85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2

[c0ntr0lz]

they are about the same price on pricegrabber.com, so i'm not worried about cost.
but i think i'd like the 100mm better caue it'd get me further from my subjects(cars), and i wouldn't appear in the chrome/paint. would it be a good idea to get something like this to get shots without me? also i've read the reviews on fredmiranda.com and they are about the same, so i'm not really worried about the image.

thanks


also is there a major difference between the 100mm and the 100mm macro?

[tim]

The 100mm macro can obviously do macro really well, as well as any other shot.

[c0ntr0lz]

would you happen to know the distance between the two?

[tim]

It depends where you leave them...

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too, but the specs here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=12058&is=GREY&si=spec#goto_itemInfo) and here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=194451&is=GREY&si=spec#goto_itemInfo) might help. Minimum focussing distance is 6 inches for the macro and 3 feet for the non-macro. I use the macro for portraits.

[c0ntr0lz]

that's what i was looking for. so there is a huge difference on the focusing distance. i think i'd go for the 100mm macro then

thanks man!!

[tim]

No problem. The 100mm macro's as sharp as a tack, it's the sharpest lens I have, easily. I just looked at BH for the specs, I didn't even know Canon did a 100mm non-macro lens!

[c0ntr0lz]

yes they do sir and they all seem to have about the same rating
thanks again

[maderito]

I have both lenses. The 100 mm is typically described as a GREAT macro lens and an excellent portrait lens. Because of its macro capability, the lens travels a long distance from one focus extreme to the other. Thus I find it more prone to hunting when using it for non-macro work. There is a focusing-limiting switch on the lens which lessens this problem - but it's still apparent. It also has full-time manual focusing - so if you are good (or fair!) with manual focusing, you can help the AF system by manually driving the lens to the approximate focus point.

If you were doing event or action photography, I would guess that you'd have problems with the 100 mm macro. OTOH - the 85/1.8 is terrific for these purposes. (I read your post - but didn't really understand what kind of photography you were talking about.)

[c0ntr0lz]

thanks
well i guess you could call it car portraits, i'd use it to shoot cars by themselves in a scene.
like they do in the calendars and magazine shots.

from what you said about the macro lens i think it'd do what i want it to do.

[Adam Hicks]

c0ntr0lz cool shots.. but that's a 2000 M Coupe not a 98 :) This coming from a fellow enthusiast right down the road from you...

When I finally get this D/FW digital photography club going you'll have to join us. I also shoot motorsports, and have NHRA / IRL / NASCAR press credentials for TMS, Ennis, etc.

As far as those two lenses go, and I know it's been mentioned, if you want Macro, get the 100mm 2.8 Macro. If you want what you're telling us... get the 100mm f2 or 85mm. I loved the sharpness of the 100mm 2.8 Macro but it hunted so much for focus that it would almost drive me nuts during normal use.

I just use my Tamron 28-75mm at the long end for this stuff and find it more capable for walk around car show shooting. You don't often get the chance to use 100mm and properly frame the shots in a tight car show setting!

Take care,
Adam