New Lens 100mm 2.8 Macro, 135 F2 or 200mm 2.8

[Roger]

I am looking for a new lens.

Currently I am waiting on my paypal account....

As you can see in my Sig, I need somthing with more Tele, but I also want to do some Macro work. and as always lower price is better. I have the money for the first lens but could always save for the others...

I am debating between the following:

The Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, around $500
The Canon 135mm F2, around $950
The Canon 200mm 2.8, around $700

What I am asking is, since I will be using this for a mix of close up's, landscape, nature so forth. Which lens do you think I would get the most use out of? and which lens can I do the most with?

If you want look at my site below by my Sig and see what I shoot, ( in the short time I have had a DSLR)

[Rudi]

135mm f/2 L. Best-kept secret in the Canon line-up! My 85L II cost me twice as much, just to get the same optical performance in a shorter focal length (OK, OK, and a whole lotta light, too :)). You can use it with extension tubes to do some macro, and you can use it with the 1.4x Extender to get a 200mm f/2.8 (189mm f/2.8, close enough!). It performs great with the Extenders, and it is an absolute ripper by itself!

135mm f/2 L, 135mm f/2 L, 135mm f/2 L! You will NOT regret it.

[Kevin]

I have to agree with Rudi! I absolutely love my 135 and will never part with that baby. There's just something unique in the images captured using that glass. It handles ext tubes quite well.

A suggestion, check out KEH.com and look for a used 135 there. New, they sell them for under $900. I also see an occasional one on Fred Miranda Buy & Sell forum.

[mdephoto]

Actually the Canon 135 f2 is $899.95 at B&H (US) with a $25 rebate right now -- so it is even a little bit better than you thought.......

[Roger]

Alright, Since everyone says the 135 is the best.

My next question will be , should I wait to get a L lens until I have outgrown my current consumer level camera. Does a L lens like the 135 work well with what I have, or should I wait and just get a lower end lens now.

What are your thoughts?

[Rudi]

Always get the best glass you can afford. Always!

[Keith]

bodies will come and go but glass will last forever! 135mm L and never look back :D

[Kevin]

It's like the old saying "buy once, cry once". Get the best you can afford. There's no way your current setup will outresolve the 135. It'll serve you well for a long time to come.

[Roger]

Ok ok, so it sounds like there is a Fav here.

I have a couple of more questions then.

the 135 and 200 comapired to the 100 macro, how much in extension tubes and closeup lens would I need to hit a close comparison in Macro? or am I better off just using the tubes with either the 135 or 200 and then at some point getting the 65mm macro that can do over 1:1.

I am not to worried about portriat currently, since my 1.6X crop makes my 50mm not to bad.

But over all how does the 200 2.8 do vs the 135 since they are both L lens?

I am not sure I need the F 2 vs F 2.8 and since you get more length ...

Does anyone know a compairison of the lens am looking at.

Or even the 135L compaired to others, in image quality mostly.

If the 135 is so much better I want to see this magic it products, then I can force my self to wait and save money for it. heh

[Kevin]

Here's one reference site that may help you http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

I have another similar one but it's bookmarked at home. I'll try to locate it tonight.

Neither the 135 nor 200 are going to give you "bad" results. They're both very good lenses, especially for the $. I have a friend who shoot almost exclusively with the 200 and he loves it. You might want to search pbase for samples from both the 135 and the 200 and see if there's a difference in the quality. It's difficult to express it in words.

As for the questions you're asking re: 1:1 and the ext tubes, someone more knowledgeable than I will have to help you with that. I know when they're stacked, I can get great magnification. On my 24-70, I can get dangerously close.

[Roger]

More input is welcome!

[gluwater]

Someone may want to check me on this but it should be pretty close. To get true 1:1 with these lenses you would need

135 f/2: 110mm of extension
200mm f/2.8: 168mm extension

I have used the 200mm f/2.8 and it is a great lens, I also have the 100mm macro and even though it is not an "L" lens it is still very high quality. All the Macro lenses are very sharp but they are slow to AF.

[Jonathan]

Well I can only comment on the 200 2.8 as that is what I use...soley as of now. I love the lens in everyway but for what you describe it may be to long for your needs..especially on a 1.5x. 135L:)

[Roger]

Someone may want to check me on this but it should be pretty close. To get true 1:1 with these lenses you would need

135 f/2: 110mm of extension
200mm f/2.8: 168mm extension

I have used the 200mm f/2.8 and it is a great lens, I also have the 100mm macro and even though it is not an "L" lens it is still very high quality. All the Macro lenses are very sharp but they are slow to AF.

So I wonder what a canon 25 and 12 tube would make the : to be ..

and

How slow of AF are you talking about?

[Roger]

Well I can only comment on the 200 2.8 as that is what I use...soley as of now. I love the lens in everyway but for what you describe it may be to long for your needs..especially on a 1.5x. 135L:)

A bit long but then I could get the shots that I can't reach now, birds and all of that. Plus a few things when site seeing are always nice with a tele.

May I ask what you mostly shoot?

[Rudi]

Lundrog,

If you buy extension tubes, go for the Kenko set. Do not buy the overpriced Canon tubes. You get more extension and options with the Kenko set of three tubes, for less than the price of one of the Canon tubes!

[gluwater]

So I wonder what a canon 25 and 12 tube would make the : to be ..

and

How slow of AF are you talking about?

The set of three Kenko Extension Tubes comes with the 12, 20, and 36mm tubes, which can be stacked for a total of 100mm.

Ext Tubes______0______12_______20______36______100

135_________1:5.3___1:3.7______1:3_____1:2.2____1: 1.5

200_________1:6.3___1:4.6_____1:3.8____1:2.9_____1 :2

Since true macro lenses can focus from very close to infinity the focusing ring travels much further than a non-macro lens. This causes the AF to be slower, because it is physically moving further to focus. This can be compensated for by using a focus delimiter switch on the lens or by pre-focusing. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Oh and BTW the MPE-65 you mentioned earlier is a MF lens that can go from 1:1-5:1. So it can only be used for macro work, it does not focus further than a couple inches from the front element. Check out this gallery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/) for some sweet macro. He uses a sigma 105 Macro and MRE-65mm, along with reversed lenses and some other stuff.

[Roger]

The set of three Kenko Extension Tubes comes with the 12, 20, and 36mm tubes, which can be stacked for a total of 100mm.

Ext Tubes______0______12_______20______36______100

135_________1:5.3___1:3.7______1:3_____1:2.2____1: 1.5

200_________1:6.3___1:4.6_____1:3.8____1:2.9_____1 :2

Since true macro lenses can focus from very close to infinity the focusing ring travels much further than a non-macro lens. This causes the AF to be slower, because it is physically moving further to focus. This can be compensated for by using a focus delimiter switch on the lens or by pre-focusing. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Oh and BTW the MPE-65 you mentioned earlier is a MF lens that can go from 1:1-5:1. So it can only be used for macro work, it does not focus further than a couple inches from the front element. Check out this gallery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/) for some sweet macro. He uses a sigma 105 Macro and MRE-65mm, along with reversed lenses and some other stuff.

Thank you.

I can understand that.

For the most part all I want to do for macro is get a full flower in the frame or catch a butterfly or dragonfly at rest. Which I think I could do with ex tubes with a 135 or 200. Right?

Edit, let me explain, currently, with my 50mm when I put the tube on I have it almost gets me to close, I think I really need the 12 mm tube or the kenko set, it puts me so close that a flower is only partly in focus.

I think the Kenko tubes run around $160 for a set.

For some reason I, keep thinking that since I am useing 50mm now at max, if I went to 100 most of the time I clould just move closer with my 50mm and get the same shot, but with a 135/200 , since it is three times the length, it would allow me to get some shots I coudn't get now.

Does this sound like I am making sense?

[Rudi]

The 135L's minimum focus is only twice as long as your 50mm's, but it's nearly three times the focal length! So you are getting better magnification straight off the bat - with extension tubes, your longer lens will allow you to shoot macro from longer distances - better for butterflies and stuff, if that makes any sense. :)

[Bobby]

I just ordered a set of Kenkos from Hong Kong for just over $100.00 including shipping. I have used this company before and they are excellent to deal with.

[Roger]

The 135L's minimum focus is only twice as long as your 50mm's, but it's nearly three times the focal length! So you are getting better magnification straight off the bat - with extension tubes, your longer lens will allow you to shoot macro from longer distances - better for butterflies and stuff, if that makes any sense. :)

Kinda what I was thinking.

I wonder if anyone has pictures of a 135 or 200 with and without tubes on a like subject , IE flower or bug.

Of course you would have to know the distance you where at when the pictures were taken.

[Roger]

I just ordered a set of Kenkos from Hong Kong for just over $100.00 including shipping. I have used this company before and they are excellent to deal with.

Where from? If I may ask.

[Jonathan]

A bit long but then I could get the shots that I can't reach now, birds and all of that. Plus a few things when site seeing are always nice with a tele.

May I ask what you mostly shoot?

birds/wildlife almost exclusively

[gluwater]

The 135 f/2 seems to be exactly what you are looking for. It has the highest magnification, best IQ, and is the sharpest. Your 50 f/1.8 has a magnification of 1:6.66, the 135 has a magnification of 1:5.3. As Rudi mentioned, even though the minimum focusing distance is greater with the 135, since the focal length is longer you still end up with better magnification. From what you have said you are looking for the 135mm is really the way to go. That is unless you want to get the 180L but that is a whole other story altogether.

[Bobby]

http://myworld.ebay.com/urgalaxy/

[Roger]

bit the bullet and bought the 100mm macro w hood.

I figured it would be my middle range lens and would tell me if I really like macro.

Now I need a wide lens and a long one next. ( around xmiss)

I am open for ideas.


Thanks

[Harv]

Congratulations on the new 100 macro. I have the same lens and it's a great one. You'll love it. The hood was a good idea also as the front element on that lens is right up near the front of the lens.

Looking forward to your macro shots.

[Jonathan]

Congratscool; Good info as well guys for my 200!thanks

[Roger]

I think I will enjoy it, not that a 135 f2 woudn't be nice but i can't justify the cost vs my camera body.

I think my next lens will be the 200 2.8.

Then I would like to have a wide angle, sharp lens....


Ideas?