster wrote, you most certainly do not need macro capability for portrait work.) However... if you will work from the tripod and cost is a consideration, you might also consider the older non-IS 100mm Canon macro, also an excellent lens, also providing f/2.8, and much less expensive. If you need IS - e.g. generally don't work from the tripod - then the newer IS-equipped macro is perhaps going to be your lens. If you don't need IS, then the older lens will be just as good in this capacity.</p>

<p>If the answer is no, you probably would choose the 135 for its larger aperture - but there are other things to think about that don't quite make this a slam dunk decision either.</p>

<p>A third question: How strongly do you feel about needing f/2 in a telephoto portrait lens? As someone pointed out - correctly, as I own this lens - f/2 produces extremely narrow DOF at 135mm. Here we are talking about the sort of narrow DOF that leaves the tip of the noise OOF when the eyes are in focus or which gets one eye in focus but not the other when the face isn't perfectly square to the camera. Frankly, you are most likely to use apertures a bit smaller than that for most portrait work. That said, the lens will produce nice, smooth background blur at f/2. (Though there are other ways to get that with portrait work as well - creating sufficient distance between subject and background, carefully choosing that background, lighting, etc.)</p>

<p>If the answer is yes, the 135mm lens is likely preferred over the macro... unless you want macro capability, in which case you'll have to balance which need is more important. Though, if the focal length isn't critical, you can also get f/2 at 100mm - see below. </p>

<p>If the answer is no, then the allure of the 135 seems a bit weaker, and you might be more inclined towards the macro (especially if macro shooting has any importance to you) or even one of the other options.</p>

<p>Some of those "other things" - There are some excellent non-L primes to look at in this focal length range as well. Despite the all-to-common forum mythology, a L lens is not always the best choice nor is it always true that the L lens will provide better performance that will make your photography better. For example:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you like 100mm and don't care about macro ability, you could also consider the excellent non-L EF 100mm f/2 Canon prime. This will get you the narrower DOF of the 135mm lens's f/2 aperture, outstanding image quality, and a price just a bit less than that of the non-L 100mm f/2.8 macro. </li>

<li>There is also a non-L 135mm f/2.8 lens from Canon. I don't know much about it, but reviews seem quite positive.</li>

<li>The EF 85mm f/1.8 Canon lens is a great performer, too. I own both L and non-L primes and I regard the performance of this lens to be at the same level as that of many L primes.</li>

</ul>

<p>A final "meta-commentary" - I understand how frustrating it can be to weigh and balance all of these issues and then feel like you are making "the" correct decision. In many cases, lens decisions can be this way. Keep in mind that many if not most photographic equipment decisions are about compromises. No lens does everything perfectly, so some thinking about your real world needs will help you find the compromise that works best for your unique situation. And that brings up another important point. This seemingly simple question ("100mm f/2.8 macro or 135mm f/2?") does not have a simple, obvious, universal answer. As always, the decision about the right lens (or camera, or tripod, or flash, or...) becomes a personal one that is more about analyzing your needs than about finding the "best" thing.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am of the understanding that the OP already owns an EF100/2.8 Macro -<br>

it is not a question about consideration of buying the Macro lens or about buying any other 100mm lens or about buying a lens <em>instead of</em> the 100mm macro lens - but it is a question about buying or (not buying) the EF135/2.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Ah, I missed that. (Need sleep! ;-)</p>

<p>In that case, I'm even less enthusiastic about adding the 135mm lens!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . but the quality and the logic contained in your commentary is useful - maybe just not as applicable here as elsewhere!<br>

Night - Night!</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Thanks, WW. In fact, when I comment in forums, I'm often writing as much for folks who may come across the material later as I am writing it for the OP. So perhaps my off-topic blathering may yet be useful to someone! ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I admit that my comment about close focusing was based on photographing babies or small children, where you may need to get close if you want the face to fill the frame. But even that is probably within the MFD for all the lenses being discussed here.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes - you can get <a href="../photo/11961575&size=lg">quite close Portraiture with the 135/2 on a 5D.</a> And yes - the DoF is very slim at F/2 for a tight head shot.</p>

<p><em>***</em></p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978596"><em>"One advantage of the 135 is that you can put a (1.4) focal extender on it and have a 190 f2.8 as well. I've done that a bit with mine and been pleased with the results."</em></a></p>

<p>WW</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>For portraits only the 135/2 is the absolute king. For portraits and also other stuff the 100 macro is <em>very</em> good.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>