85/1.8 or 100/2?

I'm looking to get one of these lenses to shoot some indoor sports and theater. A lot of people praise the 85, but theres not to much talk about the 100. I also have a 50/1.4 for the shorter reach, so im leaning towards the 100. A new 85 is about 20% cheaper but i can get a good price on a used 100.

Whats your opinons should i go 85 or 100?

I use the 100/2.0 and like it a lot. Has nice bokeh, and is quite decent wide open. On my 1D2 it's sometimes a bit long though, where on my 1n (film) it was perfect.
I don't think there's much of a difference between them performance wise, mostly focal length. Read this

Thanks rené - very helpfull review.

It is a very interesting read, though the first comment left underneath the body of the review is also incredibly pertinent and worth reading. When I got my 85mm I looked at the 100mm as well, but decided that a) the 100mm was a tiny bit too long, b) I wanted to eek out the biggest aperture possible, c) the 85mm was a lot more affordable.

I think they're both equally fine lenses optically, so it's a question as to which focal length will suit you better (including the slightly flatter features that the 100mm can bring to play).

I'm still biased towards the 100mm because I can get a good price on a used. Also the extra reach might be handy combined with the 50mm for indoor sports. The flatter features are a minor advantage since I dont do much portrait work, but this could change in the future. I guess if the two lenses are identical regarding quality and built, the 100mm will be the one for me.

I saw a review between an 85, 100 and 135. The 100 was slightly inferior. Two copies were tried to confirm. I can't remember the review now. It was not by much though.

Graham

Can u elaborate on the inferiority'es - was it build or picturequality or both?

Try http://www.wlcastleman​.com …iews/85_100_135​/index.htm

I've never used the 100mm, so I can't comment on that.

The 85mm, though, is an absolute gem...

Steve

Flip a coin: those 2 lenses are basically twins. Seems more opt for the 85, which arguably has faster AF but who's really counting milliseconds. They are both VERY VERY good.

icsDave wrote:
Try http://www.wlcastleman​.com …iews/85_100_135​/index.htm

That's the fella. Thanks for stepping in there Dave.

I think that if you ever feel you might get the 135mm lens too, the 85mm is the best spread - ie 50/85/135.

Other than that, you takes your pick.

Graham

All the tests I have seen say the 85/1.8 is much sharper than the 100/2 but, to me, the main difference is to plan ahead. Will you be tempted to get the 100/2.8 macro later? Then the 85 would be a better choice now, you don't need to that are 100mm really. I have the 85/1.8 and it is great.

Whilst I love my 85mm f/1.8, and there do seem to be tests that rate it as sharper than the 100mm f/2 - it's not like comparing a cheap consumer lens with a decent prime, and I can't imagine in the real world that the difference will be all that noticeable.

As fStopJojo says they're both VERY VERY good, so optically neither would disappoint. Get whichever one gives you the more useful focal length (unless a third of a stop extra is enough to warrant getting the 85mm over the 100mm)

I shoot a lot of couple shots, probably almost as often as individual protraits. With the 5D it works superbly for couples, and if I am concerned about nose size in an individual portrain I will either step back and then crop downsize ti abiy 50 percent of the frame. With those 12.8 megapixels this poses no problem.

I've had a variety of lenses with my 20D and now the 5D, and the 85 prime has pushed the 50mm f1.4 0ut of first place in my heart. The extra speed won the day when I was looking at both, and the price is nicer as well. No surprise, since it is to the 5D much like what the 50 was to the 20D.

Thank you all for replying. I have decided to go for the 100mm. The price on the used 100 is half of a new 85, so if im not satisfied i will probably be able to get most of it back.
Its funny that the review posted by dave makes the 100 out to be less sharp than the 85, when photodo says exactly the opposite?
http://www.photodo.com​/nav/prodindex.html