Photography Thailand Forum

[Loso]

Hello all,

Has anyone compared these two side by side?  Other than the 100L having IS and is a macro lens, are there any other advantages over the 135L?  I know the 135L is incredible, but don't know much about the 100L.  I'm looking to go back to Canon and sell off my Nikon gear.

Thanks.

[Gregg Spradling]

I always go to the digital picture.com to do side by side comparisons
100L vs 135L

[Marc Schultz]

I have the 135mm L and the 100mm older model marco (non L). They are both great lenses. Nearly equally as sharp. The 135mm has a shorter depth of field, is more difficult to focus in low light, but offers a bit more reach. And the bokeh is very beautiful. The 100mm is a bit more versatile though since it can be used as a regular 100mm lens and a macro lens. The older model 100mm is half the price of the 135mm lens. It also focuses a bit better in low light, and it is not as sensitive to lens flare with back light. It also gives oyu a bit more DOF at F/8 and F/11. It kind of depends what you want to use it for.   

[Loso]

I was thinking that for someone who prefers primes over zooms and likes to travel light like myself, just taking a 35L/100L or 35L/135L with a full frame body would be best.  As stated the 135L would be more difficult in low light.  If the 100L IS produces images with sharpness, color, and contrast equivalent to that of the 135L, I will choose the 100L. 

And as a side note, a 135L with IS would be an 11 on a scale of 10.