Digital cameras forum: 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro VS. 135mm f/2 L

I used to shoot the recent-released EF100mm F2.8L IS macro. The lense was outstanding for macro photograpy. However, when it comes to portrait, EF135mm F2L simply beat the new released macro lense.

For my direct experience, 85 F1.2LII and 135F2L are outstanding lenses for portrait, considering the dim light. However, shooting outdoor and agaist the light reveal most Canon's lense weakness. Lenses' ghosting and flares are some undesired results, even the mighty L lense has no exception to that. So far, EF 24 F1.4L II is the best coating DSLR lense against any lighting circumstance. Perhaps, the new upcoming 70-200 F2.8L IS II may have solve these problems.

Lenses' techonology has somewhat fall behind the camera's technology. For instance, the new issued Canon CMOS sensor is likely claimed " gapless inside the small sensor cell". It's great indeed. However, it also reveals how good your lenses are. If the lense's glass quality is poor, the sensor will reveal that on the output. For instance, vignetting, chromatic aberation, sharpness, and etc. So far, Canon need to push more toward the lense's quality. Many lenses are outdated and require a significant improvement. Sorry for so much bragging.

Unless you're using a full frame Canon DSLR, neither 100 F2.8L IS nor 135 F2L is right alternative. But, for portrait shooting, 135 is better than 100 F2.8L IS. I think that 50mm F1.2L is also the right lenses for your 40D regard the multiply effect. It'll be somewhat like 85mm for 40D. Good luck.