One last question about the lenses

[tania_fernandez]

I got some great advice to my earlier question about the 100mm

macro... but after reading your comments and doing a bit of reaserch

I got a final question... between the 100mm-2.0 and the 85mm-1.8

which would be a better choice for indoor and outdoor portraits as

far as a fast and sharp lens would go. The other lens I was

recommended, the 135mm sounds wonderfull but a bit out of my price

range for now.

All your advice is greatly appreciated as always.

Tania

[eos 10 fan]

<i>...the 135mm sounds wonderfull but a bit out of my price range for now.</i> <p>

 

Canon offers two 135mm lenses.<br>

The 135mm f/2L USM is very pricey at ~USD$840.<br>

The 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus is ~USD$280.<p>

 

The 135/SF is said to be a good performer,<br>though slower at AF (no USM) than its 135/2L USM rival.<p>--

[wilfred_m_rand]

You didn't mention whether digital/APS size sensor or full frame. If it's the APS-size sensor, the 85 would be ideal and the 100 might actually seem long. Full frame it's a tougher call because both focal lengths make for great portraits - personally, I'd go for the one with the widest aperture for the ability to create bokeh.

[John Crowe]

You could put both behind your back, one in each hand, and say "okay which hand?". You will be happy with either. The 85 may give you a little more flexibility indoors. For many decades the 85mm has been accepted as "The" portrait focal length. If lens manufacturers have perfected only one of these 2 lenses it would more likely be the 85 but no real reason to think the 100 would be any less buy now. Perfectionists may argue that a little less depth of field at the maximum aperture of the 85mm f1.8 is more desirable for creating softer out of focus areas. Good luck!

[John Crowe]

Everyone types faster than I do: bokeh = softer out of focus areas, in case you were wondering.

[catchlight]

I agree with John: it's pretty much a dead heat between the 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm f2. Both are superb.

 

Perhaps you should get a mint/used copy of whichever is lower priced on photo.net, Fred Miranda, or the big auction site.

[catchlight]

For example:

 

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=571318

[alexdi]

Really, it depends on the rest of your lens set. A traditional array of primes would be 24/35/85/135/200. Some (me, for example) prefer 28/50/100/200 instead.

 

Zooms throw a wrench in the gears. If you had, for example, a 24-70L, I'd point you to the 100mm. But if you also had a 70-200, I'd then suggest the 85/1.8 instead, because it's slightly more wieldy indoors, and you already have the longer focals covered.

 

I have a 100/2. It's quick, quiet, and ridiculously sharp, even wide open. I'm serious, if the 85/1.8 is supposed to be sharper than this, I can't possibly imagine how good it must be. This lens is leagues beyond my 50/1.8. I can pick out hair the width of two film grains on my f/2 Provia 100F slides.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2252127&size=md

 

This, and everything in the Park folder, I took with the 100. Ignore the flare, I had a cheesy Canon filter on it for a few shots.

 

DI

[aljaz_.]

What about trying them out, both at the same time, and see for yourself which one suits you better? The 85mm is faster both because it opens wider and because it's shorter. But only by a bit. That said, I have the 100 f/2 which suits my need for a sligtly longer reach, and agree with everything said in the previous post. It complements my 70-200 f4 marvelously. Can't comment on performance of the 85mm.

[shaun westlake]

Tania:

 

OK here's my two cents.

 

In your last post, you mentioned that you have the 28-105. Do you find yourself using this lens at its maximum zoom or somewhere in between? Go to places where you frequently take pictures and compose some shots both at the 85mm and 100mm settings. Which do you prefer? Indoors, are your more comfortable at 100mm or 85mm? When taking portraits what distance do you start away fom the subject. At 100mm do you move back? At 85mm do you move forward? Do you prefer the slightly more compressed look of the 100mm in portraits? Set the zoom at one length and take an entire roll. Which do you prefer? Which did you feel more comfortable with?

 

The choice between the 85 and 100 will probably come down more your personal shooting style not which lens is better.

 

Happy shopping

 

Shaun

[mark u]

I'd go with Shaun's idea. To some extent, it depends whether your portraits are of adults or children. A nice frame fill at 85mm for an adult head and shoulders can leave a child lost in mid frame surrounded by a large distracting background. The you might have preferred the 135 f/2.8 instead.

[markci]

<i>Perfectionists may argue that a little less depth of field at the maximum aperture of the 85mm f1.8 is more desirable for creating softer out of focus areas. Good luck!</i>

<p>

Well these people wouldn't be particularly bright, then. Background blur (which is _not_ the same as depth of field) is strictly a function of entrance pupil diameter, and a 100 f/2 lens will actually blur backgrounds a tiny bit more than an 85 f/1.8.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> Both are <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">very good</a>. Personally, I had a 100mm prime (on film) and found it a bit long indoors. I now have the 85/1.8 and think it's perfect. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[johnny_tergo]

If you are shooting portraits of women most of them will be highly offended by the shapness of either lens. (The exception being thoes that use a professional make-up artist)