Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)

  
 
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


So I'm trying to decide between the 85 1.8 that I currently own, and selling it (plus a few other non-camera things) to pay for a 100 2.8 L IS Macro. I currently own a T3i and a 5d Mk1, along with a 24-105 L, 35 F2 IS, 50 1.8 II, and 85 1.8.

As for the intended uses... probably my favorite type of shooting involves candids and people. I also really enjoy shooting bugs and animals and whatnot, but I've never really had the equipment (or the budget) to get the longer-range nature photography lenses. I have shot one wedding on my own and second shot a couple with a local photographer, and plan on doing more of this from time to time when the opportunity arises, but I'm not trying to turn into a full-time professional wedding photographer or anything (I'd just like a kit that was quasi-capable of doing this if the mood/opportunity strikes). Thus far I've never had a use for indoor action shots or anything like that, or landscapes for that matter. I think I would enjoy macro photography, but at this point there's no way to know because I haven't had much of a chance to try it (so I'm trying to make the decision based on the kind of shooting I know that I currently enjoy).
Some recent stuff I've shot.. First set with the 85 (fewer keepers than I would have liked) and the other with the 24-105.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97296377@N04/sets/72157637956775825/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97296377@N04/sets/72157635085096079/


As best I can tell, the pro's of the 85 1.8 are the better background blur you get from the wider aperture, and if I'm ever shooting moving subjects in dark places I'd be better off with a wider aperture than I would with slow shutter speeds+ IS. On the other hand, the 100 2.8 L seems to do colors a little better, has the IS so I have a lot more options with shutter speeds, and seems to be much sharper all over the place (even though I know many people say sharpness isn't necessarily all that important for portraits...). What this question seems to be boiling down to for me is do I keep the 85 1.8 and try to swing into a 17-40 (because I did enjoy my 10-22 before I got my 5d) or a 200 2.8 II (refurbished these seem to be somewhat affordable), or do I switch to the 100 2.8 macro and just stick with the 35 f2 IS, 100 2.8 L IS, and 24-105 for the foreseeable future and figure that I can make do without the 17-24 focal length range or anything over 105mm. I think it comes down to "go super high quality in the ranges you can cover, or just compromise on quality a little so you can go affordable and cover more focal lengths". However, you all probably know better than I do how much quality I'm actually compromising by sticking with the 85 instead of going 100 2.8 L macro. Oh, and I did think about going for the non-L macro, but I really, really like IS, especially since the last time I used my 85 you could tell that I wasn't holding the camera steady enough even at 1/125 sometimes... I know that will improve with practice, but still... IS really is super valuable to me right now, and since the 100 2.8 doesn't have the light intake of the 85 1.8 or the ability to slow the shutter down to let light in that way, I've ruled it out at this point.


Thoughts on this conundrum? Anything else I should think about or consider that the more experienced photographers here already know? I really just want to take great pictures with a decent keeper rate (it drives me nuts to lose a picture to camera shake or something like that). I know I have a lot of personal development/learning to do here as well, but I want to make sure that I'm the only thing really holding me back, vs my equipment. And I want the pictures I do take to be as great as possible... which I guess goes without saying, since I feel like everyone here would say that same thing.

(btw, sorry about the long post... I just figured it would be helpful to those of you planning on chiming in if you knew where I was coming from in all this.)



Dec 27, 2013 at 06:49 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


I couldn't get through the long post. The holidays must be affecting me

If you are curious about macro...get a macro lens and it doesn't have to be the 100L. When I do macro I am on the tripod 90% of the time so IS is really not that useful for macro IMO (its good for handheld shots that qualify mostly as closeups but not real macro). My point is that it would be really difficult to buy a bad macro lens and there are many cheaper options than the 100L. Why not keep you 85mm and spend less on a used macro just to check it out? Some people find that after the first 100 shots of butterflies at the local "butterfly pavilion" suddenly macro is less interesting than they thought. I would dip my toe in the water and look for something half that price. Buy used and if you want to sell later then you will have not lost a lot of money.



Dec 27, 2013 at 06:59 PM
runamuck
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


Save some shekels and buy Tokina or Tamron or Sigma macro in the 90-105MM range. Far less expensive than the Canon lens, and just as good. Just use a halfway decent tripod and you don't need VR.


Dec 27, 2013 at 07:21 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


Also, if you are getting blurry photos with the 85 f/1.8 and you "think" you need IS to fix this problem, I'd work on that issue first. IS is something I need when the FL gets longer than ~200mm. Otherwise, fundamentals such as aperture, ISO and shutter speed (and a solid tripod) play more of a role.


Dec 27, 2013 at 07:36 PM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


galenapass wrote:
Also, if you are getting blurry photos with the 85 f/1.8 and you "think" you need IS to fix this problem, I'd work on that issue first. IS is something I need when the FL gets longer than ~200mm. Otherwise, fundamentals such as aperture, ISO and shutter speed (and a solid tripod) play more of a role.



Well, I'm also trying to keep the ISO noise as low as possible.... the 5d has given me a lot of practice at balancing ISO, aperture, and shutter speed mentally/on the fly (although of course it's an ongoing work in progress), but I've always appreciated how IS gives me so much more leeway to slow the shutter speed in low-light (non-action) photography, rather than just raising the ISO and trying to deal with noise in post-processing (and even following the just-raise-the-ISO strategy doesn't always work, because I've got a pretty low ceiling there with the t3i and the 5d).



Dec 27, 2013 at 07:56 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


The 100L is a fantastic lens. That said if my budget was tight I'd opt for the 85 and the non-L 100 macro combo...you can get both for the price of the L.

The 85 is a sweet, light weight, low-light, fast AF gem. It joins my 28 f1.8 and 50 f1.4 when an evening event/party or such require me to shoot; they make for a great low light trio.

As for macro, the 100 f2.8 non-L has been my workhorse macro for near 15yrs. It is rock solid, has 'NEVER FAILED', it's tack sharp and has great bokeh, AF speed is pretty good.

Late last year I got the L, it's a refurb and the price was just over $700. Why the L, just for the IS, as I age I'm finding IS when hand-holding to be most helpful. As for sharpness and bokeh they are both spot on; maybe a bit better bokeh for the L; the L has a bit better balance as well. AF speed is the same, no change that I can see...as said it's a killer bit of glass.

Unless IS is a need/want, don't sell your 85, just add the non-L 100 macro to your kit and have a ton of fun. One additional thought, the 85 and 100 non-L macro share the same 58mm filter thread size, the 100L uses a 67mm filter...

Jerry



Dec 27, 2013 at 09:58 PM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


IS is definitely a want, but if the 100 macro IS won't make an appreciable difference when taking pics of people etc, then it's not a NEED..... if that makes any sense. Basically, I wouldn't spend the extra cash JUST for the IS, but it might be worth it if there would be a noticeable IQ difference between the two lenses...

Between the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.8 L (each wide-open), do you notice the larger aperture of the 85 contributing to a noticeably better separation of the subject from the background? (I only ask because you mentioned the bokeh of the 100 L)



Dec 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Sheldon N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


If you're going to get the 100L IS Macro, now is the time to do it. $889 at B&H Photo with free shipping, plus a $150 mail in rebate. That's cheaper than you can find them on the used market. Rebate ends 1/4.

As far as IS, it looked to me like some of the blurry photos from your 85 set were due to camera shake because you were too worried about keeping the ISO low and not carrying enough shutter speed (or not shooting carefully enough when down around 1/100). IS would help in that scenario, since it wasn't subject movement that was the problem.



Dec 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Karl Witt
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


This happens to me frequently too where I am on a budget and trying to keep myself happy with sweet glass

I have the 85 1.8 and love it! Of course have always wanted to try the 100 f/2 also
I have had the regular 100 2.8 macro and recently had the 100L for a short bit. The IS is nice to have if you need it perhaps to keep ISO's lower. The lens is tack sharp, is colorful and has an very nice bokeh........you can just keep on focusing right down to the little bugs you enjoy too.

The answer to this question IMO is that you need to have both in your hands for a while and make a decision based on your personal experiences. You need to shoot the 100L for a while to see if the cost warrants the features for your use. The suggestion of 100 macro non-IS is a good thought but you could also consider a little longer 150-180 macro lens to give you more working distance too. Sigma 150, Tamron 180 macros are good choices and price points perhaps?

Karl



Dec 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM
DreamInColor
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


I have the 100L and use the 100 non-L at my job. For macro photography, they are both excellent lenses, and has already been said here, you will be on a tripod most of the time when shooting macro. The L model is a wonderful lens for much more than macro photography -- it's always in my bag, and I use it often for people shots and general use. For the latter, the IS feature is well worth the extra coin.


Dec 28, 2013 at 10:46 AM
diverhank
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


The solution (mine) is to have both . These two lenses are so different and excels in different uses. For portraits, the 100 is not bad but can't compare to the 85 in bokeh (1.8 versus 2.8). I had the 100 first but ended up getting the 85 for this reason alone. For 1:1 macro, nothing beats the 100 in my opinion.

Regarding IS, I used to buy lenses based on that alone...not so anymore. Ever since I got the 400mm f/5.6L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, neither has IS, I'm convinced that IS is nice to have, not essential, not for my kind of shooting anyway. If you venture in conditions that need IS, chance is your pictures would not look that great anyways so IS to me is good for emergencies, not for regular shooting. When I used to own the 24-105mm f/4L IS, there were times I turned IS off and forgot to turn it back on for days on end and I could not tell at all that it was off. That was how much I didn't need IS.



Dec 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


I took a series of head shots of my daughter this past year, and worked in a nice test comparison of lenses. I started with the 90 TSE, using tilt to diminish DOF on background at f2.8; Samyang 85/1.4 at f/2.8, and 100L at f/2.8 and finally f/4. I found the 100L produced the best results, and I preferred the f/4 DOF and OOF areas (but ended up using the f/2.8 for its slight light fall-off).

Schneider Series 9 Warm Black Frost 1/8 was also used on all lenses for minor cinematic softening and warming.

I find I almost never ever use a fast normal or telephoto wide open for portraits, the exception being 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II for effect. Almost always I use f/2.5 to f/5.6 to get enough of the face in focus. But, hey, I'm not a real portrait artist!

These shots were unusual with me going for a shallow DOF -- all shots at f/2.8 for comparison. I must say the Samyang 85 was my least favorite with its long minimum focusing distance and very cool color. I got my best shots with the 100L and 90 TSE, at least what I was going for. All hand held, and the IS helped here.

If I wasn't getting the 100L, instead of the 85/1.8, I'd be inclined toward the 100/2 by Canon. But there is so much room in this focal range for personalization, and really, almost anything can be made to work.

Good luck choosing!










Samyang 85/1.4 @ f2.8 -- most PP and exposure adjustment









Dec 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


jvphotos wrote:
IS is definitely a want, but if the 100 macro IS won't make an appreciable difference when taking pics of people etc, then it's not a NEED..... if that makes any sense. Basically, I wouldn't spend the extra cash JUST for the IS, but it might be worth it if there would be a noticeable IQ difference between the two lenses...

Between the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.8 L (each wide-open), do you notice the larger aperture of the 85 contributing to a noticeably better separation of the subject from the background? (I only ask because you mentioned the bokeh
...Show more

IMHO bokeh between the 85 and all three 100mm lenses mentioned is noticeable but it isn't much. When you want killer bokeh look to the 50 f1.2 or 85 f1.2 L's. One note about bokeh, quite often the aperture blade shape or the number of blades can make a difference. With Canon's 100 macros, the non-L has 8 blades, the L has 9, and my eyes see a subtle slightly smoother bokeh with the L.

The 85 f1.8 is fantastic, produces really nice bokeh, it's faster than the100L and that is a huge bonus when shooting in lower light conditions, I'd not be without the 85 f1.8 or the 100 f2...talk about bang-for-the-buck, both are great buys.

For me the 100L is much more then a macro lens. I tend to use a 70-200 for portraits; I just like longer glass for these shots and even my f4 can blur a background well at 200. But, the 100L is getting more use, in fact my old non-L stays at home for in studio tripod work, with the 100L always in my bag as of late, it's my walk around lens of choice!

I would 'STRONGLY' recommend you test/rent both if possible; or find a local camera store and check them out, see how each feels on your camera. Also, understand most macro lenses focus slower than non-macros do. The AF speed of the 85 f1.8 is lightening quick, the 100 macs are not as fast, it is noticeable.

Also, if you want to experiment with macro, get a set of extension tubes first. Extension tubes can be used with all of your lenses, and on your 50 f1.8 they can be a ton of fun.

Getting new glass is always a tough choice, giving advice is personal/subjectivve at best. I've shot macro since the late 70's, have the experience to determine what's needed vs wanted...sometimes, I think

Good luck choosing...
Jerry



Dec 28, 2013 at 05:58 PM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


Thanks Jerry (and everyone else), I had never even considered the idea of playing around with an extension tube if I decide not to go with the macro. I was so focused on the image quality/keeper rate trade-off that I hadn't even looked at more affordable ways to get the macro out of my current lens setup.


Dec 30, 2013 at 12:59 AM
verbiage
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


Jonathan,

Contrary to most suggestions here, I shoot macro almost exclusively hand-held, as going after bugs in the field is bad enough without a tripod, and would be pretty much impossible with one (except maybe on those brisk mornings when the bugs are sluggish from the cold). Anyway, and although I do enjoy shooting with the 100mm IS macro, I am finding a macro flash (which I splurged for last summer) much more useful than image stabilization.

This one was taken hand-held, with a ring flash, and would have been impossible otherwise (i.e. without a flash held close to the front end of the lens). The fly was about 10 mm long (or less). I'm not sure, but I think I may have had a 1.4x TC and an extension tube in there as well (which made the TC non-reporting).

So, now that you are considering trying extension tubes (or, possibly, getting a less expensive non-IS macro lens), may I also suggest looking at a flash - either a dedicated macro ring flash from Canon or Sigma or any flash you can fire off camera. You cannot really use a regular flash in the hotshoe for macro/close-up shooting because most, if not all, subjects will be in the shade of your lens.

This is assuming you really want to do extreme closeups of anything moving.

There is a thread on macro setups in the macro forum here (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/780820). Check it out for lighting ideas (or just to look at some pretty ingenious combinations).

All the best and a happy new year to you!
Slav

p.s. I love how you add depth to your images through an oof secondary subject in the foreground. Something I've been neglecting to do.



Dec 30, 2013 at 05:31 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


I happen to know someone who also thought she might be interested in photographing small things but wasn't certain. If you think this might interest you but you are not certain, there are a few things you can do with your current lens to get a feel for it and a sense of whether or not the investment in the 100mm f/2.8 L IS will be right for you.

First, just get a decent "diopter" or "close-up filter" or two. These are optically not quite as good as a dedicated macro, but they can be quite good and they can work with our existing lens. As such, they provide an excellent way to try out macro or near-macro photography for a much lower cost using the lens you have.

Another option that could cost just a bit more is to get a macro extension tube and use it to extend the close focusing range of the existing lens. I'm not a big macro shooter, but I do use a tube to allow me to make use of non-macro lenses in a few situations where I need it.

My first recommendation would be the "close-up filter" option.

In the end you may find, as the person I'm thinking of did, that you love macro photography and at that point the 100mm f/2.8 L IS might turn out to be just the thing for you. It is a really fine lens.

Dan



Dec 30, 2013 at 08:56 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


Similar to Dan's post above I recommend first getting a simple macro/closeup setup which allows you to use existing lenses (e.g. your 50 and 85 mm primes). Even closeup filter lenses are good, I recommend to get a set of tubes instead. Tubes are independent on the diameter size of your used lens whereas one closeup filter might not fit on all lenses, and you might need step down rings or another additional closeup filter. Most often I am using a 12 mm tube between lens and camera when needed.

If you want to save cost, I also recommend getting a used Canon 100/2.8 EF macro lens. Optically it is the same as the newer and more expensive L version.



Dec 30, 2013 at 09:15 AM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)




Yeah, if I don't end up going the 100 IS L route I'm definitely going to get something to make my current setup work better for macro work. I think all those other possibilities just put more of the weight of the decision on which lens will offer me better IQ and shooting options (like the IS giving more latitude with shutter speed for low light and movement effects and the wider aperture of the 85 giving me a little more subject separation and the ability to do low light action a little better).

The other thing I've been thinking about is that, macro capabilities aside, the 100 macro has more overlap with my 24-105 in a way, since I already have a lens that can do slow-ish shutter speeds and has decent iq (the 100 is macro just does all that better). Maybe that's an argument for going with the more-different-from-an-integral-part-of-the-kit 85 1.8, and trying to put any extra moneys toward a 17-40, 200 2.8, etc. I feel partly like I'm trying to get a handle on the image quality diminishing returns here.



Dec 30, 2013 at 03:32 PM
jeraldcook
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


StillFingerz wrote:
The 85 f1.8 is fantastic, produces really nice bokeh, it's faster than the 100L and that is a huge bonus when shooting in lower light conditions [...].


Let's not forget that the 100L has excellent IS though. If I'm shooting an 85mm, my shutter is probably at 1/100 to prevent shake. With the 100L (and assuming I'm shooting an adult and not a fidgety child) 1/50 is very doable and likely 1/30 if they're posed. Point being though is that neither a faster lens or IS is a panacea for every situation. If you're in a low light situation but you need a bit more depth of field, a faster lens without IS isn't going to help.


I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS II so my 100L does not get used a lot for portraits but it's a very sharp lens wide open and works great for that purpose. If cost isn't a primary concern, I'd get the 100L. My next choice would be the 100 f/2. The 85 f/1.8 is a great lens too but it would come in third for me.

And since you just mentioned the 200 2.8, I'd look at the 135L before the 200L 2.8. YMMV.



Dec 30, 2013 at 03:52 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Thoughts on a lens decision (85 1.8+? or 100 2.8 IS L macro)


I'd 2nd Jerald's thoughts; lens usage order, my day kit usually has a 70-200 f4L IS, 100L IS and 17-40 f4L; sometimes one of my faster primes, usually the 50 f1.4.

I also pack a 1.4x T/C Mark III and sometimes a set of extension tubes...it just depends on the venue and available light, there be gardens everywhere



Dec 30, 2013 at 04:15 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.