85mm 1.8 vs 100mm 2

[charles_lipton]

I am in a quandry...I have the 100mm 2. I really like the quality of the lens and the pics...I have been told by many "photographers" that I should have bought the 85mm...It is a slightly better lens and cheaper....Photodo rates them both almost identically. Photographyreview rates them almost identically...Is there any real difference between the two lenses other than the 15mm focal length???

[joe_cap1]

photodo is correct, the images between the lenses are

indistinguishable, all it comes down to is what subject you shoot

most.

the actual focal length of the 85mm is 81mm a bit too short for

anything except a full torso portrait or a small group shot. the 100mm

has an actual focal length of 99mm (18mm more than the 85)which gives

you more distance and an ideal head and shoulders portrait. by the

way, im sure you have noticed by now that the 100 2.0 has an internal

dust problem, shame on you canon.

[puppy_face2]

Yeah, the EF85 1.8 USM has a half stop more light gathering power.

 

<p>

 

I use this lens for upper body portraits and the optical quality and bokeh are

wonderful. It's also slightly easier to use in tight spaces than a 100mm.

However, the choice is a matter of personal preference and style, not that one

is better than the other. The EF100 2.0 USM is a great lens and if you're happy,

why change? The difference between them is subtle. If I need a real change, I

switch to my EF135 2.8 SF (it's a great lens too).

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

I also have the 100/2 and have been told I should have bought the

85/1.8. I dissagree. I like what I have - the focal length is just

what I wanted, and results have been consistantly excellent. Every

85/1.8 user I've heard from has been equally pleased with their

purchase. People like to like what they buy, and that's easy to do

with most EF lenses. Have the other "photographers" said why you

should have bought the 85? I would suspect to validate their own

preferences. Your preference seems to be working well for you -

press on.

[lee_shively]

I've not owned either lens but I have owned an 85/1.8 Nikkor when I

shot Nikons. At the time, the 85 was the only choice for speed (the

105 Nikkor was an f/2.5 lens). I would have preferred a longer lens

of the same approximate speed. The difference between f/1.8 and f/2

is minimal. I would go for the longer lens.

[peter_hughes1]

<center><br>

<img src="http://www.ravenvision.com/images/lianaschoolxing.jpg"><br>

</center><p><i>Liana [school Xing]</i><p>The 85mm and 135mm lengths

work very well together. And Canon makes the best 135mm in the

world.<p>If you can afford it, try the 85mm f/1.2L.

[thomas4]

I certainly hope the model for this snapshot(yes this is without

artistic quality) is over 18.

[jeff_nakayama]

which lens was that shot with again?

[manuel_lohninger]

"I certainly hope the model for this snapshot(yes this is without

artistic quality) is over 18."

 

<p>

 

oh, gosh! otherwise you'd be looking at an UNDERAGE girl's PANTIES!!!

[job_jeoba]

Panties! o_O

 

<p>

 

 

Get the 85.

 

<p>

 

'Nuff said.

[terry_glass]

Does anyone know if the 85mm 1.8 is "much" sharper at say f8 than the

28-105 lens set for 85mm at f8?..in say a BxW 100ASA film/8x10 size

print.