85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0

I have a 35mm and 50mm lens right now on a full frame body. Mostly doing travel, events and some street. Now I'm looking for a longer lens, either 85mm 1.8 or 100m 2.0. Which makes more sense:

35 / 50 / 85

35 / 50 / 100

Does it make sense to keep the 50 if you have 35 and 85 ?

How about the 135?

imagesbybarbara wrote in post #14790391
How about the 135?

135 f2 L is considerably more money, although the old (and quite good) 135 F2.8 soft-focus is available as well.

I would choose the 100 over the 85, as the 100 tends to show less dramatic CA. The difference in light stops is insignificant enough that there's little reason to take the 85 unless you're in slightly more cramped confines.

I tend to use 35mm most often, 50mm rarely unless on film (or full frame) and 100 here and there (via the 100 2.8 USM macro). I wouldn't sell the 50 if you get the 85, unless you find you never use it. Remember, wide open in bright backlighting, the 85 WILL create a ton of CA.

I went 85mm (for fast prime), but that is because 100mm was taken for my macro lens. I couldn't see having the 100mm macro and the 100mm f/2 (when the 85mm would do).

If it is a FL you like, then yes it can make sense to have both.

Obvious a there are those who for FF want the Canon prime trinity 35L, 85L, and 135L. There is also the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.8 SF for a poorman's version.

Some like the 24L, 50L, and the 100L (or f/2).

IMO a triplet of primes to use is very specific to the shooter. I also don't think that prime lenses have to be in triplet sets.

I think you should get the FL you use. Also the ones you can afford, as the Canon trinity would cost $4700+.

To me I like your second group (35, 50, 100) better with the 100mm being a macro. Eventually though I'd want a fast prime around there too.

On FF? I've had the 135L, I personally find 100mm a more useable length, I found them both equally fast and accurate.

135L @ f/2

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lorephoto/57809​13909/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lorephoto/76327​70406/

I MUCH prefer the 100.

The 100 was perfect on my crop body, but on the full frame I wish I had the 135 but can't justify the cost.

I don't do much macro. For true macro you need more equipment than I care to carry (focusing rail, tripod, flashes, reflectors...). I find the 50 takes me close enough for a good close-up. If I need to get closer, I crop.

If you weren't shooting macro's, how do you feel about 35 / 50 / 85 ? Or just 35 / 85 ?

I use 50 and 100/2 and find them a good match.

Stick with the non-macro version of the 100 if you're looking to stay light and compact for street use.

The 100mm f2.8 USM macro's rear-focus travel is huge, and it's boat slow, but very smooth and silent. The 100 f/2 is faster for sure, packed into a smaller lens barrel that means your camera won't be so front-heavy.

Although I love the 100 f/2.8, I have seriously been considering adding a 100 f/2 for working in the field.

vivera wrote in post #14791503
I don't do much macro. For true macro you need more equipment than I care to carry (focusing rail, tripod, flashes, reflectors...). I find the 50 takes me close enough for a good close-up. If I need to get closer, I crop.

If you weren't shooting macro's, how do you feel about 35 / 50 / 85 ? Or just 35 / 85 ?

Those are probably my most used FLs (when not doing macro and nature), so I'd be fine with it. Keep in mind I am on a crop (I forgot to mention that before, but it is in my profile), and do not prefer wide. For most the 35mm would be great on FF.

Overall, I think I would still prefer the 35/50/100 (even if it were the 100mm is the f/2 and not the macro). On a crop I would probably switch out the 35mm with a 24mm. For that specific triplet. You have the 35mm already, and that would be fine too.

85/1.8 is my most used lens for inside sports... but for anything else the 100/2.0 should be just fine.

bubbygator wrote in post #14791897
85/1.8 is my most used lens for inside sports.

Quoted for truth. Great indoor sports lens on a 1D body.

Skip the mediocre consumer prime and save up for the proper L lens....

It's well worth it. Think further ahead.

Another vote for the usually underrated 100mm f2.

I'll put my vote for the 100 as well. I've had both and very much prefer the 100. Not exactly sure why, but I just love the results from it, I wasn't as blown away with the 85.