I've owned the Canon 100mm f/2.8L for a couple of years and it is a wonderful lens...my favorite of all the lenses I own. I don't think you can go wrong with that lens.
Can't vouch for the Canon 135mm f/2L as I've never used it.
Portrait, street, blurred back/foreground and others :)
I saw some outstanding photos taken with the 135 but I would love to have the macro capabilites. The IS could be very helpful for night street slices of life.
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens.
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens.
Its designed more for FF, certainly not an ideal portrait lens for crop sensor.
I haven't tried the new version of the 100L, just the old 100 without the IS.
That being said, I think it is, by far, the clearest, cleanest, best lens in my bag. Absolutely superb lens quality. On my crop sensor it's just a big too big for portraits in my small house. So the 135 confuses me even more. Sounds nice for outdoors, but limited.
I would much rather have the 100 and the added benefit of the macro. Truly amazing lens.
Its designed more for FF, certainly not an ideal portrait lens for crop sensor.
Both of them are very long for indoor work on an APS-C body... but then again the OP has a 6D :-)
Personally, where I have the room, I like lurrrve long focal lengths for portraiture. Not at all afraid to use 200mm, even beyond.
Even though the 135/2 is a fantastic lens, if I had neither, I would get the 100/2.8 IS Macro first. Damn flexible lens, and by all accounts a great piece of glass. Has to be to beat its predecessor.
i use two portrait lenses.. an 85 and a 135. both are fantastic, one indoors, one out. one reason i never got a 100 is because its stuck right in the middle of both those focal lengths and i dont do macro enough to justify getting one.
in your case, you have neither.
i'd go for the 100/2.8L, you wont destroy a background as easily as you will with a 135/2. the 135/2 is flat out tack sharp wide open which leads to crazy sharp images with just dreamy fore and background bokeh that just completely isolates your subject and a full body at f/2 gives an blur effect i cant even describe.
if its sharp, at 100mm on a FF 2.8 should be enough since you will be standing closer to your subject given 85mm and 1.8 on a FF is hard to even get two eyes in focus.
given your lens selection, I'd choose the single 100/2.8 for its versatility. if portraits are you thing though I'd get a 135 AND also get the cheaper 85/1.8, its hard to beat the image quality of that combo for portraits.
