85 1.8 vs. 100 2.0 for indoor sports

[RacingMoose]

I'm looking for some opinions from those that have used both the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 Canon lenses. I'd be using the lens mostly indoors for dog agility events and hockey games, all of which are sometimes in poorly lit venues. Any thoughts on the performance of these 2 lenses or which might provide the better focal length?

[pagnamenta]

Really depends on your positioning. There's a slight difference between 85 and 100mm. The f-stop difference will get you 1/3 stop faster shutter speed but not much more. There have been 85 vs. 100 debates before and I've always felt it was a wash.

I would personally go with the 85 1.8 because it's also a great portrait length. Just my .02.

[Perry Ge]

Yeah I agree, which focal length is right for you depends entirely on your positioning relative to the action.

I personally would take the 85 1.8 over the 100 f/2 because of that extra 1/3 of a stop - the shutter speed gain can make a difference, or you can stop it down and get a boost in IQ.

[ed rader]

I'm looking for some opinions from those that have used both the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 Canon lenses. I'd be using the lens mostly indoors for dog agility events and hockey games, all of which are sometimes in poorly lit venues. Any thoughts on the performance of these 2 lenses or which might provide the better focal length?

only you know that. both lenses are usable wide open and quality is comparable (excellent).

ed rader

[RacingMoose]

Thanks for the replies. I know that only I will ultimately know the better focal length, but if someone has experience with these lenses and the types of shooting I mentioned, perhaps they would have some insight that would be helpful.

[ed rader]

Thanks for the replies. I know that only I will ultimately know the better focal length, but if someone has experience with these lenses and the types of shooting I mentioned, perhaps they would have some insight that would be helpful.


the lenses are so similar that if you move a foot or two there will be no difference except a slight amount of speed.

now if you were comparing the 85 1.8 and 135L f2 we could really cut it up :D.

flip a coin and pick one :D.

ed rader

[n1as]

I've never held the 100 so I can't comment about that, but I can talk about the 85.

I bought the 85 f/1.8 for basketball on the strength of the recommendations of this group. Everyone said "it was great - get one".

I got one. Immediately, I was unhappy. It was too much magnification. But then I noticed that the pics I was getting were in focus better than those I took with the 50 f/1.8. Hmmm. I swapped the 50 f/1.8 for a 50 f/1.4 and focus issues got better but still, the 85 f/1.8 outperformed the 50mm lens.

Given it's great focus performance, I've continued using the lens and have compensated for the long focal length by changing where I stand and which shots I pursue with the lens.

For instance, I don't even try to shoot a layup with that lens. It is great though for shooting people as they begin to drive the lane or as they drive the baseline on the other side of the basket. If I want the layup shots, I put the 50 f/1.4 on.

Long story - The moral is that if you have a good lens, you can often make it work for you by learning what the lens does well and using it for that purpose.

For Hockey & Dog agility, I'm thinking the 100 would be a better length but that is just a guess. I don know I LOVE the focus performance of my 85 and consider it the bet the single best compromise prime for basketball.