# 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.0 ???



## LifeAfter (Oct 2, 2012)

Hello,

I see there are and were a lot of topics about lenses that we cannot really compare (different category or budget)
But i'm about to buy a (budget) portrait lens and i'm really confused..

What you guys think about the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.0 ???
(overal quality: Resolution, CAs, Focusing, Bokeh, etc) 

Or maybe a third party lens like sigma 85mmf1.4 (is it worth the money)

Thank you in advance for your experience feedbacks


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> Hello,
> 
> I see there are and were a lot of topics about lenses that we cannot really compare (different category or budget)
> But i'm about to buy a (budget) portrait lens and i'm really confused..
> ...



100mm F/2 all the way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> What you guys think about the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.0 ???



THey are as close a pair of cousins as lenses get. Do you want a little wider or a little narrower AoV? If for APS-C, I'd get the 85/1.8.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > What you guys think about the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.0 ???
> ...


Same lens formula and design, just different focal lengths. Get the focal length you need. Never select a lens because you think its the best, select one that you will use.


----------



## tron (Oct 2, 2012)

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


----------



## LifeAfter (Oct 2, 2012)

So i'ts for Full frame, the 5D III

Can you tell me the overall image quality of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 135mm f2.0 
(resolution, CAs, focusing..etc)


----------



## LifeAfter (Oct 2, 2012)

I'm planing to use it for Wedding portraits mostely.

Thank you guys


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> I'm planing to use it for Wedding portraits mostely.
> 
> Thank you guys



The 135mm F/2 is a lens I prefer to use on men and the 85mm more on women. The 135L pops more but the 85mm tends to melt the subject into the background (More feminine IMO)

While both can do either sex well, That's my personal observation.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 2, 2012)

Based on the lenses you have in your profile, I'd probably go for the Sigma, mostly for the f/1.4. The 135L is an awesome lens for portraits, but, the 70-200 you have is just as good, and I'm not sure you'd really miss the difference between f/2 and f/2.8. But the difference between 85mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4 is pretty big


----------



## Nitroman (Oct 2, 2012)

Check 'em both out here : http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#canon_ff


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> Can you tell me the overall image quality of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 135mm f2.0
> (resolution, CAs, focusing..etc)



The overall quality of both is good enough that you should be concerned only about focal length and perspective compression for your framing, not IQ, to decide between them.


----------



## CharlieB (Oct 3, 2012)

I've owned the 85/1.8. Not any more.

I never really cozy'd up to that lens. I ended up just giving it away to someone. I can't even remember who, thats how blah I was about it.

In the market again, it was a tough call between the 100/2.0 and the 100/2.8USM macro (non-L).

I ended up with the macro. No problems at portrait focus distances, absolutely sharp at all distances in fact. The 2.8 aperture is ample for shallow DOF, and portraits really need 5.6 or so for nose to eyes sharpness.

Possible drawback - night shooting... I'm not into that with short tele's. Most of my night shooting is wide to normal lengths.

Can't be happier with 100mm length. Go with 100/2.0


----------



## elflord (Oct 3, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> So i'ts for Full frame, the 5D III
> 
> Can you tell me the overall image quality of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 135mm f2.0
> (resolution, CAs, focusing..etc)



I own both, and the only reason to prefer one over the other would be focal length. 

To your questions -- the 135L is a speed demon when it comes to focusing, especially as it has a focus limiter. The Sigma is reasonably fast but not as fast as the 135L. 

I've been pretty happy with the overall image quality of both of them, I'd refer you to pixel peeper websites, especially thedigitalpicture.com for more insight here.

I think generally the longer lens will have an advantage in terms of corner sharpness, but the shorter lens has the advantage that you are likely to be able to use it at low ISOs (you can shoot it at 1/85s instead of 1/135s and it is a stop faster).

EDIT: since you're shooting full frame, one thing I'd add to this -- the Sigma 85mm, and the Canon 85mm (both of them) have relatively long MFDs (and therefore relatively small maximum magnification). I doubt this would be a problem on APS-C (where your view is cropped) but on FF I notice it. The 135L has higher maximum magnification (it focuses at similar distance to the 85s), so you can get really tight shots with it.


----------



## Ew (Oct 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



2nd that!


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 3, 2012)

I had the 100mm 2.0 and the 50mm 1.4 years ago. I had both lenses in for repair about every 12-18 months because the manual focus would get stiff and gritty. It was a 75 dollar repair per lens, which the newspaper I worked for paid, and which Canon simply described as "clean and adjust." No other lens I ever had has had this problem. When I left the newspaper and was responsible for paying my own repairs, I sold those bad boys ASAP.

The common denominator between those two lenses is that they are both listed (at Amazon and other sources) as having "micro motor USM," while the 85mm is shown as having "ring type USM." For that reason (which admittedly is circumstantial evidence), I'd go with the 85.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 3, 2012)

LifeAfter said:


> So i'ts for Full frame, the 5D III
> 
> Can you tell me the overall image quality of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 135mm f2.0
> (resolution, CAs, focusing..etc)



I own the 135 L and recently rented the Sigma 85 for a week. Based on that somewhat limited experience I would say that image quality is very similar; for me, the main difference is that, thanks to the longer focal length (presumably), it's even easier to get really smooth backgrounds from the 135L than the Sigma 85 (the same's true of my 200 f/2.8 L, but I've no idea how well that works on human faces...). Both are extremely sharp (perhaps the 135L is a bit sharper wide open than the 85, but you really have to look for the difference), and I've not noticed any CAs with either one. The135L focuses amazingly fast, considerably faster than the Sigma (the copy I rented, anyway) but the Sigma seemed just as accurate when it got there (and it wasn't exactly slow anyway). I've no idea how either one compares to the 100mm f/2. The Sigma produces somewhat smoother backgrounds than my Canon f/1.8, but again doesn't focus anywhere near as fast. (I use a 5DII.)

However, since you have a 70-200L f/2.8 you might first want to ask yourself (1) what it is that you want from a lens that the 70-200 can't provide, (2) which focal length you find most useful/desirable out of the three, and (3) if you're photographing weddings, is a zoom more useful anyway? You may not need to buy any of these ....


----------

