Which should I keep? Canon 85mm 1.8 or Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro

[craigh_bennett]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I shoot reportage wedding photography and I have just purchased a Canon 85mm 1.8. But just after I bought this I found a really fantastic deal on the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS Macro and ended up buying this too.<br /><br />I currently have 2 5D mk2's.. a 24-70mm 2.8 mk1... a 50mm 1.2.<br /><br />The problem I have now is I don't know whether to keep both the new lenses I bought or get rid of one of them? The thing is they look similar quality... one is IS and the other has the 1.8... and to be honest I thought there would be a bigger difference in noticing the focal length but the 100mm is only a fraction closer in.<br /><br />I would appreciate any advice as I really don't know what to do.<br /><br />Cheers guys</p>

<p>Craigh</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I'm just going to point to the obvious (not much of an advise)....the 100mm give you two functions, while the 85 only one. Good luck deciding.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>Well if you found a really fantastic deal on the 100mm then keep it and get rid of the regular priced 85mm and wait till you get more money to buy it back again. Its only a matter of time before you buy all the focal length lenses anyways. So take advantage of good deals when you can.</p>

[savagesax]

Here's a bit of a twist to your question. If you really like the 85mm the most buy a set of extensions. They

come in a set of 3 I think. This will solve your problems with doing close up work. If you do a lot of close up

work and you don't make huge enlargements such as a 24X30 and larger, The 100 should meet your needs,

plus you are getting a good deal. I have both lenses if this helps. For weddings the 85mm stays at studio.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>try them and decide</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The <em><strong>problem</strong></em> I have now is<strong><em> I don't know whether to keep both the new lenses I bought or get rid of one of them</em></strong>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not a "problem".<br /> What I mean is, unless you cannot afford the purchases that you have made: then you don't have “a problem”.<br /> Keep both lenses and use both lenses.<br /> If you find that one is superfluous to needs - then sell it.<br /> You won't lose much money and you will have gained an hell of a lot of experience: even if you had paid full price, for both lenses.<br /> Experience is valuable.</p>

<p>(I think that is what Ian wrote in four words.)</p>

<p>WW</p>

[craigh_bennett]

<p>Thanks for the replies guys.<br>

I can afford both but the reason I wanted the 85mm was to give me that bit of extra reach during speeches etc... and then I got the 100mm thinking maybe it would give me that bit more but really it only gives me a tiny bit more zoom. I don't do any close ups so I wouldn't really use the macro side. I'm now thinking whether I should get rid of the 100mm and get the Canon 135L instead and that would be far more noticable difference in focal length?<br /><br />I suppose when it comes down to it... I have to think to myself if the lenses are near enough the same focal length then why keep both as one will never be used.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the expansion of your rationale.</p>

<p>My opinion is simple on this new question as I bought Canon's 85/1.8 and 135/2 when I cut over to a Canon DSLR System as I <strong><em>knew</em></strong> that I wanted an 85 and 135 Prime as I had for a long time used both those Primes. For me, yes there is a substantial difference in FL between 85 and 135 and not so much between 85 and 100, moreover, the difference in Shooting Distance using an 85 to using a 135, makes a marked impact in Perspective, for most Portraiture shots.</p>

<p>I did consider the EF100/2 (instead of the 85/1.8) but 100 is too far from 50, in my opinion and later I bought the 100/2.8 (mainly as for use as a Macro lens) - but the staple “wedding and social events primes”, remained: 35 / 50 / 85 /135 in my kit. The 35 and the 85 being used the most often.</p>

<p>The comparative mm difference in Focal Length of lenses is (usually) more significant to most Photographers as one gets closer to the wider end - what I mean is from a 35 lens to a 50 lens is only 25mm, but that difference is as significant (or more significant) as a 50 Lens to an 85 Lens, which is 35mm difference. I expect that's why you didn't notice much from 85 to 100, but I think that you will notice a lot from 85 to 135.</p>

<p>Also the 135/2 can be used (incredibly well) with the x1.4 Extender EF (providing an equivalent 189/2.8, personally I have found this very handy): http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=978596 </p>

<p>The 135/2 is thought of very highly as one of the best lenses in the EF range I like this lens very much: <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936</a></p>

<p>Another consideration is any loss that you might incur from selling or returning the 100/2.8L: but you might reside in an area where retailers allow return of goods simply because the purchaser has a change of mind, in which case you are fortunate to have that option.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[mario_gaco]

I'd recommend that you take a look at the difference between 85 and 135 mm first before buying the 135L. Have you considered buying a 70-200?

[craigh_bennett]

<p>I am definately starting to lean towards to 135mm after what you have said William. Like you said the staple lenses in wedding photography seem to be the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm and to be honest I may need that extrea reach sometimes for when im at the back of church.<br /><br />But I may consider buying the 70-200mm when I have all the lenses I need Mario but to use that all day long is gonna kill my back :) I used to have that lens and I did struggle with it a bit because of the size and weight.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>WW's experiences mirror my own when I shot Canon, except my staple was the 24-70/2.8, plus the faster primes when shooting a wedding. </p>

<p>I also had the 100/2.8 Macro, but it saw less use than the 85 focal length at weddings. Macros tend to be slower AF because of the long focus throw necessary for precise macro work.</p>

<p>Canon makes some of the best single and double achromatic corrected element close-up filters on the market, and they retain the lens' maximum aperture. They come in 52mm, 58mm, 72mm and 77mm. Slips into a pocket in the bag, and mounts in seconds. Worth a look for the occasional ring shot and other detail shots.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=158&N=4026728331+4291570227</p>

<p>I also experimented with a 70-200/2.8, but it tended to be used at either 70mm, 135ish or most often at 200mm from the back of the church. A 200/2.8 is a lot less expensive for that limited area of use, and I did have one which I took into the church only. In other closer places, the 200 compressed the perspective a bit too much, and some clients thought some images looked like "sports" shots.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>Marc I totally agree with you and thank you for the tip on the close up filters. I also went through the 70-200 twice and now I just have the 200mm and it still is not used as much as the 135mm or 85mm. I have the 24-105 but I am ready to go back to the 24-70. It is good advice to check your images to see what focal length one uses when shooting with a zoom lens. </p>

[savagesax]

" that bit of extra reach during speeches etc.."

 

 

How large do you want to print? I have to throw this out. The 70-200 IS F2.8 is one heck of a lens. I've made

enlargements to 40X60 at an ISO of 400, It's heavy though. Maybe you want to avoid the weight. Just

another idea for you.

[king_rosales]

<p>Its been a year later since you created this thread :) but I wanted to contribute and see what you ended up doing.<br>

<br />I have the 85mm 1.8 and I've used it for two years and I love it. But, I am considering upgrading to the 85mm 1.2 but ever since I saw what the 135mm can do, Im having a tough time deciding because I cant afford the 85 1.2 and the 135. Having said that I could just keep the 1.8 and get the 135, but I wouldnt get the 1.2 aperture everyone and myself has drooled about.<br>

I tested the 70-200 twice but you're right, its heavy and when Im so used to using an 85mm prime, carrying the extra weight of a 70-200 2.8 is just a killer. <br>

My style seems to be going towards primes only and I dont like my 50mm 1.4 because it doesnt give me a wide enough viewing angle and so I will get the 35mm 1.4 ii down the road and use it with the 85 prime primarily.<br>

I dont do weddings yet, but I do see myself needing the 24-70 one day just to give me the extra wide angle and not have to change lenses often. But, by then I hope I can have two bodies and not worry about switching.<br>

<br />What did you end up going with?</p>