85.9 vs 100.2. Would you consider them different?

I would like to ask you all.

Beside the obvious FL diff..
Would you consider 85.8 and 100.2 to be any different?

I was trying to help this guy out so he can make the best choice for his need.. and this one dude keep insisting that the 100.2 is far superior lens than 85.8.
Saying 85.8 is not even in the same league of quality as 100.2..

I KNOW what 85.8 and 100.2 look like.. and they look almost identical(if not 100%).
The performance of both lenses are also very much the same.

I got the pictures and charts from photozone.de so you can see them side by side.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Different only in focal length, bout it

thekid24 wrote in post #3321129
Different only in focal length, bout it

BS!!


The 100 is 1/3 stop slower.

angryhampster wrote in post #3321140
BS!!

The 100 is 1/3 stop slower.

oh YEAH!!!.....D'oh

thekid24 wrote in post #3321170
oh YEAH!!!.....D'oh

hehe...In all honesty though, I'd love to use the 100 f/2. I had an 85 f/1.8 for about 3 months, but sold it because I just didn't need that focal length and rarely used it. However, when I did use it, it was a real gem. Well-built, fast and accurate AF, and beautiful colors and contrast. The only downside I ever found to it was the chromatic abberations when shooting wide open...which were rather terrible.

angryhampster wrote in post #3321242
hehe...In all honesty though, I'd love to use the 100 f/2. I had an 85 f/1.8 for about 3 months, but sold it because I just didn't need that focal length and rarely used it. However, when I did use it, it was a real gem. Well-built, fast and accurate AF, and beautiful colors and contrast. The only downside I ever found to it was the chromatic abberations when shooting wide open...which were rather terrible.

Right. I agree.
I would personally have bought 100.2 if I didn't plan to get 135L in the future.
But still, I have nothing to complain about the performace of the 85.8 and the fantastic result it delivers.
It did more than the expectation I had for it.

In real world terms, I'd doubt you'd see much if any difference between the two lenses.
I'd let the focal length and price determine which one to get.

The only "real" quality difference between these two is the 85 shows some CA when shot wild open that the 100 does not exhibit. they both have identical construction except that the 85 has one extra element that allows for the wider focal length and it's this element that causes the added CA. The same problem would exist between the 135L and 200L except that the Ls have special glass that work to remove CA distortion. I have the 100/2 and find it to be an amazing lens. When I had a 1.6 crop camera I did find the length to be a little long but on the 5D it's a perfect portrait lens.

What's an 85.8? Doesn't seem that hard to write, "f/1.8" ...

The 85 is better, IMO ... if you want equivalent framing to the 100 f/2, then take a step forwards. If you want to shoot at f/2.0, the do it. The 100 can't shoot at f/1.8, though.

is the difference in focal length really equate to about 'a step'?

That's really interesting, I never thought about it that way before. (I myself honestly have no idea, as my first telephoto is only in the mail as we speak)

gorby wrote in post #3325139
is the difference in focal length really equate to about 'a step'?

That's really interesting, I never thought about it that way before. (I myself honestly have no idea, as my first telephoto is only in the mail as we speak)

15% difference between the FL. If the distance was 10', you would move forward to 8.5'. Both lenses would see FOV of 1.78x2.74' with the 100mm at 10' from subject or with the 85mm at 8.5' from subject...less than one 30" standard step.

Of course, when the distances get longer, the differential gets greater, and you would need to be the Jolly Green Giant to take only one step! The differential at 100' is 15'; at 1000' it is 150'

Of greater concern, though, is if you wanted to shoot a tight headshot, cropping in the camera. With the 100mm you could shoot at a comfortable yet close distance, whereas the 85mm might put you uncomfortably close for the same framing or for placement of lights. 5' vs 4' shooting distance.

@ 11 MP or more the lower resolving power of the 100mm becomes noticeable,. ie: the 85mm is better if you have the sensor to show the fact.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3325257
@ 11 MP or more the lower resolving power of the 100mm becomes noticeable,. ie: the 85mm is better if you have the sensor to show the fact.

I think that would be caused by specimen variation, not by this slight difference. Furthermore, if you reason this way, the 100 F/2 is better at larger apertures than the 85 F/1.8, because the 100 has better corner resolution up to F/4.

60 lines at 8 MP difference equate to less than 3 lines or 1.5 lp/mm. Apart from this being easily within sample variation, and certainly within measuring accuracy (what was it? 10%? 15%), you wouldn't even be able to see this difference at anything considered normal viewing distances, or 100 % even.

Good primes resolve between 250 and 400 lp/mm at F/4. 11 MP is not going to add the resolution you need to get to this number, and neither is the dynamic range of the sensor good enough to capture this type of resolution with the current state of technology. We're still sensor limited, not lens limited, regardless what people say out here or there, or wherever. It is only pixel peeping that makes lens aberrations more obvious, that's all.

Kind regards, Wim

Lostboy77 wrote in post #3322327
The only "real" quality difference between these two is the 85 shows some CA when shot wild open that the 100 does not exhibit. they both have identical construction except that the 85 has one extra element that allows for the wider focal length and it's this element that causes the added CA. The same problem would exist between the 135L and 200L except that the Ls have special glass that work to remove CA distortion. I have the 100/2 and find it to be an amazing lens. When I had a 1.6 crop camera I did find the length to be a little long but on the 5D it's a perfect portrait lens.

I know 85.8 definitely have a CA at wide open, but it gets better as you tighten it down.
2.2 and beyond the CA becomes really well controlled.

TheGreatDivorce wrote in post #3325050
What's an 85.8? Doesn't seem that hard to write, "f/1.8" ...

I'm sorry if it bugged you, but I like to keep it simple, so 85.8 it is.

Wilt wrote in post #3325185
Of greater concern, though, is if you wanted to shoot a tight headshot, cropping in the camera. With the 100mm you could shoot at a comfortable yet close distance, whereas the 85mm might put you uncomfortably close for the same framing or for placement of lights. 5' vs 4' shooting distance.

I agree.
I would definitely use 100mm(or 135mm) on a FF body as 85mm is indeed bit too close.
But on the APS-C body, 85mm is more ideal FL than 100mm IMHO.
At least for me.

wimg wrote in post #3325387
I think that would be caused by specimen variation, not by this slight difference. Furthermore, if you reason this way, the 100 F/2 is better at larger apertures than the 85 F/1.8, because the 100 has better corner resolution up to F/4.

60 lines at 8 MP difference equate to less than 3 lines or 1.5 lp/mm. Apart from this being easily within sample variation, and certainly within measuring accuracy (what was it? 10%? 15%), you wouldn't even be able to see this difference at anything considered normal viewing distances, or 100 % even.

Good primes resolve between 250 and 400 lp/mm at F/4. 11 MP is not going to add the resolution you need to get to this number, and neither is the dynamic range of the sensor good enough to capture this type of resolution with the current state of technology. We're still sensor limited, not lens limited, regardless what people say out here or there, or wherever. It is only pixel peeping that makes lens aberrations more obvious, that's all.

Kind regards, Wim

Even at f/2.8. The border resolution on both lenses are so very close.
The border resolution on the 85.8 appears to be lacking more than it actually is..
Because the center resolution of the 85.8 is spiking bit higher than 100.2's center resolution, while the border resolution is bit less.
But over all.. I would say they are just about identical.
And it will be really hard to tell the border resolution difference when you actually compare the pictures side by side. Especially if they were taken with APS-C sensor.