Jump to content

Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.8 Macro


Eric Hopp

Recommended Posts

Hello: I would like to upgrade to a Canon prime telephoto lens. I'm shooting with a couple Canon 40D cameras, with my lens collection being a Canon 10-18mm, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, a 70-210mm F3.5-4.5, a 24mm STM pancake lens, and a 50mm 1.8 STM lens. My style of shooting is a run-and-gun, photojournalism style, but I also like to take pictures of flowers. I shoot mainly hand-held, and rarely use a tripod.

 

I would like to get a Canon prime telephoto, to complement my 24mm pancake and 50mm lenses. I am looking at both the Canon 85mm f1.8, and the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lenses. Both are the non-L lenses. As much as I like the quality of the Canon L lenses, they are just priced beyond my budget.

 

The problem I have is that I can see advantages and disadvantages between both the 85mm and 100mm macro. I love the compactness of the 85mm lens, and its fast speed of f1.8, over that of the 100mm macro's f2.8. I can see the 85mm lens would be great for lower-level light shooting, especially as I'm hand holding the camera. However, the 85mm lens has no macro capabilities. That is the big advantage of the 100mm macro, as I also enjoy shooting flowers.

 

Finally, I would say that I'm sort of 50 percent shooting general purpose photography, and 50 percent shooting flowers. It will depend on where I will be going to shoot. Weather-wise, we are approaching spring time, which the flowers will be starting to bloom--perfect for a 100mm macro lens. Or I can get some good, hand-held sunset pics with the 85mm lens. Which should I purchase first? Or should I just break the bank, and purchase both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are classics, but each in their own field. The 85mm is a classic "gift to the faithful" lens for a very reasonable price. Probably strongest for portrait or street shooting.

 

The 100 is slower, first of all, and is a fine macro lens. If you want that capability, however, you may want to compare the excellent, but less expensive, Tamron 90mm (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/858-tamron90f28vceosff).

 

Older, non-VC versions of the Tamron are available for very reasonable prices on eBay (make sure you get the right mount, of course).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . The problem I have is that I can see advantages and disadvantages between both the 85mm and 100mm macro. I love the compactness of the 85mm lens, and its fast speed of f1.8, over that of the 100mm macro's f2.8. I can see the 85mm lens would be great for lower-level light shooting, especially as I'm hand holding the camera. However, the 85mm lens has no macro capabilities. That is the big advantage of the 100mm macro, as I also enjoy shooting flowers. . .
<br><br>

 

I have both lenses.<br><br>

 

How small/big are these 'flowers' ? You do not mention that you want macro capabilities for tiny bugs and the like.<br><br>

 

With an 85mm lens on a APS-C camera you can focus close enough to get a FoV about 180mm (7") on the long side; a 40D should allow for a 25%~30% crop in post production if you have good light and use a respectable ISO.<br><br>

 

Also with a 12mm Extension Tube on the 85/1.8 and an APC-C camera, you can get to about 90mm (3.5") FoV on the long side.<br><br>

 

I use the 85/1.8 at F/1.8, and that is one of its virtues - that one can the lens wide open, from the uses that you have stated and it appears that you will use F/1.8 - if I had to choose between the two lenses I would buy the 85/1.8, and perhaps a 12mm Extension Tube.<br><br>

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are classics, but each in their own field. The 85mm is a classic "gift to the faithful" lens for a very reasonable price. Probably strongest for portrait or street shooting.

 

The 100 is slower, first of all, and is a fine macro lens. If you want that capability, however, you may want to compare the excellent, but less expensive, Tamron 90mm (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/858-tamron90f28vceosff).

 

Older, non-VC versions of the Tamron are available for very reasonable prices on eBay (make sure you get the right mount, of course).

 

Hi and thank you JDMvW: That is sort of the argument that I'm seeing with both lenses. Both will excel with their individual characteristics--the 85mm with low-light shooting, and the 100mm for macro capabilities. I will have to look into the Tamron 90mm lens for specifics and reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br><br>

 

I have both lenses.<br><br>

 

How small/big are these 'flowers' ? You do not mention that you want macro capabilities for tiny bugs and the like.<br><br>

 

With an 85mm lens on a APS-C camera you can focus close enough to get a FoV about 180mm (7") on the long side; a 40D should allow for a 25%~30% crop in post production if you have good light and use a respectable ISO.<br><br>

 

Also with a 12mm Extension Tube on the 85/1.8 and an APC-C camera, you can get to about 90mm (3.5") FoV on the long side.<br><br>

 

I use the 85/1.8 at F/1.8, and that is one of its virtues - that one can the lens wide open, from the uses that you have stated and it appears that you will use F/1.8 - if I had to choose between the two lenses I would buy the 85/1.8, and perhaps a 12mm Extension Tube.<br><br>

 

WW

Hi William: Interesting perspective on the 12mm extension tube for the 85mm lens. I'm always shooting roses, and geraniums in my garden. I can always try out the very small flowers with tiny bugs in them, and see what I can get. I'm open to all kinds of flowers. I have never used extension tubes before. I'll certainly research the extension tubes for macro photography. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Tamron 90 f2.8 user and it's an excellent 1:1 macro and it works quite well with a set of $15.00 AF extension tubes which gets you closer to your subject. It has the added benefit of being a portrait lens. On the 40D you'd have a field of view of 144mm's for your portraits so you'll have to stand back a little and not get to close to your subject. For me I use a 70D and a 50 f1.8 STM which works great for portraits and gives you a FOV of 80mm's which is where most full frame portrait lenses start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi William: Interesting perspective on the 12mm extension tube for the 85mm lens. I'm always shooting roses, and geraniums in my garden. I can always try out the very small flowers with tiny bugs in them, and see what I can get. I'm open to all kinds of flowers. I have never used extension tubes before. I'll certainly research the extension tubes for macro photography. Thank you.
<br><br>

 

Taking the other side to what I previously stated - <br><br>

 

If you want to use a macro lens for smaller flowers and even smaller bugs, then the question I would then ask you is: "how 'low light' is your typical low light shooting?" <br><br>

 

You already have F/1.8 at 50mm. You can apply the same idea of cropping about 25% in Post Production to get in a bit tighter to achieve a reasonable facsimile of the framing of an 85mm lens - and - if you're not in really low light and need the extra reach of 100mm then the 40D will perform at ISO1600 and F/2.8 is not all that slow.<br><br>

 

Mind though, if you are trying to get tight framing of smaller flowers and bugs - I think that Hand Holding might be your biggest challenge - if you do not like the idea of a Tripod - then a Monopod will be a good friend to you.<br><br>

 

If it does come down to choosing between the two lenses, I think it will not be as difficult as you first envisaged - just quantify (approximately) how much of a 'close up' image you really need - that will be based upon the typical size of the macro object - in this case 'flowers' - if you think you'll be usually shooting flowers as big as (average sized) roses - then an 85mm lens and a bit of cropping in post will do that - or an 85 and a 12mm extension tube will get you really close . . .<br><br>

 

On the other hand if you think that this idea of Macro is something you want to explore, then a Macro Lens is really the answer to allow exploration, but you probably will have to adapt your shooting style and use at least a monopod to allow you the chance to have some degree of critical focusing for small stuff.<br><br>

 

In the end you might get both lenses - for clarity I based my initial advice to get the 85/1.8 on my interpretation that you just wanted to shoot reasonably sized flowers, outside good daylight as you walk around. If you deep down feel that you want to get into macro as a genre - then a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. <br><br>

 

Choices sometimes seem perplexing - when in doubt, go with your first gut instinct. Both lenses are excellent. <br><br>

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...