Canon 85mm f1.8 v. 100mm f2

I'm in the process of trying to figure out what I need to go with my 50mm f1.8 ii to compliment my current setup for my 60D. My other lens is the 55-250, and it isn't bad when I use it but it is a little slow. Thing is, I don't really use it much at all due to how much I love the pics I get with the nifty-50.

I'm going to need something bigger than the 50 to shoot high school football, though, and I don't want to spend around $1K for the 70-200 2.8 everyone seems to recommend for it.

Being that the 85 1.8 and the 100 f2 are so close in price—and within my budget after I sell the nifty-250—would either be suitable to shoot night football games in the fall (or LAX this spring?)?

I may move to FF at some point in the next 18 months, and I figured it is probably wise to build up lenses accordingly.

Thoughts?

i would get the 85 f1.8. faster lense, better for low light - especially if u plan to shoot night gfootball games. and I would try to pick up a used one from here (POTN). i'm sure someone is selling one, and most likely its a good copy. i dont know much or anything about 100 f2. So i cant comment on that. I do have the 100 f2.8 Macro - and now i am using that instead of the 85 f1.8. only because one less lense to carry when i need to use the macro (like wedding day)

For football games don't you think you'll want the extra reach of the 100?
They are basically "sister" lenses. Very much alike. I would get the 100 because more reach would be my concern and 100mm at f2 isn't enough of a difference from 85 at 1.8 to concern me about speed.

They have very similar optical formula. Choose the more useful focal length....

Titi

If you are selling your 55-250, i would go for the 100mm, you will want to have the range for football i think. 1.8 vs 2.0 isnt really that much, the 100mm would enable you to get closer to the action.

Thanks for all of the input, everyone!

They are so close, its up to your focal length preference.

I have got a 100/F2 and am very very pleased with it.
Although it seems very similar to the 85/1.8 be aware of the following differences:
- 85/1.8 has many many more users, so if you want something exclusive......
- I use DxO and the 100/F2 is not supported on all camera bodies, wich is a disadvantage.
- If you want the wider aperture also look at the Sigma 85/1.4 quite some content users around on this forum.
- When you are planning to get a macro lens in the near future, be aware that the canon 100/F2.8 L or non-L will give you a duplicate on the focal length,
- A good comparison can be found at : Castleman wich also includes the famous 135/2.0
- another article on the 100/F2 http://photo.net/equip​ment/canon/100-2

sample of 100/2.0 wth 40D.

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

plasticmotif wrote in post #13800184
They are so close, its up to your focal length preference.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

I'm really happy with how the 50 1.8 performs, and I've heard great things about both the 85 1.8 and the 100 f/2. I've also heard great things about the 135L, but at that point if I'm spending that kind of money is it probably best to get the 70-200 2.8? The sports shooters seem to really like this piece of glass, and I've heard it gets portrait use too.

I guess I should probably be posing these questions in the sports forum, but it seems like a lot of the posters are experienced sports shooters even if they mainly shoot other stuff.

hennie wrote in post #13800214
I have got a 100/F2 and am very very pleased with it.
Although it seems very similar to the 85/1.8 be aware of the following differences:
- 85/1.8 has many many more users, so if you want something exclusive......
- I use DxO and the 100/F2 is not supported on all camera bodies, wich is a disadvantage.
- If you want the wider aperture also look at the Sigma 85/1.4 quite some content users around on this forum.
- When you are planning to get a macro lens in the near future, be aware that the canon 100/F2.8 L or non-L will give you a duplicate on the focal length,
- A good comparison can be found at : Castleman wich also includes the famous 135/2.0

sample of 100/2.0 wth 40D.

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

Thanks for providing me with a sample and some perspective as a 100 f/2 owner. Good stuff for me to chew on.

OP, they are both excellent lenses and truly "twins" save for the 15mm. The pros for the 85 is that it's a hair faster and a hair easier to handhold (pretty weak reasons, I know). The perk of the 100 f2 is that it makes some feel like it's a mini-135 f2 L.

Honestly they are both excellent and you can't go wrong with either.

You'll probably find either the 85mm or the 100mm to be lacking in focal reach for shooting football. There's a thread here in the sports section about football-related gear - take a look at the recommendations from experienced sports shooters there.

Veemac wrote in post #13800688
You'll probably find either the 85mm or the 100mm to be lacking in focal reach for shooting football. There's a thread here in the sports section about football-related gear - take a look at the recommendations from experienced sports shooters there.

When I shoot football, I typically move with the line of scrimmage and set up about 20 yards on either end of it between the 20's. Once either team gets into the red zone, or if one team has a reliable deep threat, I'll set up near the end zone somewhere.

The thread you provided had lots of great input on it, especially if I had deeper pockets. Then again, maybe if I want to take good pics come football season I need to be willing to part with more money than I currently want to spend right now?

85 /1.8 has a very fast AF, it's supposed to be one of the fastest focusing Canon lenses.c I don't know anything about 100 mm, if it's as fast then choose based on the FL.

OP, I don't know much about the 100mm, but I picked up the 85mm for my 50D to shoot soccer, lacrosse, and basketball. As already mentioned, the AF is very fast and the pictures are sharp. Were there times where I wish the lens had more reach...absolutely, but the 100mm wouldn't have been the answer. I eventually saved enough money and picked up a used 70-200 2.8, which the only lens I take to the lacrosse and soccer fields.

If you need the lens now and don't have the budget for the 70-200 2.8, the 85 1.8 is a great lens which I don't regret getting, however, if you can afford the 70-200 2.8, that's the best lens for the job.