# Portrait: 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0



## aiai (Nov 17, 2012)

Dear cr community,

im planning to get a new portrait lens for my 5D mk iii.

I have read a lot of reviews about the 85mm 1.8 that it has a very fast focus and is pretty sharp.

Does someone have any experience with both of these lenses to help me in my decision?

The price is actually nearly the same due to a canon cashback sale in austria. (100mm 2.0 is only 30Euros more expensive than the 85mm)

Hoping for good advices! 

Thank you - aiai 8)


----------



## AdamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

I can't offer you an experience-based comparison but I can at least tell you why I chose the 85mm (apart from actually wanting the 85mm focal length).

First, if you have (or will have) a 100mm macro, the 85mm gives you a different focal length. I would have found it harder to justify having a 100mm f/2 and a 100mm f/2.8.

Second, I'll take every extra photon of light I can get, even a third of a stop.

Third, the price of the 85mm is usually handily less, although not so in your current situation.

I'm sure others will give you equally valid reasons to favour the 100mm.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 17, 2012)

i had a 100 f2, and now own a 85 1.8. the 100f2 was a terrific lens. The 100 has metal filter threads,while the 85's are plastic. they both focus very quickly, and are both very sharp. the 85 seems to have more CA than i remember the 100 having, while the 85 seems to have a bit better bokeh. they both are really great lenses, and i don't think you can go wrong with either. really the main differences are the focal length and speed, and even then there isn't much in it. The only reason i'm now running the 85 instead of the 100 is for that extra 1/3rd stop in speed. i already own 2.8 zooms, so i just wanted something more removed from them.


----------



## dpedro (Nov 19, 2012)

I would get the 85 1.8 the 100 macro and maybe the 135 f 2 if you can afford or save up for them. I think my set up is pretty good except I am upgrading my 70-200 to the 2.8 II and selling my two EF-S lenses. Good luck.


----------



## PVS (Nov 20, 2012)

I had the 85/1.8 and sold it after moving to FF, didn't like the working distance. recently I shot few commercial environmental portraits with 100/2 and I gotta admit 85 is better performer.. OoF is on par, perhaps even 100/2 has a slight edge (matter of personal taste actually) but it lacks that sweet crispiness 85 used to deliver for me.


----------



## aiai (Nov 20, 2012)

thanks for you advices.

i must say i have a 35mm 2.0 and im planning to get a 70-200 f4.0 or f2.8

so you think the 85mm is the best choice then so i have all focal lengths covered?

thx a lot,

aiai 8)


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 20, 2012)

aiai said:


> 85mm 1.8 that it has a very fast focus and is pretty *very* sharp.




Fixed. 

I had the 85/1.8 and it's very sharp, even wide open. Great af speed, and for the price it's hard to beat. I once owned the 100/2, but I owned it back when I shot Ilford films only, so I can't really comment on its sharpness vs. the 85/1.8.


----------



## TeenTog (Nov 21, 2012)

I dont have any esperience with either of the lenses, but if It were me I would definately go for the 85 f/1.8. it's extemely sharp, and a bit more versitile than the 100- plus, it's an excellent focal length for portraits.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

another thread about the 85mm f1.8 ??
there are at least 2 running threads if im not wrong.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=690.msg196871#msg196871

the border sharpness wide open @f2 is better on the 100mm then the 85mm @f2, the center sharpness is equal.
this is my experience and the result posted on photozone.

but to be honest you have to take photos of testcharts to notice that.

the 100mm f2 has less purple fringing.
that is again my conclusion from testing a dozend samples of both lenses.

i may add that i remember having a few very bad 85mm f1.8 lenses that, while new, needed fixing at canon (decentering and heavy backfocus).... but not one bad 100mm f2.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> I dont have any esperience with either of the lenses, but if It were me I would definately go for the 85 f/1.8. it's extemely sharp, and a bit more versitile than the 100- plus, it's an excellent focal length for portraits.



it´s great to give advices on no experience..... :


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2012)

I own the 85 and it is really sharp from f/2.8 down. I wouldn't use it wide open unless you were desperate or something. I do like that the focusing speed is super fast, really good for moving subjects. The 100 is known to be similar so either one would be a winner, you just need to decide which focal length is best suited for your work.

The copy I have has just too much purple fringing in high contrast scenes at f/1.8 - 2.8 for my liking so maybe the 100 would be better but since I have it now I'll keep it and make the most of it. 

Oh and bokeh is just amazing on this lens! I haven't used it much as I only bought it fairly recently but on the few headshots I did it was great!


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 21, 2012)

I have used both for portrait shoots and i do mainly 90% portrait shoots on my 5D3.
Personally i'm not too bothered about sharpness between the 2 because you can't go wrong with both..Prime lenses are always sharp.
I am using 80% of the time my 85 f1.8 and the other 20% my 50 f1.4
I've stopped using the 100mm because well, i find it harder to use than the 85 in terms of framing somehow.
85 really is the perfect focal range for portraits and with more space even does well for full body shots..i only use the 50mm when i don't have enough space which is rare..


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I've stopped using the 100mm because well, i find it harder to use than the 85 in terms of framing somehow.



that is subjective of course.... many love to shoot portraits with the 135mm f2.

of course if you have a studio that is small you might have problems using a 15mm or 50mm longer lens indoors.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 21, 2012)

None of them, get the 100mm 2.8L instead, razor sharp, has IS and also macro capability.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

florianbieler.de said:


> None of them, get the 100mm 2.8L instead, razor sharp, has IS and also macro capability.



1.8 /2.0 vs 2.8.. well....

~380 euro vs. ~750 euro....


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 21, 2012)

Or 100mm 2.8 non-L, same sharpness minus build quality and IS.


----------



## Ophthaltographer (Nov 21, 2012)

I find the 85mm is more versatile for portraits unless you are doing only head and shoulder shots and even then it's quite easy to crop a bit with a 5D3 and get the 100mm eqivalent.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Nov 21, 2012)

The two lenses are really quite comparable, though not exactly interchangeable.

If you're planning on using it for portraiture, the only real difference is that you're going to need a bit more working distance with the 100 to get the same composition, and you'll as a result have a bit more compression of the perspective and get a bit more background blur. Not a huge amount, but you'll be able to tell the difference in side-by-side comparisons.

There're a few favorite variations on the "holy trinity of primes" theme for event (especially including wedding) photography. The classic one is 35 / 50 / 85. Also popular is 24 / 50 / 100. Some who're especially fond of the 135 mm focal length might go for something like 35 / 100 / 135. With the new Shorty McForty and the new 24mm f/2.8 IS combined with the insane low-light performance of the 5DIII, some serious consideration should be given to 24 / 40 / 85. However, if you're not sure, you're far better off doing your event photography with a standard zoom until you <i>are</i> sure.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Nov 21, 2012)

I would happily suggest the Sigma 85mm f/1.4

very useful comparison here with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 - 

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-85mm-f1-2l-ii/


----------



## aiai (Nov 21, 2012)

thanks for the fast and good answers, im sorry that ive overeseen the already existing thread.

after buying the 5d mk iii and a 35mm f2.0 i want to save up some money.

i think i will go for the 85mm f1.8.

Does somebody have useful comparison pictures before i make my real final decision? i read lots of threads but im still not sure. 

its a quality question now: quality, built, ?

thanks in advance,

aiai 8)


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 21, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> who're



+1 for the uncommon "who + are" contraction. 

lol


----------



## CharlieB (Nov 22, 2012)

My thoughts... totally off the wall... perhaps.

if you are used to shooting FF with a 35mm lens... get the 85mm

if you find you're a 50mm normal shooter, get the 100mm 

that simple!


----------



## AdamJ (Nov 22, 2012)

aiai said:


> thanks for the fast and good answers, im sorry that ive overeseen the already existing thread.
> 
> after buying the 5d mk iii and a 35mm f2.0 i want to save up some money.
> 
> ...



The build quality is fine. You really don't need to agonise over this. It's probably Canon's best bang-for-buck lens. You'll be making a great decision.


----------



## aiai (Nov 22, 2012)

then ill get the 85mm 1.8 
another plus is that my friend has a spare orig. lens hood that i can have!

the last question i have:

what is it about the lenses? why do people say "the first lens i got was not so good but the second is great" 
how can i recognise, if a have a good lens or bad built lens?

thanks a lot

kr,
aiai 8)


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2012)

The build is not the issue, it will prob be the amount of flaring, CA and purple fringing. It should be sharp at all apertures except wide open, and you should see improvement in IQ when stopped down a bit to around f/2.8. Also the AF speed should be really fast and accurate. If it performs better than all this you have a great copy, if not maybe you could swap it for another one. 

Don't be shocked if it doesn't perform well at f/1.8, though it should at least be useable.


----------

