135. macro isn't that fun.

IQ wise they seem the same, have you tried both?
yeah macro isnt that great (and its totally over used) but would be nice just to have that possibility
the 1/3 stop in aperture isnt that big of a deal imo

we finally have a place here to rent gear etc, they have the 135 but not the 105
when they do I will rent both for a day or so and see what i prefer, but so far leaning towards the 135

Depends on how you use it, as we say about everything else. Personally, i am not good at using macro, but i know someone who excels in macro-photography.

lol only realized now i was saying 105mm instead of 100mm

1/3th stop>? 105 is 2.8. 135 is 2.0. That's a whole stop, sir.

How come?

There is not a great difference in price used, so I could actually concider it money-wise.

But does the 135/2 cropped compare to 70-200 f4 cropped?

This post was edited by Fil on Aug 17 2011 11:46am

2 extra stops, the midpoint between both ranges, superior AF and IQ. Unless you actually need the 316 mm, I'd go for the 135/2

316 mm?!? ^^

If the AF is actually superior, then it's worth concidering

why was i thinking 1.8 is the full stop????
by brain really doesnt not seem to be working lately

200 x 1.6 - calculations say '320' but it's actually 316.

It really is a superior lens unless you get a gg deal for it.