anesh Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Apart from the slightly wider apperture and small difference in price why is the 85mm f/1.8 more popular than 100mm f/2.0? To me logic suggests that the 100mm would be better value. I have the 50mm f1.8 and just ordered a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and am yearning for a little reach.. at speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedding-photography-denver Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 135/2 is the next logical step from the 85/1.8 in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vernon98034 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 <p>Do you refer to this <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100_2/index.htm">article</a>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timcorridan Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 with film, i would think that 85mm means you'll be the perfect distance away from someone to take a head/ shoulder or half length shot. close enough to talk to someone, far enough away to give em some space. how a digital user w/ 1.6 crop factor feel about it, i don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karenco Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 The 100 is slower focusing and heavier. The 85 is lighter, focuses really fast, and is a smaller lens. And, yes, when you often shoot wide open, the difference in aperture makes a differece. Karen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anesh Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 Vernon, your link seems to suggest that the 100mm is a better lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Because if people are going to get a 100mm lens they would probably just get the f2.8 macro instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I think Mike's point is the real reasoning. IMO, the 100/2.8 Macro is an invaluable tool once you get your hands on one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I think the 85 is more popular because it's cheaper. Optically, the 100 is marginally the better lens - in particular its better CA performance. I don't think the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is very significant - 1/3rd stop, or maybe 1/2 stop if you look at it from the point of view of hand holdable shutter speed. In terms of DoF, if you shoot the 100 at f/2 from 1.7m you get 25.6mm on a field of view of 38x58cm using a 25 micron CoC, whereas with the 85 at f/1.8 from 1.5m you get 24.9mm on a 40x60cm FoV - an insignificant difference. Of course, if you own a 100mm macro it seems odd to duplicate the focal length - but then again you could choose the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or Sigma 150mm f/2.8 as your macro lens instead. Of course, if you use a 1.6 crop camera then 85mm is more useable than 100mm - giving 136mm equivalent FoV (a classic portrait choice) compared with 160mm which can seem a little long. The minute difference in focus speed is really only of any potential importance to a sports photographer rather than a wedding photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacy Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I have both but reach for the 85 much more often- but I can't really say why?? So I'm no help :) Once we left the 100 mm sitting outside on the church steps- a church that was about a 3 hour drive away- and the church people found it and mailed it to us- so for that reason alone I should use it more- it's lucky :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 There are tests online that seem to indicate the 85 is a lot sharper wide open than the 100 (assuming the 100 wasn't a bad sample --- the advantage disappeared stopped down a bit). But I think the reason is simply people end up with the 100 f/2.8 macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anesh Posted March 19, 2006 Author Share Posted March 19, 2006 How useful is the f/2.8 macro for weddings (portraits, bokeh etc)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdonny Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I used to have 100/2 and liked it very much. But that was a while ago. To me (and I believe, also to some people), 100/2 was a compromise between 85/1/8 and 135/2. Now that I can afford both 85/1.8 and 135/2, I sold my 100/2. Nothing wrong with this lens, it's just a matter of focal length preference. Based on experience, I disagree when someone said that 100/2 is slower in focusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmichaelc Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Anesh, I think the proper logic would really depend on which body your using. For the 1DMII, this lens would become 130/2. 5D - 100/2, 20D - 160/2. I came upon this lens by chance about 2 years ago when i evenly traded the 28-135 i had. Best trade i ever made i can can say that the 100 is just slightly larger than the 50, but not much at all. The autofocus speed of the 100 absolutly smokes that of the 50. Another fact - this lens (if you have a good copy) is extremly sharp wide open. It's sharper at 2.0 than my Tamron 28-38 @ 2.8 and by FAR better than the 50 @ 1.4. After using this lens, i've never once had a desire to even consider the 85 1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmichaelc Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 That's suppose to be Tamron 28-75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now