Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #1
Calhoun213
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 88
Default 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I need a lens to take indoor sports pictures (basketball). The 85mm 1.8 gets good reviews but before I pull the trigger I don't want to rule out the 100 2.0 and 100 2.8 macro. How do these 3 lens stack up. I know the 2.8 has macro capabilities as an added bonus. I currently have a Sigma 105 macro but it's slow focus speed is not suitable for basketball so I could sell it if I choose the Canon 100 2.8 to recoup some of the cost. Thanks.
Calhoun213 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #2
Elisha
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Guelph
Posts: 565
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

Macro lenses will be a little slower in general anyway so that may rule out the 100 f/2.8!
__________________
Canon EOS 5D Mark II

flickr
FLUIDR
Elisha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #3
toxic
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,498
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

The 85/1.8 and 100/2 perform similarly. Pick the focal length you like better.

The 100/2.8 is a macro, so its AF is not as fast or as accurate in poor light as the other two, and at f/2.8, you might as well buy a zoom.
toxic is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #4
drumsfield
Senior Member
 
drumsfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
Posts: 1,505
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I've had (will be getting the 100mm 2.8 today) all 3 sold the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 to get the macro because I think it will be more versatile than the other two. Both the 85 and 100 were incredibly sharp and great lenses, but I found I didn't go to them very often since I was shooting on a crop frame and they were too long for most indoor shots and for reach I have a 200mm 2.8. I decided on getting the 100mm 2.8 macro because it would give me a really great portrait/macro lens. I don't see anyone having a problem with using it as a sports lens either.
__________________
Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
500PX
D.C. Area Photographer
drumsfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #5
Jam.radonc
Senior Member
 
Jam.radonc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,187
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I have the 100mm 2.8L IS. With the hybrid image stabilised system you can held hold this baby for a lot less shutter speed. I know with indoor sports you may need a faster speed so this may not necessarily apply unless you have the ISO to crank up.

It focuses blindingly fast (as fast as the 135mm 2L which I once owned) and doubles as a portrait and macro. All in all a great lens to have.
__________________
Jam
5D3 | 450D | Panasonic DMC-LX3 | 430 EX II | ST-E2
24-70 L II | 50L | 50 1.8 I | 100L | Zeiss 35/2 ZE | Zeiss 85/2.8 | Zeiss 135/3.5

Sold: 17-40L | 24L II | 85L II | 135L | Sigma 50/1.4 | 5D2
Jam.radonc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #6
wkahwkah
Member
 
wkahwkah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 198
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

IMO its all depends on how much light in the gym. I have both 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro and I would
discard macro lens although its accurate, it might not focus fast enough to players moving around.
My old High school had terrible light so 1.8 on 85mm helped bit more than 2.0 on 100 so I chose 85mm.
Also, 85 and 100 are really close that few stepping front/back would make it same fov so its all depends
on if u need 1.8 or 2.0 to maintain speed. However, 85mm is bit more prone to purple fringe.
__________________
Canon 1D III | Canon 1Ds II | Canon 24 TS-E f3.5L | Canon 35mm f1.4L | Canon 70~200mm f2.8L IS II | Canon 430exII
wkahwkah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #7
yourdoinitwrong
Goldmember
 
yourdoinitwrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,394
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I just bought the 85mm for my 7D and it is a little long for a crop body but I didn't have many other choices for an affordable indoor sports lens. It takes very sharp pictures and focuses quickly though so I'm working on adjusting my positioning to compensate for the focal length. I don't know about the 100 but the 85 can definitely have a fair amount of purple fringing at large apertures. For $380 though I'm very happy with it.
__________________
7D (x2) w/ BG-E7, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.8
Full List
yourdoinitwrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #8
nightcat
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,428
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

Forget the macro for sports. You need speed indoors. Have you tried your Sigma for basketball? If that 100-105mm range is perfect, then get the 100mm 2.0. If its too long, then the 85mm is the answer. Per Photozone, they do indicate the 100mm 2.0 has less CA than the 85mm 1.8, but most important is getting the correct focal length.
nightcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #9
shybull
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 164
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I have both the 85 and the 100 macro and I've used both for dancers on stage with stage lighting. The macro was to slow focusing. I much prefer the 85 when light is low and you need fast focusing. Never used the 100 2.0
__________________
40D,Drebel XT, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 200 2.8L, 100 2.8 Macro,
70-200 F4 IS, 24-105 F4 IS, 100-300 4.5-5.6, 28-135 IS
Sigma 24-70 2.8, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30mm 1.4
580EX & 420EX, Kenko Extension Tubes
shybull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #10
Quizzical_Squirrel
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 514
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I've tried using the 100 2.8 IS macro for indoor action shots and it didn't achieve focus fast enough for me.
Quizzical_Squirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st of March 2010 (Mon)   #11
Jam.radonc
Senior Member
 
Jam.radonc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,187
Default Re: 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quizzical_Squirrel View Post
I've tried using the 100 2.8 IS macro for indoor action shots and it didn't achieve focus fast enough for me.
Did you try to pre set the focusing from 0.5m to infinity? You'd be surprised on how fast it focuses. It is as fast as my once had 135mm f2 and that's saying a lot.
__________________
Jam
5D3 | 450D | Panasonic DMC-LX3 | 430 EX II | ST-E2
24-70 L II | 50L | 50 1.8 I | 100L | Zeiss 35/2 ZE | Zeiss 85/2.8 | Zeiss 135/3.5

Sold: 17-40L | 24L II | 85L II | 135L | Sigma 50/1.4 | 5D2
Jam.radonc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro shots using Tilt lens - Please share your experience <Moved from Macro Photos> roli_bark Macro Talk 4 3rd of August 2009 (Mon) 07:10
Macro Lens without Macro, Help! (Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus) janapriya Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 6 21st of May 2007 (Mon) 22:47
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro mephetic436 Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 10 27th of November 2005 (Sun) 14:22


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.