100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8

[jdramirez]

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2... i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all. From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

The 85L is a portrait lens... generally your subject isn't going to be running around... so auto focus should really be a non factor... shooting at f 1.2 is a challenge, but since minimum focusing distance is 3 ft... y are dealing with smaller dof with the 100L.

If you plan on shooting at f1.8, ok... but you can still quite easily miss your subject... if you are shooting at f8, it is hard to beat the 100L.

WE GET FAST PRIMES TO SHOOT WIDE OPEN...

But to each his own.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Thanks for all your feedback... When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous... the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures. They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper. To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens. I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2. The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end... When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about. The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today. The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart... While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors. Then I would totally use that lens. Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)... I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8. Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at. Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...

Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2... i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all. From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

You're absolutely right, so just saying "cost vs benefit for you doesn't favor the 85/1.2" should be enough. You brought it some highly dubious comparisons as 'unanimous reviews'.
In fact, if you're spending that kind of money a 70-200L will serve you far better, and in a studio environment, the non-IS f/2.8 might give you the versatility and wider FoV you are looking for, at a much lower price. Have you considered that?

 

[LostArk]

No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

 

[awinphoto]

Thanks for all your feedback... When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous... the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures. They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper. To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens. I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2. The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end... When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about. The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today. The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart... While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors. Then I would totally use that lens. Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)... I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8. Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at. Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...

Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2... i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all. From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

You're absolutely right, so just saying "cost vs benefit for you doesn't favor the 85/1.2" should be enough. You brought it some highly dubious comparisons as 'unanimous reviews'.
In fact, if you're spending that kind of money a 70-200L will serve you far better, and in a studio environment, the non-IS f/2.8 might give you the versatility and wider FoV you are looking for, at a much lower price. Have you considered that?

I have considered that, but from most of my shooting, that lens lends itself more for an outdoor lens. It could be a mental block, but when i'm indoors, it just isn't the lens i naturally grab... while that is a great lens, i fall in that category (for this lens groupings) on which is more beneficial for me... the F4 and IS, or 2.8 and no IS and not quite as sharp at the f4 is... and once again, the 2.8 IS II is out of budget, while that one I will admit has lived up to all it's hype. Also the 70-300 is another interesting lens but we also lose another stop but gain another 100mm. But for most my clients, i shoot in studio 90% of the time, so an indoor lens (and preferably easy on the arms hand holding) is preferred. Ideally i would like to get this lens within the next month or two... But as with the original premise of my thread, i have the 100mm 2.8L, i want something a tad wider and faster (or will give me softer backgrounds/bokeh) that i can shoot in a studio setting. Most my research up to this point led to the 85 1.8, if anyone had any photos comparing the two's image quality and bokeh, i would love to see them so see the difference, if any.

 

[awinphoto]

No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L.

 

[jdramirez]

No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L.

just get the 85 USM. to answer your original question no there is no specific reason why you would get the 85 USM over the 100 L.it's not as sharp.in a studio you can control the light so f 2.8 versus F 1.8 isn't going to make a difference..additionally the depth of field for the 100 L will be shallower than the 85 USM. but we do you have an inch it will not be satisfied with anything other than what you desire

 

[jdramirez]

I should qualify that... shallower depth of field depending upon your subject and how close you get to them... obviously at 1.8 v 2.8 and the same framing... 1.8 will be shallower.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2... i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all. From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

Not sure what keeper rates most people are getting. But I generally had a pretty high keeper rate with the 85II on my 5D3 either wide open for very close to it. When properly calibrated, there is no reason why the keeper rate should be so low that it would be an issue for a paid photographer.

I have owned the 85/1.8 as well as the 85II and 100L currently. There are obviously many variants with regard to shooting types and scenarios. For me, I would have chosen the 100L over the 85/1.8 any day of the week if we are talking relatively static subject portraits. The aberrations present in the 85/1.8 were plenty and not always that easy to get rid of in post when shooting wide open. Yes, it was decently sharp, but IQ in general was worse than the 100L which btw has IS that more than compensates for the real advantage of the 85/1.8.

If you want what looks vastly different, the 85II or possibly the Sigma 85/1.4 are it. What isn't anything to write home about when it comes to portraiture is the 85/1.8. Is it good enough? For most people, probably. Is it what you want? I have an odd feeling you are definitely trying to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth it while knowing inside that it is what you ultimately want.

Trust me, 85II on a 5D3 works just fine with regard to AF for portraiture. Don't let that be a reason you choose to go with the 1.8. If the cost is too prohibitive, then fine. But don't try to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth the money for most of the people that own it because of what "some" people have mumbled on the interwebs.

 

[klickflip]

As its going a bit OT about the 85 i.2 L II , I have to add my experience.

Its nowhere nearly as slow to focus or inaccurate as its made out to be, I regularly shoot sports / skateboarding shots with it to brilliant results at 1.2- 1.8, 6fps sequences too and its more about how you set the first focus tracking point and tracking settings than anything. You have to make sure (on 5DIII anyway) that the selected focus point or area can pick up a reasonably defined contrast area and this will remain reasonably constant shape and contrast for the duration that you need it to be . Learn how to make the most out the AF system rather than moan about inconsistent AF.
Low light can however get it hunting a bit on low contrast subjects, but many other lenses suffer the same.

Plus when I use it for studio portraits in one shot AF and that require more DOF , F8-10 it is spot on 95%+ of the time. And AMAZINGLY sharp compared to the 70-200L 2.8 or any other lens only other one that can get close (but not as good) is the sigma 35 art.

No doubt about it it is a super lens in all senses, beautiful wide open while still being sharp and really bitingly sharp when stopped down.
Yes it's pretty expensive and isn't a all day walk around lens but is certainly worth it when u need it.

 

[sagittariansrock]

No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L.

Seeing that you had a very specific request in the OP, and didn't receive a response (i.e., comparative images of the 100L and the 85/1.8 ), I'd say why not try the 85/1.8 anyway? The FL will definitely make a difference, and you can certainly use it wide open, as many posters have said. So I am sure it will be worth the investment. And it's cheap enough to not lose money over a resale.
I'd say go for it, and share the comparative images afterwards

 

[steliosk]

i both have the 85 1.8 and the 100L
and the 70-200 2.8 IS II

i gotta say, each lens is for a different purpose.

the 85 1.8 has very nice bokeh, but suffers from CA, the good news is that its cheap and lightweight
the bad news except the CA is the minimum distance.. you can't "crop" a face with it as you would with the 100L
many many times i find this issue irritating and thats my main difference with the 85 1.8 which is a great lens.

The 100L is made for macro, which means that you won't have that softness as you would with the 85 1.8
way too contrasted but excellent image quallity, and nice build. Plus the IS and of course you can shoot tight portraits with it without cropping in post afterwards.

The 70-200 2.8 does a bit of everything. The good news is that this lens is sharp and focuses blazing fast. It doesn't think. It acts.
The bad news except the cost is the weight.. not versatile. I use this one for weddings mostly where i need a tiny window to shoot through at 135-200mm @ 2.8 but not to take photos of children at home. hell no. It is scary and uncomfortable.

I'd probably use the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4 which i also have and love for that

Bottomline:
if i have space and time to play with i'd use the 85 1.8
if not, 70-200 2.8
I think i'm gonna sell the 100L, i'm too lazy to shoot macro anyway. Besides macro lenses are useless without proper lighting.

 

[mackguyver]

So you didn't care for my advice, that's fine, but you said you were shooting portraits. Shooting the 85 f/1.2 II at f/1.2 to 2 will give you photos unlike anything the 100L macro will give you and the lens is totally usable under f/2. The 85 f/1.8 isn't as good at f/1.8 and is going to look soft, with less smooth bokeh, and a lot more CA than the macro, which is nearly perfect wide open. I think you'll be disappointed by the IQ at f/1.8 up to about f/2.8. That's why I made the suggestion. And people who have trouble with the f/1.2 are either trying to shoot something other than portraits or don't understand how to shoot at f/1.2. There is nothing wrong with the lens and while it is very expensive and took me a long time to save up for,but it is what it is, and the results speak for themselves.

 

[sagittariansrock]

i both have the 85 1.8 and the 100L
and the 70-200 2.8 IS II

i gotta say, each lens is for a different purpose.

the 85 1.8 has very nice bokeh, but suffers from CA, the good news is that its cheap and lightweight
the bad news except the CA is the minimum distance.. you can't "crop" a face with it as you would with the 100L
many many times i find this issue irritating and thats my main difference with the 85 1.8 which is a great lens.

The 100L is made for macro, which means that you won't have that softness as you would with the 85 1.8
way too contrasted but excellent image quallity, and nice build. Plus the IS and of course you can shoot tight portraits with it without cropping in post afterwards.

The 70-200 2.8 does a bit of everything. The good news is that this lens is sharp and focuses blazing fast. It doesn't think. It acts.
The bad news except the cost is the weight.. not versatile. I use this one for weddings mostly where i need a tiny window to shoot through at 135-200mm @ 2.8 but not to take photos of children at home. hell no. It is scary and uncomfortable.

I'd probably use the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4 which i also have and love for that

Bottomline:
if i have space and time to play with i'd use the 85 1.8
if not, 70-200 2.8
I think i'm gonna sell the 100L, i'm too lazy to shoot macro anyway. Besides macro lenses are useless without proper lighting.

I think the OP is looking for some comparative images at the same subject distance, wide open to show background blur. Maybe without any post.
I am curious, too (for merely academic reasons). Can you share some images, if you have the time?
Thanks.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I would really love to get a fast 85mm that works great wide open and narrowly missed on the 85/1.2 refurb'd today. Probably for the best though- what I want is an 85/1.4 with faster AF, and it seems Sigma is preparing my Christmas present as we speak.

the 85mm f1.8 won't give you the same IQ and color rendition & contrast that you get from 100mm 2.8L. I had both and end up selling the 85mm and using the 100mmL for portraits and macro work.
Wait for the new sigma 85mm 1.4, hence you'll see a positive difference. I had the current version but needed to sell it.... and now waiting either for the new Sogma 85 f1.4(Art) or a new Canon 85mm w/IS

 

[Ruined]

The specular highlights produced by the 85 1.8 look angular, not circular. That's part of my consideration when I sold it. Also maximum usable aperture is probably about 2.5 which is too close to my 100L's 2.8. Bokeh is not 135L quality. Nobody should expect that. But it's far better than 50 1.4. Personally like 100mm blur better though. Also it has no weather sealing.

On the good side the 85 focuses faster than the 100L. The focus seems more consistent and reliable. This is only based on my personal experience.

The 85 is a great value lens. You should definitely try it. Nothing to lose.

Don't agree with you on the usable aperture of 2.5. It's the best lens I own and virtually never take it off 1.8 for professional portrait work - it's a belter of lens, I reckon by far the best bang for buck in the Canon line up.

85 f/1.8 is great value but I agree with the previous poster that if you need to stop it down to f/4 for a group shot the angular bokeh is ugly. I wish Canon would update this with a 85mm f/1.8 IS design similar to the 35mm f/2 IS.

I personally would rather have the 100L of the two for its dual purpose macro/general as well as more pleasing bokeh stopped down.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I have the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0. Bought the 100 first on the recommendation of a friend and found it to be a bit long for my needs. I use the 85 about 10 times as much as the 100 for my work. Have never had a problem with insufficient minimum focus distance.

I thought about getting a 100 L for greater sharpness, but after due consideration I realized that when shooting people, maximum sharpness is a disadvantage more often that it is an advantage. I would just have to spend more time in photoshop smoothing skin.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The specular highlights produced by the 85 1.8 look angular, not circular. That's part of my consideration when I sold it. Also maximum usable aperture is probably about 2.5 which is too close to my 100L's 2.8. Bokeh is not 135L quality. Nobody should expect that. But it's far better than 50 1.4. Personally like 100mm blur better though. Also it has no weather sealing.

On the good side the 85 focuses faster than the 100L. The focus seems more consistent and reliable. This is only based on my personal experience.

The 85 is a great value lens. You should definitely try it. Nothing to lose.

Don't agree with you on the usable aperture of 2.5. It's the best lens I own and virtually never take it off 1.8 for professional portrait work - it's a belter of lens, I reckon by far the best bang for buck in the Canon line up.

85 f/1.8 is great value but I agree with the previous poster that if you need to stop it down to f/4 for a group shot the angular bokeh is ugly. I wish Canon would update this with a 85mm f/1.8 IS design similar to the 35mm f/2 IS.

I personally would rather have the 100L of the two for its dual purpose macro/general as well as more pleasing bokeh stopped down.

Interesting that you liked the 100L bokeh stopped down? I didn't like it even wide open. Can you share some images- in case it was my technique which was the issue (and it might well be... )