85 1.8 vs 100 2.0 vs 100 2.8 macro.

I need a lens to take indoor sports pictures (basketball). The 85mm 1.8 gets good reviews but before I pull the trigger I don't want to rule out the 100 2.0 and 100 2.8 macro. How do these 3 lens stack up. I know the 2.8 has macro capabilities as an added bonus. I currently have a Sigma 105 macro but it's slow focus speed is not suitable for basketball so I could sell it if I choose the Canon 100 2.8 to recoup some of the cost. Thanks.

Macro lenses will be a little slower in general anyway so that may rule out the 100 f/2.8!

The 85/1.8 and 100/2 perform similarly. Pick the focal length you like better.

The 100/2.8 is a macro, so its AF is not as fast or as accurate in poor light as the other two, and at f/2.8, you might as well buy a zoom.

I've had (will be getting the 100mm 2.8 today) all 3 sold the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 to get the macro because I think it will be more versatile than the other two. Both the 85 and 100 were incredibly sharp and great lenses, but I found I didn't go to them very often since I was shooting on a crop frame and they were too long for most indoor shots and for reach I have a 200mm 2.8. I decided on getting the 100mm 2.8 macro because it would give me a really great portrait/macro lens. I don't see anyone having a problem with using it as a sports lens either.

I have the 100mm 2.8L IS. With the hybrid image stabilised system you can held hold this baby for a lot less shutter speed. I know with indoor sports you may need a faster speed so this may not necessarily apply unless you have the ISO to crank up.

It focuses blindingly fast (as fast as the 135mm 2L which I once owned) and doubles as a portrait and macro. All in all a great lens to have.

IMO its all depends on how much light in the gym. I have both 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro and I would
discard macro lens although its accurate, it might not focus fast enough to players moving around.
My old High school had terrible light so 1.8 on 85mm helped bit more than 2.0 on 100 so I chose 85mm.
Also, 85 and 100 are really close that few stepping front/back would make it same fov so its all depends
on if u need 1.8 or 2.0 to maintain speed. However, 85mm is bit more prone to purple fringe.

I just bought the 85mm for my 7D and it is a little long for a crop body but I didn't have many other choices for an affordable indoor sports lens. It takes very sharp pictures and focuses quickly though so I'm working on adjusting my positioning to compensate for the focal length. I don't know about the 100 but the 85 can definitely have a fair amount of purple fringing at large apertures. For $380 though I'm very happy with it.

Forget the macro for sports. You need speed indoors. Have you tried your Sigma for basketball? If that 100-105mm range is perfect, then get the 100mm 2.0. If its too long, then the 85mm is the answer. Per Photozone, they do indicate the 100mm 2.0 has less CA than the 85mm 1.8, but most important is getting the correct focal length.

I have both the 85 and the 100 macro and I've used both for dancers on stage with stage lighting. The macro was to slow focusing. I much prefer the 85 when light is low and you need fast focusing. Never used the 100 2.0

I've tried using the 100 2.8 IS macro for indoor action shots and it didn't achieve focus fast enough for me.

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote in post #9707843
I've tried using the 100 2.8 IS macro for indoor action shots and it didn't achieve focus fast enough for me.

Did you try to pre set the focusing from 0.5m to infinity? You'd be surprised on how fast it focuses. It is as fast as my once had 135mm f2 and that's saying a lot.