A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > 85 1.8 vs 100 2.0

Featured Equipment Deals

Missing Pages: Depth of Field Read More

Missing Pages: Depth of Field

Jon Sienckiewicz offers a juiced-up User Guide for creative people via his "Missing Pages" column on Photo.net. This month covers the topic of Depth of Field.

Latest Equipment Articles

Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 DI VC PZD Lens Review Read More

Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 DI VC PZD Lens Review

Are you looking for a lens that is ready for anything? Tamron recently released their 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 DI VC PZD lens and they are calling it the "innovative all-in-one zoom."

Latest Learning Articles

A Visit to the Canon Experience Center in Southern California Read More

A Visit to the Canon Experience Center in Southern California

Canon recently opened the doors to its new, state-of-the-art Experience Center in Costa Mesa, CA. The impressive showroom, education facilities, CPS members' lounge, and repair facility astound while...


85 1.8 vs 100 2.0

James O'Gara , Oct 24, 2004; 03:26 p.m.

The subject line pretty much says it all -- I'm trying to decide on a portrait lens, and wonder if there are paritsans of either of these designs. the difference in focal length is not my concern; either an 85 or a 100 is fine for my purposes.

Thanks in advance!

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Mathew Baker , Oct 24, 2004; 03:36 p.m.

Are you shooting film or digital, If digital, what magnifacation rate?

Daniel Taylor , Oct 24, 2004; 03:38 p.m.

The focal length difference isn't that significant, but the 85 f/1.8 is notably sharper wide open. For that reason alone I would go with it.

Stephen Sullivan , Oct 24, 2004; 03:51 p.m.

Find a rental house that will allow you to rent both lenses. Do a quick shoot, look at the results and buy which you prefer.

Donny Jatisambogo , Oct 24, 2004; 04:08 p.m.

You might like to consider 85mm f/1.2, instead...

James O'Gara , Oct 24, 2004; 04:09 p.m.

Thanks, Stephen, but actually I was seeking information from people with first hand experience with one or both lenses.

Giampi . , Oct 24, 2004; 04:22 p.m.

I have the 85 and had the 100. I kept the 85 because I felt it was superior in resolution & contrast.

There's an actual test somwhere on the NET (I believe it may be Castlemann site) where those two lenses are compares in a legit, scientific way and, again, the 85 came out on top, if I recall correctly.

Strangely enough, there are sites which rate the 100 above the 85...so, you are now back to where you started ;)

Rodolfo Negrete , Oct 24, 2004; 04:54 p.m.

I have the 85mm 1.8 and are better than my 24-70 2.8,17-40,50/1.8,35-80/3.5 and the 28-75/2.8. the pictures are have a beatiful blurry background,the colors are kind of more contrasty,and sharper.

if you do a search on this lens you will find that they are higly reagarded.

other lens that are as good or better are the 135/2

but if you buy the 85 I can promise you one thing,You will not regret it.

Thierry Fortier , Oct 24, 2004; 05:00 p.m.

The link for the article is

www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

85mm 1.8 is a killer lens. Silent, crazy fast motor, light and sharp sharp sharp. I always bring with me.

Tommy Lee , Oct 24, 2004; 05:54 p.m.

I have a 85/1.8. I bought it new from B&H. I don't find my copy sharp wide open. It is not soft but I wouldn't call it sharp either. I still like it as is. It has good size, weight and focus speed. My copy is fairly sharp from f5.6 and on.


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses