85 1.8 or 100L 2.8 macro

Just wondering which is the better one to get between the too I'm shooting with the t2i. Price doesn't matter I just want the best optics also have the 35L plus planning on getting the zeiss 50 1.4.

This is an open ended question of "Which lens is better?" Better for what purpose? If you're planning on doing macro then sure 100L is better. If you're planning on doing very shallow DOF portraits then I would go with 85mm f/1.8.

BTW, if price doesn't matter, there are better optics out there. Price always matters... sad but true.

They are close in FL but really very different. I upgraded to the L macro thinking I would sell the 85 but the 85 is much smaller and that 1 1/3 stop can really make a difference so I kept it. If you have any interest in macro the obvious choice is the 100. Both are optically excellent.

Mostly portraits and street photography tried the 135L but way to long for me

Not really interested in macro too much but I hear it's great for portraits plus with the four stop is really great

adorabledan76 wrote in post #11187838
Mostly portraits and street photography tried the 135L but way to long for me

I would go with 85mm f/1.8 in that case. 100L has slower focus and may miss shots for street photography. You won't find a huge difference between 135mm and 100mm in FL.

Are you on full frame?

I can't think of a reason to buy a macro lens if you don't do macro. If you want a fast, sharp 100mm lens there is also the 100mm f2.

I have both, I prefer the 100L over the 85 f1.8 for the following reasons
- 100L has better color
- you can shoot at 1/60 and still get a sharp shot because of IS. Even 1/40 for static objects. You will need >85 for the 1.8
- for the same amount of light, you can take the picture at lower ISO on the 100L vs the 1.8. Some may have rock steady hands holding the 85/1.8, but I don't

This is my own personal experiences on testing with the 2 lenses, your mileage may vary

Price doesn't matter? 85L:p. I haven't had any time with the 100L, but from what I've heard it's a fairly minor optical update of the 100mm macro, with the addition of "hybrid IS" I've owned both the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm macro, and prefer the versatility, optical quality, and even autofocus accuracy of the macro. It's an excellent lens in every regard, from sharpness and contrast to CA and flare/ghosting.

If you need low-light capabilities, I'd recommend you choose between the 85mm 1.8 and the (very similar) 100mm 2.0, whichever focal length you prefer. You'll save $500 compared to the 100L and have more flexibility in selective DOF and shutter speed. If you want a lens with macro capability as well, I think $450 is quite a premium to pay for IS. Others may disagree.

For about the same price as the 100 L, you could consider the Sigma 85mm f1.4 as well. I love the 100 L, but if you are shooting crop and no macro, I would go for an 85mm lens instead to compliment the 35 L. Not sure I would get a 50 at all since it is close to the 35 you already have.

no sigma for me I just sold my canon 50 1.4 I'm not sure still what to do thanks everyone for the advice, by the way I got to try out my new 35L and it's amazing

100L is a beautiful lens. So its the 85 1.8

Try both. Buy one.

I do not have the 100L but I think the 85mm lens on a crop camera is as long as you want to go. I love the results I get with my 85 1.8, it is a great portrait lens.

adorabledan76 wrote in post #11190624
no sigma for me I just sold my canon 50 1.4 I'm not sure still what to do thanks everyone for the advice, by the way I got to try out my new 35L and it's amazing

I have been on the fence about a 35L and I got to try one out today, very impressive lens I now see why many go all prime. The 35 is the first lens i shot with that I did not have to look at the data to see which photo was taken with what lens.