First, the 100/2 and the 100/2.8 Macro are different lenses. The 100/2 is a non-macro "fast short telephoto." So, comparing the 85/1.8 and the 100/2.8 Macro for non-macro use:
- Both are exceptional performers, optically
- There will not be a dramatic DoF difference between the two, but the 85/1.8 is capable of slightly narrower DoF given the f/1.8 aperture
- The 85/1.8 will be somewhat faster to focus (macro lenses have a long focos travel, so are slower)
- The 100/2.8 macro will have a very flat field, with extremely low distortion. For non-macro work, the difference between it and the 85/1.8 in this department will not be noticeable.
- The 100/2.8 has a newer IS version that ups the ante in image quality and provides IS to boot... at a cost.
this, there is nothing like the 135 at f2. nothing.
that said the 85/1.8 is a stellar piece of glass for how little it costs. i own the 85 and 135, the 135 wins hands down, but it should but the 85 is my indoor lens of choice and its razor sharp.
if you are considering macro, the 85 will not do macro and wont even focus within a few feet.
I was previously swaying towards the 85mm 1.8 thinking it would be like my nifty fifty but longer. I love my nifty fifty (50MM 1.8) and it doesn't have IS which has never been an issue.
However it seems like the 100mm f/2.8 could be nearly as good as the 85mm 1.8 but offer me a very nice macro lens too. I assume the 85mm doesn't offer macro capabilities or it would be called 85mm 1.8 macro.
My technical knowledge is a bit pants - what makes the 100mm 2.8 a macro that the 85mm doesn't have?
this, there is nothing like the 135 at f2. nothing.
that said the 85/1.8 is a stellar piece of glass for how little it costs. i own the 85 and 135, the 135 wins hands down, but it should but the 85 is my indoor lens of choice and its razor sharp.
if you are considering macro, the 85 will not do macro and wont even focus within a few feet.
Thanks Mike. I read a lot of reviews saying how good this 85/1.8 is - how come the 100mm 2.8 is not rated so high for non macro? Apols if that is a dumb question or if this has already been explained.
I had the 85mm 1.8 and was a great lens beautiful for the money, I don't use mine anymore though as I got the 85 L 1.2 :) ohh that is a lense
I wasn't impressed with the 135/2 I compared it with my 70-200 2.8 and there wasn't £700 difference for me, there is a thread by me with side by side images.
There is also a thread where I compare the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm and even the 100mm L should be able to find it.
Get the 85mm though for £320 new it's a great lens or if you can I paid £1500 for my 85L mk2 you'll be blown away
I had the 85mm 1.8 and was a great lens beautiful for the money, I don't use mine anymore though as I got the 85 L 1.2 :) ohh that is a lense
I wasn't impressed with the 135/2 I compared it with my 70-200 2.8 and there wasn't £700 difference for me, there is a thread by me with side by side images.
There is also a thread where I compare the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm and even the 100mm L should be able to find it.
Get the 85mm though for £320 new it's a great lens or if you can I paid £1500 for my 85L mk2 you'll be blown away
Ha, Giles looks like you have every lens under the sun - your bag must be very heavy.
Note I plan to use this lens on a 50D just in case this changes your opinion.
I have currently in my bag the Canon 10-22, Canon 17-85 and the 50mm 1.8. The 50mm is used for the majority of my photos. (I like it a lot!)
on a crop body the 135 would be really tight. the 85 will behave more like a 35mm equiv of the 135 and the 50 is about an 85mm equiv.
if you use a 50mm most often maybe you should upgrade that to the 50/1.4, which is really good, sharp and cheap. the bokeh is night and day over the 1.8 and the AF is much better too.
on a crop body the 135 would be really tight. the 85 will behave more like a 35mm equiv of the 135 and the 50 is about an 85mm equiv.
if you use a 50mm most often maybe you should upgrade that to the 50/1.4, which is really good, sharp and cheap. the bokeh is night and day over the 1.8 and the AF is much better too.
Thanks Mike. I did consider the 50/1.4 but there seems to be mixed views on whether it is worth the upgrade cost. I am not concerned about the 50/1.8 being plastic but if the 50/1.4 takes noticeably better pictures I would definitely consider it. I like the idea of a longer reach prime but perhaps the 85mm would be too long on a crop. I have been using my 17-85 in the last few days set to 85mm to try and get an idea and I think it could be a nice addition but not sure it is worthy of taking up the last empty slot in the camera bag. Perhaps I should just ditch the 17-85mm and get the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens.
for one, the 50/1.4 is way better for the price, since its so cheap too, simply for the AF and bokeh alone.
here is the 1.4
compared to the 1.8
i love the 135 length outdoors and if you shoot portraits i'd steer you in the direction of longer than 50 since you can stop down and still get the compressed background for separation. right now i only shoot with an 85 and a 135. i have a 40mm but its very rare i use it.
Thanks Mike - those shots look fabulous and the 50/1.4 is clearly a very nice lens. As I don't buy lenses very often, I feel I would not be treating myself to something new so I am swaying towards the 85mm 1.8. I am sure it will come in handy for the shy cows and sheep.
Ah yes Mike that looks nice too and not too pricey. Most of my subjects are stationary so don't think I need it too fast. I do like to have a nice DOF though. I don't really shoot anything in particular and just tend to shoot anything that looks interesting and anything that matches a challenge brief. I just feel like adding a new lens to my kit
So the choices are now:) Note my camera bag is pretty heavy already and I like to carry all my lenses with me at all times.
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon 70-200/4L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon 50mm 1.4
from everything you said, I think the 85mm f/1.8 lens is probably the best choice.
Thanks Cory, Mike, Kirbic and Giles.
I think my decision is made now on the 85mm f/1.8 though it was a difficult decision. Guess you can always sell lenses if you don't like them and get something different:)
I also have an 85 f1.8, an older manual focus Nikon lens that I greatly enjoy for portraits and shooting sports at night or for any low light and fast action application where a short tele is the right focal length.
You can fudge on camera stability with "I S" or "V R", but it does not stop the action of anything moving across the frame, so the larger aperture makes a big difference by allowing much faster shutter speeds in lower light.
If you get the 85, you can use an extension tube set, or a close up filter set and able to shoot macro with it. Either way is very effective and not too expensive.
The drawback to them is that you can't focus to infinity when using them, which is not a problem in most macro shooting situations.
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon 70-200/4L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon 50mm 1.4
you are all over the place with those options.. all doing specific things well in their own right. you need to figure out what you want to use it for instead of just buying something because you want to.
Ha yes Mike you are spot on. I would definitely like a longer prime so the 85mm is the one for me this time. I would also in time like to replace the 17-85mm as I don't think it really recovered after its 2 nights in a field. And a bit more zoom would be nice too. I don't think I would enjoy the macro photography enough to get a lens just for that. Anyway on this occasion I have opted for the 85mm and I am sure it will be excellent from what everyone says.
