85mm f1.8 or 100mm macro IS for portraits

I do much portraiture but do not always need a fast lens. For years I've been using the 85mm.

Recently I bought the 100mm macro IS lens and it is truly remarkable even at f2.8, probably as nice & sharp as the old 85mm at that same f2.8 aperture. Plus, with the macro's IS one can conceivably shoot at a lower ISO, again matching the 85mm for useful shutter speed.

I'm thinking of selling the 85mm f1.8 and just using the 100 macro.

What would you do????

THX

I own the 100L and had the 85 1.8 (now upgraded to Sigma 85).

It comes down to whether you need the f1.8-f2.8 range. If not, I'd say sell it.

Personally I use the 100L as a dedicated marco lens as I have better lens for portrait, but it's a great sharp lens like you stated.

If you don't need the wider aperture for skinny DoF, or the fast AF (especially compared to the macro), or if the purple fringing of the 85 (either the 1.8 or the L!) is getting to you, then yes, the 100L will do the business. You may even need to apply a bit of blur in your portraits, it's that sharp.

As for the utility of IS, it may be a bit limited in practice, since most portrait subjects are not truly static, and you'll need 1/60 or faster to be reasonably confident that subject movement can''t mar the result.

I have the 100L, but I use it just about exclusively for macro work; I do few portraits. That said, if the need arose, I'd not hesitate to grab it even if I had an 85/1.8 in the bag. If there was an 85L there, well, I'd grab that if I wanted marginally superior bokeh (by my taste, from what I've seen of 85L images), or needed to get just one eyelash in focus.

For context, I use a 6D almost exclusively these days; my 30D has earned itself a rest.

To be honest I've been hemming and hawing about picking up a 100L for years. I'm an 85 + 135 kind of guy though, and I try to keep my gear to a minimum, so there's really no place in my arsenal for a 100L. I would never give up 85mm. YMMV

I have 85, 100 and 135.
I prefer the 85 over the 100 for portraits. Its kinda hard to explain because the difference on the focal length are not large, but the 85 gives be a bit more room to work with and I prefer the bokeh of the 85s over the 100L when its open. Closed the 100 gives a bit creamier bokeh.

The minimum focusing distance is long for the focal length on the 85mm, you can't frame a tight portrait in the camera only head and shoulders on most subjects (IME). Considering that it is a "portrait" focal length and cannot shoot a tight head shot was enough to make me sell it. The macro lens would solve that problem, but will be more expensive. I end up shooting my 70-200 at around 105mm and it gets the job done. The OP is correct on the point that you don't always need fast glass for portraits, if you need the tip of the nose to the ears in focus you will be shooting at f4.5-f5.6 to get the DOF. Again IME. I had the 85mm f1.2 and after using it a while I realized that I was shooting it at f2.8 - f4.0 a lot to get the DOF I needed, it was sold not long after that. It all depends on your shooting style and being realistic about what settings will get you the results you need.