100mm f2.8 vs. 85mm f1.8

I have the 100mm f2.8 macro lens (non-IS). Use it all the time for macro and occasionally for non-macro work. It does very well with portraits, although I'm not so into portraits or people photos. Am quite happy with the 50mm f1.4 for portraits when the need arises.

Has anyone compared the 85mm to the 100mm (or 50mm f1.4 for that matter)? Is there anything to the magic of the 85mm which would really justify an extra lens?

Discuss.

I have the 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2.8 macro on a 5D and have rented the 85 f/1.8. At the time I rented the 85, I didn't yet own the macro and was comparing it against the 100 f/2. While all are nice lenses, I didn't find the 85mm focal length that different from either 50 or 100 and not all that special.

Since 85mm is known as a classic portrait lens and you're not much into portrait work, I'd say you've already got what you need. Now if you're interested in some longer fast glass, the 135L is niiiiice.

it all depends on whether you need the speed....100 macro is perfectly fine. If you are planning to shoot your portrait faster than 2.8, then 85 is a great option.

the DOF of the 85mm f1.8 is thinner than the 100mm f2.8 at normal working distances. It is probably a better portrait lens for that reason. but the 100mm f2.8 doubles as a macro, so if you need that function, keep the 100mm

I've just extensively used both 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Overall I loved the 85 waaay more than the 50 1.4. The focus was really really snappy, and it's an awesome focal length for portraits I find. Bokeh is also fantastic.

The performance of the 50 I felt didn't stack up and the image quality, especially wide open was really disappointing.

Also I find 85mm is the perfect focal length for portraiture, but that's just me.

All about the speed - 1 and 1/3 stops can be a big difference. The 100mm macro is also a bit slow to focus for action. Both are very sharp.

FWIW I made the decision between the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 for my sister and went with the 85 1.8. The bokeh and separation are so nice.

I had both at the same time and ended up selling the 85 f/1.8. I loved the 85 on my 30D, but when I moved to a FF body, I bumped in to the MFD quite often and I found it annoying to not be able to frame as tightly as I was used to.

WhyFi wrote in post #13431891
I had both at the same time and ended up selling the 85 f/1.8. I loved the 85 on my 30D, but when I moved to a FF body, I bumped in to the MFD quite often and I found it annoying to not be able to frame as tightly as I was used to.

This was my impression when comparing it to the 50/1.4 on my 5D. I was hoping to fill more of the frame with the 85mm, but it reality it just made me back up. This is one reason I like the 100 macro even for portraits.

I have all three: 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 USM (and a few more)...

I really haven't formally compared the 100 and 85. I simply use the 85 for portraits and the 100 for macro. Unless I happen to only have one or the other with me, and need to grab a portrait with the 100, or put an extension tube behind the 85mm to use it for a macro/close-up shot.

On a crop camera, 100mm can be a little long for portraiture. Not a problem if you have plenty of working room.

Also, like any macro lens, the 100/2.8 is a bit slower focusing (though the USM and focus limiter help a lot). The 85/1.8 is pretty instantaneous focus, nice for fleeting, candid moments. (The 135/2 is also very fast focusing, but a little long on crop... I use it more for portraiture on FF.)

The extra 1.3 stops of f1.8 can be useful shooting portraits.

The 85mm is also smaller and less obtrusive.

The 100mm is sharper.... but sharpness isn't always a good thing for portraits.

If only occasionally shooting portraits, mostly interested in macro.... Keep the 100/2.8. Especially since you have 50/1.4 as an alternative portrait lens, when you need a bigger aperture, faster focus or don't have as much working distance.

FWIW I just received the 85mm 1.8 from Amazon for $399 (shipped because I have Prime) and it came with the USA/Canada warranty card. So that's nice. I took a quick shot with it and its very nice. Kind of makes me think maybe I could have went with the 1.8 instead of 1.2, but I still like having the 1.2:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Hi,
I have both of them. When it comes to head-portraits I prefer the 100, with 85 I come too close ( only my opinion ) to the subject. But this is only on FF. On crop I prefer the 85.
Cheers,
Nick

I got rid of the 100 2.8 macro as I was doing a lot of macro. Picked up the 180L macro. Now I still need something for portrait. Am back to thinking 85mm 1.8. Looks kinda cheap but focuses fast and has IQ on par with 1.2L, which seems overpriced....

I have both the 100 2.8 macro and the 85 1.8. Both are decent lens for the price.
I will still keep both as they serve different purpose

85 1.8 has few stops faster than the 100 2.8. Focus is much faster, is smaller and lighter as well.
On the other hand, the 100 2.8 can shoot both macro and portrait but only up to f 2.8

I am puzzled by some of the comments... like

On a FF camera...
85mm at 2.8' MFD: captures area 0.71' x 1.06' (8.5" x12.8"
100mm macro at 1' MFD: capturea area 0.17' x 0.24' (1.9" x 2.0")

On APS-C camera...
85mm at 2.8' MFD: captures area 0.71' x 1.06' (5.3" x 8")

Are both you guys making comments in the context of very close focus (approaching 'macro', but not quite)?