85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0

kin2son wrote in post #14792109
Skip the mediocre consumer prime and save up for the proper L lens....

It's well worth it. Think further ahead.

The 5 times more expensive and much slower focusing 85L? The 2.5 times more expensive and slower (aperture-wise) 100 2.8 L macro?

Get the 100 f/2. Or better yet, rent the 100 and see if you like it.

Wow, many prefer the 100mm 2.0. Is there such a big quality gap between the two?

I guess 85 has the advantage of being more flexible. I mean: it's usually easier to crop an 85 to 100 than to move back with the 100.

I disliked the 85mm for it's CA, the 100mm has less of it....

^ that is why I opted for the 100 f/2 over the 85, tho if you have a firm grip on wanting an 85, I 'hear' Sigmas version suffers from it less than Canons version, you'd have to jump into their lens thread.

I have tried 100 f2 on 7D.
My technic must not have been great as with this telephoto, it hard hard to get sharp shot in low light w/o IS for me, so i sold it.

but I love the idea of Prime tele. might pick up the 135L down the road.

KHAWACHEN wrote in post #14794530
I have tried 100 f2 on 7D.
My technic must not have been great as with this telephoto, it hard hard to get sharp shot in low light w/o IS for me, so i sold it.

but I love the idea of Prime tele. might pick up the 135L down the road.

You would run into that issue with either lens.

misty66 wrote in post #14794056
I disliked the 85mm for it's CA, the 100mm has less of it....

Oh I love my 85 and would never part with it, if I have a CA problem I fix it in photo shop I did have the L version and it had its issues too but went back to the 1.8 and never looked back.

Not familiar with the 100 2.0.

Shots of mine in the lens sample archive: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=10805906&pos​tcount=495 Shot with an XSi (450d)

Taken a couple of years ago. The shots are nothing special from the day, just samples. Both are pretty much SOOC. I have a photoshop action that does a high pass filter for shapening and adds the border. I had a couple of hundred to get processed and sent by the next morning so nothing in the way of cropping or editing.

After shooting all day with that lens there was no way I would part with it.

I use my 85mm 1.8 more than i use my 70-200 f2.8 L i personally love the 85mm

I use my 85/1.8 more than I use my 135L. Nothing to do with or lack of IQ...85mm just fits my shooting style, better for much of my shooting.

For primes I use 24/85/135. Never had a need for a 50, besides the fact that I don't like that focal length on a FF. I do have a CZ 50/1.7 that has been gathering dust for about a year. Great IQ but it doesn't fit my "eye".

I think there is very little difference between the two. If a metal filter thread is needed, get the 100. I think the 85 has a plastic one. But you save some $ with the 85.

Depends on what you use as a camera body. With a 1.4x body, I rarely used the 85mm, but on my full frame body, I use it a lot! The 85mm is one of the best lenses I've ever used.

vivera wrote in post #14793587
Wow, many prefer the 100mm 2.0. Is there such a big quality gap between the two?

I guess 85 has the advantage of being more flexible. I mean: it's usually easier to crop an 85 to 100 than to move back with the 100.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1172459

My comparison here. I kept the 85mm mainly because you can crop to 100mm and have 0 differences.

I think the best 3 would be
35 85 135
working on that soon.

I 've had 85mm 1.8 ( two copies), 135L, and now have 100mm 2.0, also used my friend's Sigma 85.

Two reasons I picked up 100mm 2.0 over 85mm 1.8
1) less purple fringing, the difference is noticeable.
2) since I have Sigma 50 , 100mm focal length makes more sense to me than 85mm.

Compare the 100mm f/2.0 to 135L which I sold , the 100mm 2.0 is equal in terms of PQ and AF, but much lighter , smaller and slightly better for low light handhold shooting. I sold the 135L , picked up the 100mm 2.0 and never missed the 135L.

The Sigma 85 is nice, but I don't see it's better than the 100mm 2.0 PQ wise. The only advantage to me is one stop faster. PQ and even the ability to blur out the background are very very similar, I can't tell honestly.

For my shooting style in 90%+ cases my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II can replace the primes. It's only when there is not enough of light and the subject is moving, I will pick up the primes. As a result the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II has been pretty much stuck on my 5D.