100/2 vs 85 1.4 switching to FF

I'm contemplating swapping my 100/2 out for a 85 1.4 when I upgrade to a 6D. The 100/2 has been a fantastic lens for me shooting portrait and sports, but I love the colors on my 200 2.8 much more. I won't be shooting nearly as much sports as I used to, so I'm prepared to sacrifice *some* AF performance in the switch.

Would the Sigma 85 1.4 give me what I'm looking for when I switch to FF, or will the 6D give my 100/2 a new lease on life as it has for other people and their 50 1.8's, 28 1.8's and so on? Money is a factor, so either edition of the 85L is probably out.

I know the 135L is real similar to my 200L in virtually everything but length and F-stop, so am I fooling myself into thinking that I will be happy with anything but the 135 at under $800 used? A S35, 135, 200 prime setup is far from ideal, but is it workable for someone who shoots portraits, candids and some sports sprinkled in? Or will the 100/2 have a new lease on life (colors) on the 6D?

i think you should stick with the 100. it is VERY close to the 135L. more so than canon's 85 1.8 but i can't really talk about the sigma 85. plus sticking with 100 f/2 would be cheaper lol.

or.. you can get the 100L

Let's analyze what you have:

• 60D
  
• Canon EF-S 18-55 is,
  
• Canon 100 f/2
  
• Canon 200 f/2.8
  
• Sigma 30mm 'fast normal' on the 60D
  

Wilt wrote in post #16256706
Let's analyze what you have:

• 60D
  
• Canon EF-S 18-55 is,
  
• Canon 100 f/2
  
• Canon 200 f/2.8
  
• Sigma 30mm 'fast normal' on the 60D
  

...effectively (in FF terms) 28-88mm then jumping to 160mm and 320mm.

You will be getting a 6D, you have a fast WA 30mm, 100mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8, and you no longer have any 'normal' at all --fast or medium aperture-- since the 18-55 will be useless on the 6D.

It seems to me that you really need to get something to cover the 28mm-100mm span that you used to have covered to plan for, but now have a hole in coverage, before worrying about the 85mm f/1.4 vs 135mm f/2 decision!

I didn't ask about a "normal" lens because I plan on picking up a Sigma 35 or 50--to replace my two crop lenses, and I rarely use my zoom--depending on funds. I wanted to keep my question specific so I would get fairly channelled advice.

BFox549 wrote in post #16256657
i think you should stick with the 100. it is VERY close to the 135L. more so than canon's 85 1.8 but i can't really talk about the sigma 85. plus sticking with 100 f/2 would be cheaper lol.

or.. you can get the 100L

The 100L isn't a lens on my radar, not fast enough for what I would use it for. I may very well end up sticking with the 100/2 and spending my money on a 30 1.4/S35 swap-out.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #16256772
I didn't ask about a "normal" lens because I plan on picking up a Sigma 35 or 50--to replace my two crop lenses, and I rarely use my zoom--depending on funds. I wanted to keep my question specific so I would get fairly channelled advice.

Your intention to buy 50mm (or 35mm) is key factor to planning a kit of lenses. One should NOT ever choose a lens complement in isolation of what else is planned to be in the kit. Special purpose lenses, like macro or tilt/shift, can be reasonably selected without consideration of what else is in the kit.

So you will eventually have

• 6D
  
• 30mm f/1.4 change to 35mm f/1.4 for image circle reasons
  
• 50mm f/whatever
  
• 85mm or (keep 100mm) or 135mm
  
• 200mm
  

Wilt wrote in post #16256814
So you will eventually have

• 6D
  
• 30mm f/1.4 change to 35mm f/1.4 for image circle reasons
  
• 50mm f/whatever
  
• 85mm or (keep 100mm) or 135mm
  
• 200mm
  

My reply is 85mm and 100mm are perfectly good for studio portraiture. The f/1.4 razor thin DOF is not good for much other than 'pleasing the photographer', because most portrait sitters immediately see super shallow DOF and ask "Why is this photo so out of focus?!" This is in rebuttal to your comment about why the 100mm f/2 is "not fast enough for what I would use it for."

135mm is a bit long for indoors, typically, but makes a nice FL outdoors especially in combination with 200mm. As I commented in another thread, decades ago the lens offerings by major manufacturers for their FF SLRs was 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, period.

Wilt, thank you for the response.

My statement about a lens not being fast enough was in reference to a 100L suggestion. For what I will shoot in that range I would rather stick with the 100/2 for its aperture and AF speed. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

And I would have no problem with a 35/50, 100, 200 kit of primes which is pretty much my kit now. I was just looking for 85 1.4 vs 100/2 feedback for my intended purposes.

35/85/200 is my favorite combo.

85 1.4 has INCREDIBLE colors, is the sharpest 85mm lens you can buy for our cameras that autofocuses, and creates some real subject separation, noticeably better than the 100/2, I'd say it's on par with the 135L in most circumstances, and better than the 135L if the background is nearer to you. It also seems to be just as sharp at f1.4 as the 135L is at f2.

35/85 here also.

85mm f1.4, old 5dc

drzenitram wrote in post #16257155
35/85/200 is my favorite combo.

85 1.4 has INCREDIBLE colors, is the sharpest 85mm lens you can buy for our cameras that autofocuses, and creates some real subject separation, noticeably better than the 100/2, I'd say it's on par with the 135L in most circumstances, and better than the 135L if the background is nearer to you. It also seems to be just as sharp at f1.4 as the 135L is at f2.

Thanks for the insight on the 85 1.4!

My question to you:

If you were forced to decide between downgrading your S35 to a S50 or your S85 to the 100/2, what would you do? (Assuming there were no other choices based on budget)

bobbyz wrote in post #16257168
35/85 here also.

Bobby, I know by your posts that you have owned a wide array of gear in the past. Are you comfortable shooting action with your S85?

mickeyb105 wrote in post #16257169
Thanks for the insight on the 85 1.4!

My question to you:

If you were forced to decide between downgrading your S35 to a S50 or your S85 to the 100/2, what would you do? (Assuming there were no other choices based on budget)

I guess it depends on the lens you use more. Those are actually my two favorite lenses I've ever used... and I really couldn't choose between them.

As for your question about action...:

My gut says keep the 100/2 when I upgrade to a 6D and swap out my S30 for an S50 for budget purposes. . . unless a real good price on a used or refurb S35 comes around sometime between now and Christmas season.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #16257402
My gut says keep the 100/2 when I upgrade to a 6D and swap out my S30 for an S50 for budget purposes. . . unless a real good price on a used or refurb S35 comes around sometime between now and Christmas season.

I think Sigma was selling refurb s35s for something like $640... I'd jump all over that if I were you.

s50 will be most like your s30 was on crop, a replacement for 100/2 would be 160mm, so the closest you'd get to that would be a 135L since you already have 200mm. The 85 would be like a 50mm was on your crop body.

I do love my s85 1.4 though.