Canon 85 1.8 vs 100 2 - which do you prefer for portraits on FF?

eoren1

I'm moving up to the 5DIII (from a 50D) at some point in the near future and have settled on a 2 zoom/2 prime setup for now. 17-40 for landscape, 70-200/4 IS for portrait/landscape. Probably the 35/2 and trying to decide between the 85/1.8 and 100/2. Both cost around the same. Both get good/great reviews. Only nit I've heard about the 85 was the purple fringing.
Any thoughts on which is preferable? I'm not planning on the 100/2.8 macro or 135/2 by the way.

Andy

You said no, but if you can swing it, get the 135 f/2L. Bar none, it's one of the finest portrait lenses ever made.

eoren1

I finally talked myself into the 5DIII for twice the price of a 5DII and now you want me to get the 135 for twice the price of the 85/100
Even worse is that I'm seriously considering it. Divamum does swear it has magic pixie dust...

I do worry about 135 being a bit long but can play with my 70-200 and see what that focal length feels like when I get the 5D...

Sam

Just to throw in another thought. Do you think you might be able to use a macro lens? If so a 100mm 2.8 is a darn nice lens, and can be used for portraits.

Now as for portraits, as Andy said the 135L is magic, but for the price, the Canon 85 1.8 is very nice.

Remember one can never have too many lenses.

Sam

divamum

between the 85 and 100 I always preferred my 100. The focal length was better for me, although it was on a 1.6x so that doesn't apply here. What does apply between crop and FF, however, is that the 100 at f2 is sharper than the 85 at 1.8. I've had 2 copies fo the 1.8 and they've both been the same; the 100 definitely outperformed it wide open. Both lenses are good, don't get me wrong, but I did prefer the 100. I only sold it to buy the 135L which was absolutely the right choice (~nods~ the 135 IS made with Pixie Dust - just clap your hands and the fairies will appear! ) - but I still regret that it had to go!

eoren1

Thanks Sam
Not into macro. I do have extension tubes but have used them maybe twice in the past 3 years.
Only thing really holding me back from the 85 is concerns about lateral CA.

ziggy53

I'm another who can highly recommend the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. It's sharp wide open, and proceeds to amazing sharpness stopped down.

On a 5D MKII it yields some of the smoothest bokeh that I have seen. Easily one of Canon's best portraiture lenses for head shots and head-and-shoulder. If you have the room, it's also nice for full length too.

eoren1

Can anyone comment on the 85 and CA? Does the 100 not have this annoying habit?

Matthew Saville

I've shoot extensively with bot the 85 1.8 and the 100 f/2. I LOVE them both, and honestly neither of them has too serious of issues. Maybe CA and vignetting are the biggest problems, not sharpness that's for sure!

If you put a gun to me, I'd go with the 100 f/2. But you know what? Almost JUST because I hate to be mainstream. That, and the little extra reach is so much better for single headshots. 85mm is right there up next to the "forehead zone" (anything wider than 70mm) when it comes to professional headshots and such.

Honestly the best thing you can do is either rent, or try in the store, before you buy. See how the CA and vignetting are on the 100 f/2. I found them to be virtually a non-issue, unless you plan on photographing birds against a white sky, or against ten thousand twigs. But for the low-light candid photojournalism and general portraiture that I love to do, the 100 f/2 is great. Even though the 85 1.8 is probably just as great, or even more practical for general shooting.

=Matt=

divamum

IIRC they both do, although it is marginally less on the 100.

mrcoons

I agree with Matt and Divamum, I love my 100 f/2 and use it more than my 85. But Matt is right, rent them and see which is right for you before you buy.

ThatCanonGuy

You probably have enough gear for a CPS Gold membership. For $100 per year, you can try all these lenses for free. I borrowed an 85 1.8 for a couple of weeks and loved it. It's great on FF. I really like 85mm for general shooting. I think it depends on what you shoot. Did you have a 50 on your crop camera? That would be about 80mm on FF, so pretty close to 85. The 85mm 1.8 does have some CA though.

I think if you can use the focal length, the best choice would be the 135L. The 100 macro is also really good, but it's only 2.8.

Off topic, but the 24mm 2.8 is AMAZING on FF for the price. It's sharp as a tack. I use that for landscapes when I'm using FF.

pathfinder

eoren1 wrote: »

Can anyone comment on the 85 and CA? Does the 100 not have this annoying habit?

I don't recall significant CA with my 85 f1.8. It is not a good lens for shooting IR however as it will bloom IR.

But then CA is easily removed with the lens profiles in Lightroom 3 or 4, or Adobe Camera Raw.

I prefer the 85 due to its shorter lens barrel, lighter weight, and smaller size. A great piece of glass for the price. And I own the 135 f2 L and love it also.

Unless CA is really bad, it is quite easy to remove in Raw rendering these days, and if one looks carefully, you will find some CA even in excellent L lenses. I have some cheaper Tamron lenses that do not demonstrate much at all too. Go figure.

Modest amounts of CA are pretty much a non-issue these days.

eoren1

Thanks CanonGuy - that's my new plan! I'm already a Gold member and was thinking of getting the 85 and 135 to try out but may get the 100 and see if that's a happy medium between the two.

I did/do have a 50 that I don't use much anymore - was mostly shooting portraits with the 17-55/2.8 at 55/2.8 or the 70-200/4.

nak

Try the 135 before you buy any of them
I shoot the 135mm f/2L on a 5d2 and simply love it. Rent it and see for yourself. People will ask you how you got that shot. You'll want to see if it works for *your* style of portraiture (or if it leads you to a style of portraiture you like better than what you do now). It's too pricey to buy on speculation but it's too good not to try out.

bloomphotog

Andy wrote: »

You said no, but if you can swing it, get the 135 f/2L. Bar none, it's one of the finest portrait lenses ever made.

A great choice, unless of course the 85 1.2 is in the room.

nak

bloomphotog wrote: »

A great choice, unless of course the 85 1.2 is in the room.

I'd love to hear from people who have shot both the 135mm f/2L and the 85mm f/1.2L (as would the O.P. I suspect). Sorry for the mini thread hijack.

jmphotocraft

Back on topic?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=118&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

eoren1

Thanks everyone. Yah, that 85/1.2 is not anywhere near the table... Bad enough that Andy brought in the 135/2.
Gonna let this decision go for a while as it now appears I'll be waiting a few weeks at least for the 5Diii. Will report back after I play with the lenses