Decisions, decisions..85/100!

Shoot with a 5DMKII and I currently own a 28mm 1.8 & 50mm 1.4. Looking to pick up either a 85 1.8 or 100 f2. Can not decide, and I hate it! Things I am after the most is bokeh & of course sharpness. I spend lots of time editing photos so purple fringing that some 85mm users mention isn't THAT big of a deal. I shoot outdoors, and mostly non-moving cars.

Also, I keep seeing people suggesting the 100 f2.8, should I even consider it if I am more concerned about "dof" rather then "macro" shooting which i never do?

Help me out!

If you don't need a fast lens, then the 100mm 2.8 macro is a great choice. However if macro is not an interest, I'd suggest the 100mm f2. It has less CA, better bokeh and that extra bit of focal length comes in handy. The only lens in that focal range better than the 100mm f2 when it comes to portraits is the far more expensive 135mm f2.

So besides macro, what else does the 2.8 have going for it that the 2 doesn't?

Not much. It possibly has very slightly better image quality. But if your after beautiful bokeh, the f2 would be preferable. And the f2 is quite sharp wide open.

The 85 1.8 and 100/2 are similar in optical terms. The only real difference is the focal length. Both share the excessive fringing wide open in high contrast situations. And when shooting cars outdoors, you will get fringing when shooting wide open. Trust me.

I would think you can stabilize your camera when shooting non-moving cars. With a tripod for example. So the need for a fast lens isn't so great when trying to get decent shutterspeeds. Besides that, I assume you stop down anyway (especially when using tele lenses) to get the whole car in focus.

The 85 1.8 and 100/2 stopped down give excellent IQ (without fringing).

the 100 macro is an excellent lens, it is super sharp. It is a macro lens and it acts as a really good portraits lens as well. In terms of sharpness, the 100 non L and L is very similar minus IS though.

So, most of you feel that 100 would be more appropriate for me over the 85 to go with the 28 & 50?

Elvis. wrote in post #14826273
So, most of you feel that 100 would be more appropriate for me over the 85 to go with the 28 & 50?

I was debating between the 85 and the 100 too. But with not much focal length different, the 100 will give you macro and great focal length for portraits, so I went with the 100.

thestone11 wrote in post #14826301
I was debating between the 85 and the 100 too. But with not much focal length different, the 100 will give you macro and great focal length for portraits, so I went with the 100.

Cool, and why the 2.8 over the 2 if you don't mind me asking?

I think the 15mm difference is insignificant. The 85mm is usually cheaper, so I would buy that one.

Elvis. wrote in post #14826322
Cool, and why the 2.8 over the 2 if you don't mind me asking?

Simply I don't need IS...and I usually use my macro with studio flash setup, don't really need anything more than f/2.8.

Looking at what you shoot, I would go for 85mm f1.8, I have used it in past and its awesome lens.
Even better, if you can live w/o IS and f4, go for 70-200 f4 non-IS.. about same range in terms of $.. and most appropriate to shoot moving cars kinda objects. However looking at your current lenses, it looks like you are wide aperture lover and thats why I suggested 85 prior to 70-200

What do you think?

I never used the 100mm f/2, but it has been said to have less to have less CA than the 85mm f1.8. Other than that, they are described as acting very similar IQ- and AF- -wise (just the 15mm difference). The 85mm is cheaper new (by about $100) and because it seems more common shows up used more frequently.

If you think you need more reach (and the cost difference doesn't make a difference) go the 100. If you think one day you will want to shoot macro, (and you prefer not to have overlapping primes if you can avoid it) get the 85.

I had the 100mm macro first (I do some macro), and wanted a faster lens for certain situations at/near that range . I came across a used 85mm for an excellent price. If it had been the 100mm f/2 at that price, I would have went with it instead. I use the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm macro for different types of shooting.

jimewall wrote in post #14830162
I never used the 100mm f/2, but it has been said to have less to have less CA than the 85mm f1.8.

I have used one and the fringing is the same.

I have owned the 85 1.8, 100 2, 100 2.8 macro, 100L. All are fine lenses, I think the 85 1.8 and 100 2 are the best non-L lenses I have ever owned. I prefer the 100mm focal length especially on FF. Also the build quality of the 100 2 is slightly better.