I own the 85 non L, and though I really like it in most all situations in bright light and in city landscapes I do get the discussed purple fringing. My copy I believe is quite good, so I do not want to exagerate, but I am looking at this as my climbing, travel and vacation lens (a bit more wear and tear than my home gear) and am now considering the 100/2 to keep around home.
Photozone has basically nothing but excellent things to say, and I have read excellent reviews by 100/2 owners as well. Am I going to miss the extra stop of the 85/1.8, or is the purported "punch" and image quality and lack of fringing going to floor me enough that I want to add it? Or, are they so close and potentially redundant that it is not worth having both in my bag - having never tried the 100/2? Unless I do something dramatic during rebates it will be used on a crop body - but am curious and interested as to the advatages or disadvantages of each on a FF (yes, I can see one coming down the road).
Does anyone own both of these lenses - if so what differences have you noticed?
...I have heard rumors as well that the 100/2 also handles the Kenko Pro TC...TX.
My own tests (Imatest) support Castleman's findings that the 85f1.8 is sharper in the center than the 100f2. However, what I also found was that the 100f2 is much more even over the full image area (1.6 crop). It took much more stopping down to get the 85f1.8 evenly sharp in all corners (f2.8) while the 100f2 was already good wide open.
Hence, I see the 85f1.8 as optimized for portrait photography and the 100f2 for general telephoto photography. Take your pick. Not that the 100f2 would be bad for portraits - on the contrary, it is excellent. 85f1.8 just happens to be slightly better (and the 85f1.2L was found still slightly sharper).
mirages wrote:
I own the 85 non L, and . . .I am looking at this as my climbing, travel and vacation lens (a bit more wear and tear than my home gear) and am now considering the 100/2 to keep around home. . . . Am I going to miss the extra stop of the 85/1.8?
Actually, the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.0 is one-third stop, and for me it would not be important enough to base a decision on the f/stop difference alone. More about f/stops is here:
Dave Jr wrote:
Yes, these lenses are known for PF wide open, the problem eases as you stop down.
Hmmm,
I am making arrangements to purchase a used 20-35 2.8 to go along with a 70-300 IS I recently got for general adventure purposes - just recently added a 35/2 and wanted to compliment it with another low light so I can feel at ease about getting the shot no matter what. Sounds like maybe the 100/2 would be a better choice to add onto this travel kit.
Can anyone comment how these two lenses behave on a FF; and does anyone have any experience with a TC on the 100/2? TIA
astrolucida wrote:
Hence, I see the 85f1.8 as optimized for portrait photography
I use this lens indoors for portraits on film and it is exceptional in that role. Within those limits, I have no purple fringe. Most complaints come from using this lens outdoors.
If I wanted an outdoors lens in or about this length, I would buy the 100 2.8 macro.
I've posted on this topic before, as well...I used the 85mm several times. Long story short, I ultimately used two versions of the lens: a badly miscalibrated copy and a "spec" version. While the spec version was, well, spot on for how the lens was supposed to perform, I switched to the 100 f/2. I am happier with the *greatly* reduced purple fringing, the (slightly) longer focal length, comendable bokeh, the greater balance of frame sharpness (as another respondent said), and (what I believe to be) slightly better contrast. I could care less about the 1/3 stop difference: my copy is brilliant at f/2, and only gets better from there.
I think one of the ways we've settled the issue of recommending either of these in the past is by saying that, for the dollar, the 85mm might be a slightly better value, since its performance is undeniably excellent for the price. However, as someone who used both, the 100mm is a better fit for me.
mirages wrote:
...I have heard rumors as well that the 100/2 also handles the Kenko Pro TC...TX.
Well I have the 100/2 and a Kenko 1.4x TC. I also have a 200/2.8 L and honestly have never even tried mounting the 1.4x with the 100/2. If I have the 100 mounted I have the option of walking closer or mounting the 200, I just haven't seen a need to apply the TC to the 100. I use the 1.4x however with my 200 with little loss in IQ.
Although I'm moving to a 5D my main camera has been a 300D and the 100/2 is a very nice portrait lens, especially if you're outside, but my guess is the same applies to the 85/1.8 cause I often feel my 50/1.4 too long when inside.
Yakim Peled wrote:
>> I have heard rumors as well that the 100/2 also handles the Kenko Pro TC
If I am not mistaken, any EF lens can accept that TC. Not sure about EF-S.
I think any lens 135mm and above with a Canon TC but some 3rd party extenders like the Kenko do not report their existence to the body so you can mount'em on most lenses. This is mostly useful if you've got a f/5.6 lens and want to use a 1.4x TC. Normally you would loose autofocus on non 1-series body since they only autofocus at f/5.6 and wider. The cons are that you can't see in the exif if you used a TC or not. I have several shots where I don't remember if I had the TC on. Don't know about EF-S, doubt it fits, not shure though.
All of my fast primes below 135mm exhibit a lot of birefringence (purple fringing) at f/2 or wider. The 135/2 exhibits almost none. Apparently this is more a function of the focal length than the properties of the glass itself. This is one of the reasons why I would recommend getting the 135 if you already have the 85. The 135 is optically one of the best lenses Canon makes, and being so close to 100mm it's a wortwhile stretch to go with the L instead, assuming the focal length will work for you.
astrolucida wrote:
My own tests (Imatest) support Castleman's findings that the 85f1.8 is sharper in the center than the 100f2. However, what I also found was that the 100f2 is much more even over the full image area (1.6 crop). It took much more stopping down to get the 85f1.8 evenly sharp in all corners (f2.8) while the 100f2 was already good wide open.
Hence, I see the 85f1.8 as optimized for portrait photography and the 100f2 for general telephoto photography. Take your pick. Not that the 100f2 would be bad for portraits - on the contrary, it is excellent. 85f1.8 just happens to be slightly better (and the 85f1.2L was found still slightly sharper). ...Show more →
I agree about everything. I've owned all the lenses in question and my findings were similar. Actually, my 100 f/2 was better in the center than either 85 f/1.8 i've owned.
Also, on a crop body, 85 is a more useful length than 100. On FF/35mm, they're equally useful.
Sam Bennett wrote:
All of my fast primes below 135mm exhibit a lot of birefringence (purple fringing) at f/2 or wider. The 135/2 exhibits almost none. Apparently this is more a function of the focal length than the properties of the glass itself. This is one of the reasons why I would recommend getting the 135 if you already have the 85. The 135 is optically one of the best lenses Canon makes, and being so close to 100mm it's a wortwhile stretch to go with the L instead, assuming the focal length will work for you.
I agree with what you have said about the 135L. However, I do not want to take it when I go climbing, and perhaps as crazy (or cautious) as it sounds prefer to leave my L's at home when going abroad or on an extended vacation away from home. I am also looking for something that is lightweight, that does not cause any unnecessary awareness, but will provide me with low light needs to augment the 35/2.
Sam Bennett wrote:
All of my fast primes below 135mm exhibit a lot of birefringence (purple fringing) at f/2 or wider. The 135/2 exhibits almost none. Apparently this is more a function of the focal length than the properties of the glass itself. This is one of the reasons why I would recommend getting the 135 if you already have the 85. The 135 is optically one of the best lenses Canon makes, and being so close to 100mm it's a wortwhile stretch to go with the L instead, assuming the focal length will work for you.
So, I am not sure I got this straight. Birefringence is a function of this particular focal length? If so, I may just as well stick with the 85/1.8 I already own, and just get a second copy. That way I can keep the best one home, and send the other out in the field where the potential for a few bumps and bruises is there. Sure would appreciate someone with a good 100/2 copy verifying the same effect outdoors in bright light, or not. TX
