p.1 #1 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
These three lenses, Canon's 100 2.0, 85 1.8. and 100 macro, are all highly regarded. I have the latter two--but I don't really use them much. I was thinking of selling them and getting the 100 2.0 instead. I am wondering if anyone has all three, or the 100 2.0 and one of the others, and will give me a comparative evaluation. The reason I don't use the two I have much is that for an 85mm I have a Zeiss and I like it better--the Canon is very sharp, certainly in the same league as the Zeiss if not sharper, but it gets more purple fringing and it just somehow lacks an intangible quality--I think the Zeiss lens has more presence. As for the 100 macro, it is a great lens, but I have a bunch of other lenses that can do macro, and as a regular 100mm it's quite fine but I think the bokeh is not too great--it doesn't give as sculptural an effect as some other lenses I have, the subject seems to me to be sucked more into the background than pop out of it. So--if anyone will share an opinion on the 100 2.0 vs. the other two, I would be appreciative. What I would like from it is overall sharpness when stopped down like the other two, and center sharpness at wide apertures but with better bokeh than the macro.
p.1 #2 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I've had the the 85 f/1.8 in the past, and have the 100 f/2 now. I would say I like it because it has more "presence"-- I like the perspective better, the background is just a tad more diffused, etc. Fringing is a bit better on the 100 f/2 but still not stellar at wide apertures; my experience with the two lenses is that my 100 is also just a smidge sharper, but nothing huge. Color is pretty much identical from what I can tell. Overall sharpness stopped down is great. Center sharpness wide open is decent, and the bokeh is indeed better than the 100 macro.
p.1 #3 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
Here are some 100% crops on a 30D, showing sharpness stopped down a bit. I haven't used it much on my 5D yet. Hopefully these will help with a bokeh assessment.
p.1 #4 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
Thank you, Jvarszegi, for the images. Yes, "presence," that is what I would like, in addition to the sharpness. I should have added that I would be using this on a 5d ii, so it would be full frame, and that could definitely make a difference. It's funny, you say that your 100 2.0 is maybe a smidge sharper--there are so many tests out there that you can find on the internet, and from what I have seen they seem to indicate that the 100 2.0 should in fact be a bit softer than the other two, but then on Photodo they give it a very high rating, and in fact stopped down to f8 according to them it is definitely sharper than the 85. Goes to show I guess that there is just so much sample variation. That's something I really learned my lesson on when I got probably the lousiest 24L ever produced--unless I have no choice, I will not buy lenses online anymore. If the price isn't exorbitantly higher, I will gladly pay a bit more plus tax if I can go to a local camera store and try out multiple copies of a lens and choose which one I want--they are never all the same.
p.1 #5 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
Yep, I think you are right about sample (and testing) variation. I really think the optical qualities are pretty close to the 85, with the obvious differences in max aperture and perspective, plus the fringing difference.
p.1 #6 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I have the 85 1.8 and 100 2. The 100 f2 has less biting contrast than the 85 though it's just as sharp and as such has the best skin tone rendition of any lens I own. I don't find it quite as versatile however. Great portrait lens, not sure if it's the great all rounder that I find the 85mm to be.
p.1 #7 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I haven't owned the 85/1.8 or the 100 macro, but I love my 100 f/2. I have owned the 85L, which I sold when I went full frame, as I prefer the 100mm focal length. The 85L had slightly better color, and, of course, the larger aperture, but other than that, they are DARN close. Yes, the 100 f/2 can still fringe wide open in very high contrast situations, but I find it really doesn't crop up much at all in everyday shooting. I shoot it about 95% of the time between f/2 and f/2.8. I really like it.
p.1 #8 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I recently bought the 100mm f2 and I really like it too, but I find it fringes fairly easily, especially when used outdoors. Doesn't have to be very harsh conditions...as long long as there's moderate contrast, it will fringe. (For instance, I was just shooting in NYC messing around testing this lens. There's one shot of a white van against a darkish building. Perhaps there was some glare coming off the Van due to its color. But MAJOR purple fringing...FUGLY stuff!) But in reality, resized, I hardly notice it, and all the short L primes pretty much have this "issue" anyways...
Maybe I am spoiled by my 200L f2, which is devoid of any CA/fringing.
In any event, the 135L was too long for me. I wanted something compact and 100mm-ish for street shooting. The 100mm f/2 fit that bill nicely.
p.1 #9 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I prefer the 100 f2 over the 85 f1.8, but I could happily live with either lens.
The 100 f2 is very slightly sharper than the 85, and much less prone to flare. On the down side, it costs more and seems to be much more prone to getting dust inside.
p.1 #11 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I wanted to thank all of you who responded to this post. Your responses were basically what I wanted to hear, and I sold my 100 macro and picked up the 100 2.0. I wound up keeping the 85 1.8 because I think it is sharper wide open, and that could be useful on some occasions. But getting the 100 2.0 was definitely the right decision for me. As some of you reported, very sharp, and it also has a bit more of the intangible "presence" that I felt was lacking in the other lenses. While I do have a lot of "presence" with my 85 Zeiss, it's also real nice to have a native lens that gives you some of it too, when you want to work fast and rely on the camera's auto controls. The 100 2.0 is a real nice lens--I made sure to give it a workout at the shop to be sure I had the copy I wanted. I compared it directly against the 135L and to be honest, stopped down a bit I thought the 100 I was shooting through looked better, so I am thinking I got a real stellar copy.
p.1 #12 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
Congrats on getting the 100/2.
A very worthy competitor to both the 85/1.8 and the 135L.
For an indication of what the 100 f/2 can do, look at the work of Chris Sorensen.
He shoots a lot with that lens on a 5D. This set, in particular, is very nice, not
least because of the stunning model he shoots: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/703194
p.1 #17 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Just curious how you guys felt about it.
Assuming you mean the 100 F2, I've never had an issue with it at all, but then shooting portraits is not a situation where I'd expect CA to be an issue particularly
p.1 #18 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
What I would like from it is overall sharpness when stopped down like the other two, and center sharpness at wide apertures but with better bokeh than the macro.
I have both the 100f2 and the 100f2.8 USM macro. I prefer the 100f2 as a general use and portrait lens. It is faster, smaller, shorter, more compact and with a shorter Canon lens shade than the macro. I've never seen fringing with this lens, in my use of it. The 100f2 is very sharp in the center at f2, and slightly soft at the edges. I've never seen a problem with edge sharpness in portraits.
I use the 100 macro only for macro, and it is superb in that application. The macro is the sharpest lens I ever owned at the edge at f2.8. But that is of no value or use to me, since I always use it in the f11-f16 range for macro.
I've heard thoughts that any macro lens is not as sharp at infinity, as a general use short telephoto, so I specifically tested the two lenses together. I could see no difference at all between the two lenses at infinity. Both were amazingly sharp. I'm quite pleased with both lenses.
p.1 #19 · Canon 100 2.0 as opposed to 85 1.8 and 100 macro
I searched the boards here for a used 100 f2 for a while and lucked out finding one that was local. Love the 100 on my 5D and it's nice and sharp at f2.
