85 1.8 or 100 F2

Do people get one or the other? Just curious

Thinking about the same thing. How do they perform in indoor environnement ? Does the .2 make a difference ?

I've got the 100mm, on my 40D it is a little close for portraits.I mean you have to get farther away and that doesn't work well in a small space.
I don't think the .2 F makes any real difference.
I like 100mm on a 35mm camera.

The 85 has faster AF but can suffer from some pretty severe purple fringing wide open--but these are slight differences.

I shoot the 100--my partner shoots the 85, and we have to check the exif to be sure which is which.

No bad choice here.

I shot high school wrestling matside this past season with my 7d and 85 f/1.8 combo. If you were going to be shooting under the basket during a bb game or matside the 100 f/2 will likely be to long. On a 1.3x or FF body either would work as well I would imagine.
I went through the same problem deciding which might fit my needs better but I'm glad I did go with the 85.

90% of the people making this decision get the 85mm. I don't like following the crowd and I don't like the CA of the 85mm either. I went with the 100mm f2 and don't regret it. Great portrait lens.

dave kadolph wrote in post #11975991
The 85 has faster AF but can suffer from some pretty severe purple fringing wide open--but these are slight differences.

I shoot the 100--my partner shoots the 85, and we have to check the exif to be sure which is which.

No bad choice here.

Which lens do you feel performs better wide open?

Go with the focal length you like best, or the one that makes sense given your existing set of lenses. Either is very good. Both depend on getting a good copy, in which case they both will perform well wide open. Both will have copies out there demonstrating variations of CA, which shows up under certain circumstances. You can move your body to emulate either lens focal length, within reason, they are that close.

Would make more sense buying the 85mm from my point of vue from what I can read here.

RacingMoose wrote in post #11976333
Which lens do you feel performs better wide open?

The 100--but stop the 85 down to 2.0 and it becomes too close to tell.

Thanks everyone. This just pop in my head. It seems like all photographers at one point in their life will have a macro or a fish eye in the bag. I also noticed some lenses also give you decent macro capability. Like the 24-70L 2.8. I did some decent macro shots at a wedding I did this weekend.

I'm tossing up between these two lenses for my next purchase.. They will fill the gap nicely between my EF 50mm f/1.4 and 135L for street candids in low light..

I loved the 85mm on my crop but since I've upgraded to ff I'm yearning for more reach so I'm thinking about trading the 85 for a 100mm/f2.

Depends on what u use it 4.

I have the 85 1.8 and the 135 2.0 for gymnastics. I get amazing shots on a 7D. I tried the 70-200 2.8 MKII (rented) and vastly preferred the faster, smaller primes. The 100 2.0 would be too long for many situations. I use the 85 2/3'd the time.

camera dude wrote in post #11977409
Depends on what u use it 4.

I have the 85 1.8 and the 135 2.0 for gymnastics. I get amazing shots on a 7D. I tried the 70-200 2.8 MKII (rented) and vastly preferred the faster, smaller primes (any lighter primes). The 100 2.0 would be too long for many situations. I use the 85 2/3'd the time.

fixed your post for you lol I rented the 70-200 2.8 is II and did a wedding with it that thing was heavy. I don't know how I did it, but i'lll love to have that lens again.