85 f1.8 or 100 macro f2.8?

[NatsRoses]

I do mostly portraits (family, kids, bellies, ect) outside and in studio ... which lense do you think would work best for me. I've ordered the 100 macro for now, I feel it might be more versatile but I still have time to change it.

If you have either of these lenses (or both) why do you like it?

Thanks!

[DrPablo]

I have the 85 f/1.8. Mine has terrible autofocus problems -- it can't focus on water in the ocean. This is despite an usuccessful attempt by Canon to calibrate it.

When I focus manually the image quality is pretty good -- sharp and smooth bokeh, but with a lot of chromatic aberration.

I find the 70-200 f/4L to give me nicer looking portraits. The main advantage of the 85 f/1.8 is for low light, because frankly most portraits shot at 85 or longer at wide apertures will have very very small DOFs -- so I usually use the 85 f/1.8 stopped down to f/4 or smaller anyway.

[Billginthekeys]

I have the 85 f/1.8. Mine has terrible autofocus problems -- it can't focus on water in the ocean. This is despite an usuccessful attempt by Canon to calibrate it.

When I focus manually the image quality is pretty good -- sharp and smooth bokeh, but with a lot of chromatic aberration.

I find the 70-200 f/4L to give me nicer looking portraits. The main advantage of the 85 f/1.8 is for low light, because frankly most portraits shot at 85 or longer at wide apertures will have very very small DOFs -- so I usually use the 85 f/1.8 stopped down to f/4 or smaller anyway.
sorry about the bad experience, but ive heard no such bad reports of the 85 in the past. also a thin DoF is usually a desierable feature for portraits in this situation.

to the OP. the 100 macro is a great lens no doubt, but since your primary purpose isnt macro, and infact isnt even a listed desire, id say the 85 1.8 would be more useful to you.

[StealthLude]

mmmm... Ive been wanting both lenses in question here.

Id take the 100mm macro over the 85mm 1.8 if i HAD to pick one.

[DrPablo]

also a thin DoF is usually a desierable feature for portraits in this situation.

Thin enough to exclude the background, but not so thin that 75% of your subject's face is out of focus as often happens. If you want say an 8 inch DOF to keep your subject's whole head in focus, if your subject is 10 feet away you'll need to stop down to around f/5.6 (with an 85mm lens). So your background will be blurry no matter what as long as its more than a few feet away. If you shoot at f/1.8 your DOF will only be about 2.5 inches.


I'm sure my experience with the 85 autofocus is anomalous. The lens is very nice when I focus manually, and the CA is most visible with high-contrast subjects.

[Billginthekeys]

Thin enough to exclude the background, but not so thin that 75% of your subject's face is out of focus as often happens. If you want say an 8 inch DOF to keep your subject's whole head in focus, if your subject is 10 feet away you'll need to stop down to around f/5.6 (with an 85mm lens). So your background will be blurry no matter what as long as its more than a few feet away. If you shoot at f/1.8 your DOF will only be about 2.5 inches.


I'm sure my experience with the 85 autofocus is anomalous. The lens is very nice when I focus manually, and the CA is most visible with high-contrast subjects.
true, but you can always stop down if need be, you cant make a 2.8 lens into a 1.8. and in this case 85mm would be better for portaits than 100mm. theres always been jokes that the 100mm is TOO sharp for portraits, tends to bring out every little flaw.

[DrPablo]

Absolutely right. As I said, when I need wider than f/4 the 85 f/1.8 is more useful than the 70-200.

But for f/4 and narrower, I find the image quality (and the autofocus) of the 70-200 f/4L superior for portraiture than the 85 f/1.8.

[Jason77]

these were two i was considering for portraiture as well and i decided i'm going to go with the 85. i liked the idea of being able to have a smaller DoF if i wanted and the ability to shoot in lower light. that, and i was swayed by how many people on here talk about its shapness and rich color which is important to me since i also need to shoot my own paintings too.

[NatsRoses]

Thanks everyone for the comments, very appreciated.

[2005GLI]

would having both be overkill? these are 2 lenses im thinking about picking up for christmas along with the 28 1.8.

[Rumjungle]

would having both be overkill?

Why, no, of course not!:)

[Halliday]

I bought a 100mm USM 2.8 Macro intending to use it for portraits. Then I got an amazing deal on a 85mm 1.8. The 100mm Macro sits on the shelf now.

[Lester Wareham]

I would say the macro is more versitile but if you are doing portrate both it and the 85 are a little long on a crop camera, you could look at the 50/1.4.

[zacker]

i want a 35L ....

[Jetmech1]

The Canon 85mm prime is a great lens for potrait or low light shooting. DrPablo must have a bad copy of the lens. I think that is the first bad review I have read about the lens. He is correct that when wide open it does have a shallow depth of field.

[AeroSmith]

The 85 f/1.8 is one of the best potrait lenses around, period. And wide aperatures are VERY desirable for portraits, especailly on crop cameras. The 100 Macro is a great lens but it's longer, heavier and has slower auto focus. It's also not going to be nearly as sharp at f/2.8. Why shoot at f/2.8 for portraits? Look at these photos shot with the 85/1.8 on the 1.3x crop 1D MkII N, all shot at f/2.8.


http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/108222626-L.jpg
http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/108207672-L.jpg
http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/108209284-L.jpg
http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/108211933-L.jpg
http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/108211909-L.jpg

Billginthekeys is a professional. He knows of what he speaks. And BTW, I own both lenses in question.

[kidpower]

The 85 1.8 is probably the versatile lens I own. Great for low light, action sports, portraits, general photography, kids events in school, my classroom, concerts, out and about the inner city, and anything you can think of. It just happens to fit my style of photography perfectly.

I don't own it, but I do know that the 100 macro is outstanding in its own right. Just a bit big for me, I'm not into macro, and need something more indoor action oriented.

Both lenses are great.

[Rhinotherunt]

I LUV the 85 1.8.

Here is the Canon 85 1.8 indoors:
85 indoors (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234122)
Here is the Canon 85 1.8 outside:
85 outside a (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234118)
85 outside b (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234128)

[Mcary]

These were taken the first day I had the lens. 2OD+85mm 1.8 @1.8 processed and resized in Lightroom no sharpening.

1
http://www.mcaryphoto.net/ChristinaApr9_030.jpg
2
http://www.mcaryphoto.net/ChristinaApr9_034.jpg

3
http://www.mcaryphoto.net/ChristinaApr9_037.jpg

4
http://www.mcaryphoto.net/ChristinaApr9_042.jpg


Mike

[Billginthekeys]

nice shots. really like the 3rd

[EOS_JD]

I have both. Macro lens gets used for ...... well Macro! The 85 is a better portrait lens. Both are super sharp but the larger apperture of the 85 makes it the better of the two for portraiture.

Love the 100 though but just not as much

[twicklund]

I also have the 85 1.8 and would highly recommend this lens. I cant compare to the 100 as i have no experience with it, but i can say i havent been disappointed at all with the 85.

[whiskaz]

Most recent pic with the 85 f/1.8 @ f/1.8 (doesn't get used a whole lot, but has its place for sure):

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2213591&postcount=1

I've never used the 100mm Macro for portraits, since I have several lenses that are good for this and focus much faster. The macro lens is, of course, great for close up work :)

[NatsRoses]

Thanks again everyone and thanks Mcary and AeroSmith for posting the pics, it gives me a good point of reference. They are really nice BTW.

I wish now that I would have gotten the 85mm. I actually have a maternity shoot tomorrow that sounds like this lens would have been ideal for.

The macro arrives tomorrow and I can always send it back, but with the double Canon rebates going on now and good B&H prices I'm tempted to get them both, just wish I would have used the same shipping!! Any free shipping coupons out there?? ;)

[Rhinotherunt]

I just got my 85 and 50 a couple weeks ago. Well worth the money. :)

[NatsRoses]

Thanks Rhino, btw I couldn't see the pictures you posted :( ... maybe it has somthing to do with the Mac?

[NatsRoses]

Whiskaz thanks too for posting an example ... cute kid!!!

[basroil]

All really depends on the type of portraits, if you want dramatic portraits, the faster your lens is the more you'll like the effect. this pic was taken on a borrowed 85L with a rebel xt:
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/605/tempux7.jpg
edit: this image was processed in ACR and that's it. pure, unadulterated bokeh and oof highlights!

if you like those studio type portraits you get from any run of the mill photographic studio, then i'de actually say go with anything, especially a 70-200f4. stop that down to f8 and you are set...

[Rhinotherunt]

Thanks Rhino, btw I couldn't see the pictures you posted :( ... maybe it has somthing to do with the Mac?
That is odd... Now the post here is only links to the posts with images... So no images in this thread. ;)

[NatsRoses]

yes, I couln't open the link ...:confused:

[Rhinotherunt]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234122

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234118

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234128

Let me know if those worked.

[Edwin Bont]

I own both.
The 85mm is perfect for portraits, small , light, fast focussing and I love the creamy bokeh.
I often shoot at f/2.2 like this one http://www.edwinbont.nl/forums/Mensen/bas3.jpg

The 100mm is too slow focussing and is hunting quickly :cry: but realy sharp and perfect for macro's (I always manual focus with macro's).
Just some with the 100mm http://www.edwinbont.nl/forums/Wallpapers/wallpaper7.jpg http://www.edwinbont.nl/forums/Wallpapers/wallpaper11.jpg
More on my site.

[JNunn]

I think you should keep the 100 macro. Someone in the thread said it wouldn't be as sharp at 2.8 as the 85 at 1.8. I don't know what his experience with the lens is, but mine shows its insanely sharp wide open. After all its a real macro.

Its my favorite lens for flowers, close birds, and of course bugs. I don't (and probably won't) have an 85 so I can't offer advice on it, but the 100 is one of canon's sharpest lenses and the sharpest one I own. I think it works fine for portraits.

[AeroSmith]

No, what I said is it won't be as sharp at f/2.8 as the 85/1.8 is at f/2.8. And true macro is rarely shot with the aperature wide open.

I'm not knocking the 100 macro. I love the lens. It may be one of my most used lenses. I have a whole gallery of shots taken with it here (most between f/16 and f/22):

http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/gallery/1818874

But for portraits there is just no comparison. The 85/1.8 is better in so many ways, AF speed first among them. And one thing is certain, the 85 is better at f/2 or f/2.2 than the 100 macro.

[GrendelZ]

Well I ordered the 100 2.8 Macro sunday,I will post some portrait stuff with it as soon as it arrives.To me the 50 1.8 is just about the perfect portrait lens for a crop camera.But the sharpness of the macro made me drool so I had to get one.May still buy the 85 just to double my rebate.

[TMR Design]

Well I ordered the 100 2.8 Macro sunday,I will post some portrait stuff with it as soon as it arrives.To me the 50 1.8 is just about the perfect portrait lens for a crop camera.But the sharpness of the macro made me drool so I had to get one.May still buy the 85 just to double my rebate.

I really like the 50mm focal length but I am finding that for portraits I have to be way to close if I want to do headshots or nice tight shots. I don't like being 3 or 4 feet from the subject.
I tried my 17-70mm Sigma just to get a feel for the 70mm focal length and it's much better and lets me get 6 feet back for the same headshots. I'm pretty confident that the 85mm will let me position the camera comfortably about 8 feet form subject and only move in slightly for those tight shots. I think in the sapce I have the 100mm would put me outside the walls of my apartment. lol

[Mcary]

I really like the 50mm focal length but I am finding that for portraits I have to be way to close if I want to do headshots or nice tight shots. I don't like being 3 or 4 feet from the subject.
I tried my 17-70mm Sigma just to get a feel for the 70mm focal length and it's much better and lets me get 6 feet back for the same headshots. I'm pretty confident that the 85mm will let me position the camera comfortably about 8 feet form subject and only move in slightly for those tight shots. I think in the sapce I have the 100mm would put me outside the walls of my apartment. lol


With the 20D I find the 50mm and 85mm are the perfect combination for shooting people both inside and out.

Mike

[NatsRoses]

Edwin those photos are insane! And Aerosmith I took a relook at your flower shots and was blown away by most of them, really nice work. Rhino finally got to open your's from my Dell Pc and they opened just fine, not with the Mac (?) Such nice Bokeh on them.

Thanks to the posts I've seen VERY nice portrait shots with the 85mm and amazing close ups with the macro, but can anyone post some portraits with the Macro for me to see?

[Rhinotherunt]

Rhino finally got to open your's from my Dell Pc and they opened just fine, not with the Mac (?) Such nice Bokeh on them.

Kool1 That is weird bout the MAC...

[AeroSmith]

But can anyone post some portraits with the Macro for me to see?

OK, I actually have one. It's not my typical portrait in a lot of ways. I was testing out my then new MT-24EX macro twin-lite on the 100 macro. Both were mounted on the full frame 5D. And I usually shoot portraits around f/2 to f/4 but this one was shot at f/8. Again, I wouldn't post this but it is the only portrait I have taken with the 100 macro. Darned sharp i'd say. Though at f/8 it had better be. The girl is my six year old daughter, Sylvia.



f/8; 1/200s; ISO 100.
http://AeroSmith.smugmug.com/photos/71656255-L.jpg

[genewch]

Is it a poor overlap in focal range to own both lenses? I have the 100mm macro. Recently I'm taking pics of indoor sports like volleyball and badminton. The range 50-about 100mm is useful. I haven't tried using a 100 macro for sports and so don't know how it behaves in focusing and catching shots. I'm tempted to get a 85mm f/1.8 but I worry that the focal length is so close that it's a waste of money.

[genewch]

Well, off topic, I also tried using a 17-40mm in volleyball. I shot upwards near the net post and it looked not bad. ;)

[zacwolf]

i am in this very same dillema, i am leaning toward the 85 though

[AeroSmith]

Is it a poor overlap in focal range to own both lenses? I have the 100mm macro. Recently I'm taking pics of indoor sports like volleyball and badminton. The range 50-about 100mm is useful. I haven't tried using a 100 macro for sports and so don't know how it behaves in focusing and catching shots. I'm tempted to get a 85mm f/1.8 but I worry that the focal length is so close that it's a waste of money.

Trust me, these two lenses are in no way redundant. It's beyond FL. AF speed is much faster with the 85. The 85 is 1 1/3 stops faster. And the 85 is lighter and more maneuverable. Heck, in a lot of ways the 85/1.2 and the 85/1.8 aren't redundant if you can justify the expense.

The OP is wanting to shoot portraits. Between the two, I just think the 100 macro is the wrong choice for portraits. Sure, it can do portraits. But why not get the best tool for the job and save a few $?

[Rhinotherunt]

AF speed is much faster with the 85.
Very true. Plus a side note... Al MACROS focus slower than their USM counterparts. It is the way they are designed. They also have a much wider focus range.

[ohtoberich]

Have you considered the 60mm macro over the 100 though? 100 is a bit long unless you're just going for faces. The 85 even feels long indoors but I'd choose it for the wide aperture.