Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon 100/2 vs 135/2- differences?  (Read 1468 times)
mollycusack
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: March 20, 2012, 01:56:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey guys,
I am a student who is not very tech savvy.
So far i have a canon 5d mk1, 50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8 and i am looking into the canon 100/2 or 135/2.
I am pretty against zooms as they are too heavy! and i feel no need for them, however if their is a lighter zoom i would consider it.
can anyone please tell me the differences or advtanges of any of these 2 lenses?
ta!
-molly
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2012, 10:36:42 AM »
ReplyReply

135 is bigger, heavier, and a more expensive - almost twice the price.
135 will have slightly better colors/contrast and slightly more attractive background blur (bokeh).

100mm vs 135mm is a noticeable difference in focal length and is something you should consider.

Both are very good lenses - sharp, and fast to focus. The 135L is the better lens, one of Canon's most highly regarded. The 100mm is the better value. The difference is not as dramatic as the price might suggest. 

You might also put the 85mm 1.8 on your list, it's basically the same as the 100mm f/2, just a little shorter with a little faster aperture.

Logged

Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2012, 02:04:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The 135mm is a superb lens, but in  low light I do miss an image stabiliser.  I would second the 85mm 1.8, very light and much more useful in my opinion.

Jim
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3827



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2012, 02:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Given your current kit and budget, my recommendation would be 100/2.

I find 85 mm to be too close to 50 mm. Arguably, 100 mm is considered to be a "natural" portrait focal length. In any case, here is a comprehensive comparison between the three:

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

Slobodan

My ViewBug portfolio

My Flickr site (only selected work)
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2012, 03:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I own both. The 135/2 is far superior in resolution and sharpness by comparison. At this point, the 100/2 is such an old design, my new 70-200/2.8 II is far sharper. Generally, it's one of the last lens I reach for at this point. (Probably should lighten my bag by removing it altogether.) I also owned the 85 (which I sold to buy the 85/1.2). The "slower" 85 was much sharper, in my own use, than the 100.

Nemo
Logged

Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 693



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2012, 09:49:09 PM »
ReplyReply

One is an L the other isn't
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2012, 10:46:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm getting ready to sell my 135/2. Contact me if you are interested. kirk at swcp.com
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2012, 11:19:25 PM »
ReplyReply

One is an L the other isn't

I've used some L lenses that weren't very sharp. Unfortunately Canon's quality control is not consistent even within the L lineup.
Logged
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2012, 12:06:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The 135mm is one of the best canon lenses. Go for it.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad