Canon EF 85mm or 100mm

[robbeiflex]

Hello All,
I have a Canon 7D (1.6x crop) with a 24-70 f4 IS as my only lens for it. I am looking for a budget tele for low light / indoors action, and the Canon 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 both seem like reasonable options. I also have an EOS 5 that I could use the lens on for an occasional roll of 35mm film (e.g. Portraits). Price and popularity / availability would seem to indicate that the 85mm would be the way to go. Before I decide, I'm looking for input on whether the 100mm is worth the extra few bucks and wait time, since I still have a gut feeling that I would prefer a bigger difference between the mid-range zoom and the tele. Please let me know your thoughts on this if you use either or both lens for a similar purpose.

Disclaimer: I'm asking here because a) I don't like the attitude such questions get on the digital forums, and b) I think my fellow members here better understand how and why I use film and my Leicas for low light up to 50mm.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[BlackXList]

I cant directly answer, but I can say that I use the 85 a lot (on 5d mkIII and film) and it's a fantastic lens. I really can't see anyone who bought it being dissapointed by it at all.

Everybody's favourite blogger Mr Rockwell suggests that there isn't a whole lot to choose between the 85mm and the 100mm optically, so it seems they're both really nice.

That for me would say that they're both good, go for whichever focal length you feel you have more use for.

 

[filmtwit]

I'd go with the 100mm L2.8 Macro v1, which can be found used for around $400 these days. It's actually great for head shots and of course 1 to 1 macro work.

 

[taemo]

on a crop those 2 lens will be 135mm vs 160mm 35mm equiv.

both focus fairly quickly so they will be great in low light situations.
the 85 1.8 suffers alot of CA in high contrast, the 100mm f/2 is considered to be the cheaper version of the 135L but you might find it too long most of the time on a crop.

personally i recommend the 85mm, it's easier to zoom walk in/crop in than other way around, plus it's easier to re-sell than the 100mm if you decide that it's not for you
i thought about getting a 100mm when I sold my 135L but they are a little harder to find used than the 85mm

 

[mfunnell]

Me, I'd go with either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.8 macro (I have both, but haven't had the 85 for long). The 100 I bought for macro work but it is quite good as a general usage lens as well, if a little long for some things on a crop body. I think the 85 is a more useful length on crop (135 equiv) or on FF (I plan on using it for both).

...Mike

 

[Dave Jenkins]

I've owned both. I don't currently own either, but if I were to get another lens in that range, it would be the 100mm f2. In fact, I'm actively shopping the POTN and RFF classifieds for one.

 

[ssmc]

I had the 85/1.8 on a 350D for a while and it was a very nice combination. CA and other defects really were not a problem, at least on that body/sensor. I was surprised that I took to the ~135mm EFOV so quickly (not being a FL I was used to). Here are a couple of shots I took with that lens:

The full-size versions are worth a look: http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/87747568/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/87747639/original.jpg

I have read (and seen test charts to back it up) that the 100/2 is somewhat better optically, but I don't have any personal experiece with that lens. However if you plan to move to a FF camera at some stage the 100mm might be worth a look as the corners (cropped off on APS-C) seem to be where most of the improvement lies.

HTH,
Scott

 

[Addy101]

I never heard anybody refer to the 100/2 as "a cheaper version of the 135L" 😱
The 135L has several UD elements, while the 100/2 doesn't.

If you look at the block diagrams of the 100/2 and 85/1.8 it seems theses are related lenses. The 100/2 isn't a popular lens, why, nobody seems to know. However, it means that it is slightly more expensive and that is why I got the 85/1.8. Looking at reviews, there seems little difference between the two, choose on the focallength you prefer.

Without pictures it didn't happen, so here is one with the 85/1.8:

Canon 1Ds | Canon 85/1.8 | f/2 | 1/2000s | 100iso

 

[Thardy]

Here's a review of the 85 1.5.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_85mm_f18_review.html

 

[ath]

I guess it depends on how much tele you want on the 7D. I have the 100/2 and while it's fine for me for portraits or stage on film and FF I find it's too long on the 7D, esp. indoors.

Have you thought about a 50mm?

 

[robbeiflex]

Thanks for your views everyone. This largely confirms to me that the 85mm is the way to go. I thought about a 50mm but I'm looking for more reach and less overlap with my Leica kit. I may still pick up a 50/1.8 one day if I ever go on a trip where it would makes sense to leave the Leica at home and take both Canons. but the 85mm as dual purpose 85 and 135 makes sense to me as I've used these FLs to great effect when I had them in an OM kit.

The EOS 5 with a nifty-fifty would be a hilarious plastic fantastic wonder. I couldn't think of a camera that is further from the solid, heavy, mechanical form factor and manual focus of my Leica M6, and yet I'm sure the photos from that kit would be great.

Cheers,
Rob