Contrast of 135mm and 200mm

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I've been using a 100mm 2.8 macro lens (non-USM) exclusively for portraits for the past few months. In comparing the results with pictures I took with the 135 f/2.0 in the past, I've noticed that the 135 has slightly lower contrast. Although I prefer the blur of the 135, slides taken with the 100 seem to have a snap that the 135 cannot approach. I have been considering selling the 135 for some time for other reasons (always too long) and if the 100 indeed has higher contrast than the 135, I will not think further. I'd like to hear opinions from others who have/own these two lenses. Am I seeing differences caused by sample variation?

-- William Ju (wju@mediaone.net), April 20, 2001

Answers

Sorry about the typo in the title. That should have been 100mm.

-- William Ju (wju@mediaone.net), April 20, 2001.

i have used both, and i LOVE the 135 f2 for portraits. i have never thought of it being of lower contrast (or sharpness) than any of my other portrait lenses (80-200 2.8L, 85 1.8, 200 2,8L or 100 2.8 macro). i can easily say that 135f2 is my fav lens for portrait.

-- howard (hshen@dsgnmnky.com), April 26, 2001.

I have both the 100 macro & 135/2.0. When I do portrait, and I do a lot, I always use the 135. Don't just look for sharpest, have pictures taken by both lens display side by side and pick the one that you 'like'. To me, the 100 macro does not produce an accurate skin tone.

One thing I forgot to mention, you have to put the lens shade on all the time for the 135. Otherwise, you'll result in low contrast. Try it.

-- Ben Lee (blyf@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ