Which prime (85mm/100mm) lens?

[OldFox]

I am considering one of the following Canon lenses for my 10D. My main interest is landscape:

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/1.8 Macro USM

Is there any difference in the quality of the lenses?

In the specifications of the 85mm there is 'Since the front lens group does not rotate during focusing special filter effects are not affected."

In the specifications of the other two, there is no such phrase. Does it mean that the front lens group rotates during focusing?

Any other comments?

[justme_dc]

I own two out of the three. The 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm Macro. Neither of which are particularly suited for landscape photos. The 85mm is a fine portrait lens and I use it constantly in that application. It's also a fine indoor sports lens. I couldn't recommend it enough for either of those applications. The 100mm Macro is just that, a macro. It'll take a great portrait if you wanna use it for that but that is not what it was designed to do.

For landscapes you'd likely be better served by lenses that are 50mm or wider. I use a 20-35mm for alot of my landscapes and it is ideal.

Perhaps you should think about a 20mm or a 28mm, these are great landscape lenses.

good luck to you

[DaveG]

oldfox wrote:
I am considering one of the following Canon lenses for my 10D. My main interest is landscape:

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/1.8 Macro USM

Is there any difference in the quality of the lenses?

In the specifications of the 85mm there is 'Since the front lens group does not rotate during focusing special filter effects are not affected."

In the specifications of the other two, there is no such phrase. Does it mean that the front lens group rotates during focusing?

Any other comments?


In a 35mm (24x36) format I've always loved the 85. Nice focal length, fast and relatively cheap. But with the 10D you'll get a de facto focal length of 135 mm - or thereabout - and that's a focal length that has almost no use to me. It's too long for portraits and too short to be interesting.

The 100 on the other hand has the same speed and is a 160mm on the 10D. This could be very nice indeed.

The 100mm macro is actually a 2.8 NOT a 1.8. I have the older non USM version of this lens and it's very very nice. It would also give you 1:1 macro capability without having to use an extension tube so you don't have to be concerned about losing your infinity focus.

If you don't have any plans on using this lens for sports - where the difference between f2 and f2.8 can be critical - then I'd choose the 100 macro.

[DaveG]

justme_dc wrote:
I own two out of the three. The 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm Macro. Neither of which are particularly suited for landscape photos. The 85mm is a fine portrait lens and I use it constantly in that application. It's also a fine indoor sports lens. I couldn't recommend it enough for either of those applications. The 100mm Macro is just that, a macro. It'll take a great portrait if you wanna use it for that but that is not what it was designed to do.

For landscapes you'd likely be better served by lenses that are 50mm or wider. I use a 20-35mm for alot of my landscapes and it is ideal.

Perhaps you should think about a 20mm or a 28mm, these are great landscape lenses.

good luck to you


I'd like to disagree a bit about the landscape lens focal length. I've never bought in to the idea that wide angles are the only focal length suitable for landscapes. Now I love wide angles - especially super wide angles - but what they are for is to accentuate the foreground.

Imagine you are in the mountains. If you chose a wide angle you would diminish the power of the mountains. The foreground would be the source of power in this image while the mountains look like little hills in the background.

Now imagine that you put a 200mm lens on your 10D. There is NO foreground now and the mountains become compressed in composition and look even more powerful.

I do want to make it clear that there is a place for wide angles in landscape photography, but normal and telephoto focal lengths are useful too.

[psk4363]

DaveG sums up my opinion superbly. I go walking in the fells over here in the UK and take both my 20-35 Canon and 80-200 with the EOS 30E (Elan 7 to our cousins over the pond) to give me a far greater variety in composition than wideangle only.

If I could afford a lens like the Sigma 15-30 I would take that with the 10D as opposed to the 20-35 Canon but being a mere mortal on a cop's wage ...........

Cheers,
Barry

[scollins]

I enjoy both landscapes and narrow crowded markets downtown, and I've found the Sigma 15-30mm to be nearly perfectr for both scenes. I just found the Sigma 15-30mm for $479 @ deltainternational.com. I paid $550 @ B&H. (bummer) Let me know if you'd like some sample shots.

[OldFox]

Thanks for your input.

I forgot to mention that I have a 28mm, a 50mm and 17-40mm lenses. So Im considering 85 or 100 mm.

What about the quality of the lenses?
What about the rotating lenses?
What about the macro? The lens is still a100 mm isnt it? I get macro as a 'bonus', right?

[Butzl]

The 100/2.0 doesn't rotate. It's a solid, high-quality lens and I like it for portrait shooting, even under low light conditions. The tight angle of view picks out nice details from a landscape when it's not hazy.

The 100/2.8 is a great macro lens, it's even good for portraits. But when you're really interested in shooting landscapes, I would definitively NOT go for the macro. Its infinity focussing is an add-on while the lens is primarily calculated for short shooting distances.

--Jens--
(D30, 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 100/2.8 macro, 200/2.8L, planned 20/2.8)

[OldFox]

Ok, that leaves me EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 100mm f/2 USM.

Which one and why? Which produces better quality? Or are they about the same?

[KennyG]

85mm 1.8 is sharper and when used wide open has the better bokeh (blurred background). This is one of the few pieces of non-L glass in my Canon lens collection that deserves to be ranked as L quality.

[justme_dc]

It'll second kenny, the 85mm is a fine piece of glass. The bokeh is beautiful. It should be an L but I am glad it isn't. It just means it's affordable.