85mm or 100mm for General Use/Portraits

[joseph_wei]

I'm thinking of summplementing my only telephoto lens, an FD 135mm

f/2.5 SC, with either a 85mm f/1.6 SSC or a 100mm f/2.8 SSC. The lens

will be used for portraits and general travel/people/landscape shots.

Would I see a noticeable difference (in perspective and image

enlargement) between 85mm and 100mm, or 100mm and 135mm? Any advice

would be helpful. Thanks!

 

JW

[joseph_wei]

A typo - I meant FD 85mm f/1.8 - not f/1.6

 

JW

[awahlster]

Joseph, I own both the 85mm f1.8 nFD and the 100mm f2.8 nFD as well as owning the 135mm f2.8 (in the past I have owned the 135mm f2.5 S.C. and 100mm f2.8 S.S.C.)and if I were you I would go for the 85mm f1.8 as it has a little better look wide open as a portrait lens and just about the same look at f2.8 as the 100mm f2.8. The "perspective differance betwwen the 85 and 135 will be noticable and therefore easier to learn to use the two lenses to the best advantage. The 100 and 135 are just to close together to make much of a differance in your way of seeing the picture. Plus the 85's lower light can be an advatage. As well as the slightly softer look wide open of the 85 being a bonus for people and flowers. I quite often use my 85 with a FD-25 extension tube for close=ups of flower blooms at around f5.6-f8 it's quite sharp.

 

Mark W.

[david_goldfarb]

If you have a 135, you might add an 85, but I don't see a very compelling reason for doing so. The perspective difference is noticeable for two images framed in the same way, but I don't see going through a process of choosing between them for each shot, since they are relatively close. Less may be more here, because by using only one lens, all your portraits will have a more consistent look when hanging on a wall or sitting in an album together. Too much equipment can sometimes make your compositional vision "fuzzy" in a sense.

 

If you want to expand your options, it may be better to add a macro lens in the 90-100mm range which will do something substantially different from you current lens, or if the 135 is your only tele, go longer with a 200 or a 300mm lens (as fast as your budget allows).

[oliver_sharp1]

The 85 seems like a better choice for you if versatility is a prime concern. It gives you a significant change from your existing 135 and it opens wider so that you can shoot in lower light. Also, I used to have the 85/1.8 (new-style FD) and it was a particular favorite - it was a very nice lens to shoot with. I prefer a longer lens (105 is my main length), because I do a lot of portraits and studio shooting, but the 85 a bit more general purpose. It isn't a huge difference either way, of course.

 

Cheers.

[tim_brown5]

One reason to use 85 or 135: shape of the subject's face. Julia Louise Dreyphus [flat face] I might shoot with the 85. Barbra Streisand with the 135.

[._._z]

I don't think you'll see all that much difference in regular usage. You might consider looking into the Canon 28-85 zoom, which is pretty useful for travel work and not bad for portraits since it is slightly lower in contrast compared to primes.