Portrait: 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0

[florianbieler.de]

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

[Ophthaltographer]

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!]

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]

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]

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 

[Daniel Flather]

who're

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

lol

[CharlieB]

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]

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 

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]

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 

[Zv]

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.