Ditch 85mm 1.8 + 100mm macro for 100L?

I'm reworking my kit a bit, since everything is gathering dust and I feel like I can consolidate some stuff.

Just finished making a list of everything that's going for sale soon (5D + 40D, 7 lenses, 2 flashes, various triggers etc), but I'm stuck on two lenses.

Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 100mm macro. I love them both, but have never ever carried them both at the same time. I know the 100mm is a very capable lens for portraits, but I bought it as my second lens on crop, and it's simply too long for crop.

Meanwhile I've been shooting FF and it's much more useful there. I do like the 1.8 and the snappy AF on the 85mm, but am tempted to consolidate them both into one lens. Of course 2.8 is a lot slower, but I'm planning to get a 6D as replacement for my 5D and I think its higher ISO will make up for the difference between 1.8 and 2.8. DoF is not all that much of an issue because for serious portrait work I usually go around f/2.2 to 2.8 anyway.

I also have the 45mm 1.8 on my Olympus micro 4/3s kit, which serves as my lighter / carry around portrait lens.

I'd really like to get my kit down to about 5 lenses but the macro is always in the way...

With all that in mind, have any of you ditched a 85mm 1.8 for something slower? Perhaps a 70-200 2.8 or a 100L? Curious to hear results.

Another thought I have is to get the Tamron 90mm VC for it, to make up for the longer 100mm lens, but not at all set on that. 100L is probably the main choice at the moment.

I've had a 100 f2.8L macro for quite a while now and it was the first L lens I ever bought (along with a 100-400 IS that I later sold) and it still amazes me with its IQ every time I use it. I've used it recently at a wedding for both ring closeups and portraits on my 5D3 and it was superb.

I've also got an 85 f1.8 that I bought second hand and I wouldn't ditch it unless I really needed to as it's also a great lens, specially for the price I got it for. I've never used the non L 100 macro so I can't say what it's like but reviews say the IQ is similar to the L version anyway so I suspect it might be a bit of a waste to ditch it too just to get another 100mm.

modchild wrote in post #16492610
I've had a 100 f2.8L macro for quite a while now and it was the first L lens I ever bought (along with a 100-400 IS that I later sold) and it still amazes me with its IQ every time I use it. I've used it recently at a wedding for both ring closeups and portraits on my 5D3 and it was superb.

I've also got an 85 f1.8 that I bought second hand and I wouldn't ditch it unless I really needed to as it's also a great lens, specially for the price I got it for. I've never used the non L 100 macro so I can't say what it's like but reviews say the IQ is similar to the L version anyway so I suspect it might be a bit of a waste to ditch it too just to get another 100mm.

THIS! I own the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-L) and absolutely love it. I've used a friend's 100L as well and can't see any significant difference in image quality at all. If you NEED IS, then go for it. But I still think you're crazy to ditch both the 85 and 100 for the 100L. Seems foolish to me. Just my .02

If you are going to Canon FF only, I'd keep both lenses since they serve pretty different purposes... the 85mm is a great portrait lens and the 100mm is a super macro lens.

If you were going to Canon crop sensor only, there are some other alternatives. For example, I'm experimenting with the Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 as a small, lightweight replacement for 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and to serve as an "occasional" macro lens when I'm carrying 1.6X croppers instead of full frame. So far I'd have to say it's very nice for macro and serves well for portraiture (better than most macro lenses, since it is an f2 lens). Due to slower micro-motor and long throw/macro focus, it's too slow for sports/action shooting. Still, it's good for many things and I have other gear to shoot sports/action when needed. I'm going to continue using and learning the Tammy. But I also am keeping the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and my other macro lenses, all of which serve other purposes well for me on both FF and crop formats.

But it doesn't sound as if you will be keeping a Canon crop camera and there simply aren't any extra large aperture macro lenses offered for FF.... so stick with the two you've got. All you would gain going to the 100L IS is the stabilization and a slightly more sophisticated focus limiter.... Oh, and a little bit smaller lens hood (100L compared to the non-L's rather large hood that's sold separately). But at a cost that's roughly equal to both the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 non-L macro.

Yes, it's true... with an f1.8 (or faster) lens we often don't end up using them wide open. But it's there when needed. You'll play Hell trying to take an f1.8 shot with an f2.8 lens!

Your gear list appears to be pretty much "full frame ready". Not a lot of changes needed, unless you really want.

One question, how useful do you find 50mm on FF? You have three: 50/1.8, Sigma 50/2.8 macro, and that Takumar 50/4 macro (I assume an adapted, vintage lens). If it were me, I might swap two or all three of those for a 50/1.4, either the Canon or the Sigma. However, 50mm just isn't one of my favorite focal lengths on FF (tho I love it as a portrait lens on crop). So I might go for the new 35/2 IS USM instead. Or the 35/1.4L if I found a really good deal on one. I'd pair that up with a 24/2.8 IS USM (in place of the 28/1.8... another lens I really like on crop, but am not all that excited about on FF).

But, that's just me.... You might really like your 28/1.8 and small fleet of 50mm lenses on FF. And that's fine so long as it works for you.

I would. the L macro is more versatile and has IS. the 85 1.8 has a looong MFD and its lack of versatility make it a non-starter for me.

If I had the USM non-L 100 macro, I probably would not have got the L. But I had/have the first non-USM model, so I did upgrade (I figured the IS would be nice - and it is).

Personally I probably wouldn't do the consolidation of those two lenses to the L.

If you really feel the need to consolidate, the L is a nice lens. The only real gains you get from the L are weather resistance and IS (and get one lens instead of two - which I don' t necessarily see as a benefit). You lose a FL, a faster aperture, and faster focusing lens in the 85mm.

jimewall wrote in post #16492812
If I had the USM non-L 100 macro, I probably would not have got the L. But I had/have the first non-USM model, so I did upgrade (I figured the IS would be nice - and it is).

Personally I probably wouldn't do the consolidation of those two lenses to the L.

If you really feel the need to consolidate, the L is a nice lens. The only real gains you get from the L are weather resistance and IS (and get one lens instead of two - which I don' t necessarily see as a benefit). You lose a FL, a faster aperture, and faster focusing lens in the 85mm.

I see it as a huge benefit especially if you travel. unless you have specific needs most of us just don't need two lenses that do almost the same thing.

ed rader wrote in post #16492846
I see it as a huge benefit especially if you travel. unless you have specific needs most of us just don't need two lenses that do almost the same thing.

They are a huge benefit under certain situations - that is why I posted it. Under other situations the slower AF and f/2.8 aperture could be a detriment - example indoor sports.

I think you misinterpret my statement of "the only real gains" as being a bad thing. These gains for certain situations are huge - which is why I own the lens.

I was just pointing out what IMO are the pluses and/versus the minuses of the consolidation (and pointed out that for me it would not be a viable consolidation). For someone else (obviously like you) it could be a viable consolidation.

I have both for different reasons and uses. If I were to have only one, it would be the L, but that is because I like doing macro.

By the way a huge benefit for travel (for me & usually though not always) is the wider FL range that a zoom provides, not a larger (in physical size & in FL) single FL prime with. But would also want to carry a faster aperture prime (of smaller physical size) for low light - if and when needed.

To each their own - yes because of their needs (or desires/wants & oftentimes unfortunately their finances - I'd love a 500mm f/4 IS MKII). Hence the variety in types of lenses for sale and those owned by different people.

Wow, so many insightful replies already, thanks for contributing

To me it boils down a bit to whether or not the 85mm can functionally be replaced by the 100L. If it can't, then I don't think I'd upgrade the old 100 macro to the 100L, because for shooting macro they're pretty much on par. The IS is probably very useful in general purpose shooting, but not so much with 1:1 macro and closer with tubes. The weather sealing is a nice touch, but useless for me, as it would be the only weathersealed piece in my kit, flashes, cables and body would probably give out sooner in rain.

As for the other lenses, my gear list in the signature isn't 100% up to date, I recently got a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 which sits between the 28mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8, so both of those are going. A close friend has been "borrowing" my 50 1.8 for about 6 months now, so it's time for him to make it official.
The 28mm 1.8 is going to be for sale. Lovely lens, but the 35mm beats it in every aspect but size and weight (and for that I also have a modest micro 4/3s kit).

The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 is ridiculously good but I don't use it all that often and if I can sell it (mint condition) it'll probably go soon. I bought it used because it was cheap and because it's simply a very good walkaround 50mm that just happens to do 1:1 macro. Great for trips to a botanical garden for example and really saves you the trouble of either carrying two bodies or switching between macro and a 50 every few shots.

I did some math and a 100L is still more expensive than a 85mm 1.8 + my 100mm macro so I guess I'll keep both. Actually makes sense that way, and I don't have to feel bad if either one stays in my bag at home with this argument.
Maybe I'll still get the Sigma 150mm OS one day and make some sort of a 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 150mm 2.8 prime trio. Been thinking about that a lot but the 150mm is actually quite heavy...

PS. The Takumar 50mm is an oddball. It has such a crazy aperture when you stop it down to f/8 that I can never get rid of it. And it's the only fully mint Takumar preset-macro 50mm f/4 I've ever seen, they're uncommon that way.
Click this for an example of it on flickr (and the next shot as well):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mdstoop/6872827​614/

jimewall wrote in post #16493019
They are a huge benefit under certain situations - that is why I posted it. Under other situations the slower AF and f/2.8 aperture could be a detriment - example indoor sports.

I think you misinterpret my statement of "the only real gains" as being a bad thing. These gains for certain situations are huge - which is why I own the lens.

I was just pointing out what IMO are the pluses and/versus the minuses of the consolidation (and pointed out that for me it would not be a viable consolidation). For someone else (obviously like you) it could be a viable consolidation.

I have both for different reasons and uses. If I were to have only one, it would be the L, but that is because I like doing macro.

By the way a huge benefit for travel (for me & usually though not always) is the wider FL range that a zoom provides, not a larger (in physical size & in FL) single FL prime with. But would also want to carry a faster aperture prime (of smaller physical size) for low light - if and when needed.

To each their own - yes because of their needs (or desires/wants & oftentimes unfortunately their finances - I'd love a 500mm f/4 IS MKII). Hence the variety in types of lenses for sale and those owned by different people.

I don't disagree but the OP is trying to consolidate. if he were an indoors sports shooter he probably wouldn't be asking. I should just speak for myself. you can see what I own in my signature. I travel and I don't compromise on IQ.

ed rader wrote in post #16493271
I don't disagree but the OP is trying to consolidate. if he were an indoors sports shooter he probably wouldn't be asking. I should just speak for myself. you can see what I own in my signature. I travel and I don't compromise on IQ.

I understand he was considering consolidating. He never really said what he was shooting, so I gave my opinion on the consolidation would and wouldn't do.

I believe it is possible for someone to shoot sports and still wonder about that question the OP posed, especially if they have never used the 100L.

I don't think I compromise too much on my equipment's IQ - well except maybe for my lack of artistic eye and talent (as I am part of the equipment equation).

jimewall wrote in post #16493416
I understand he was considering consolidating. He never really said what he was shooting, so I gave my opinion on the consolidation would and wouldn't do.

I believe it is possible for someone to shoot sports and still wonder about that question the OP posed, especially if they have never used the 100L.

I don't think I compromise too much on my equipment's IQ - well except maybe for my lack of artistic eye and talent (as I am part of the equipment equation).

Well, I try not to compromise on IQ, especially not if I get newer gear that costs more money

I mostly shoot strobist/"studio-like-on-location" portraits, some wedding and events, and a lot of macro and various nature. No sports. Ever.

keep both, the 100L is a great macro lens, but for any type of event/portrait, the 85 1.8 kicks butt. You'll value that extra stop more than IS for events and portraits.

you're already selling a bunch of gear, so keep what you like!

TweakMDS wrote in post #16494497
....I mostly shoot strobist/"studio-like-on-location" portraits, some wedding and events, and a lot of macro and various nature. No sports. Ever.

Unless you always use the strobe, then I'd keep the f/1.8 over just one f/2.8 lens (even if it does have IS). With people and events, the more light and faster shutter are often going to be better than the IS. BUT if you use flash all the time, then you could possibly get away with the 100L. Though you might miss the slightly smaller DOF of the 85mm.

I agree with Charlie on the event photography. When things are moving I also like a faster focusing lens. And no the events you seem to suggest aren't the speed of a basketball game (and the 100L should focus fast enough for them), I'd still like a fast focusing lens. But that is me.

You can keep the 85mm and also getting the 100L, which is what I did.