Lens decision: Canon 100mm 2.8 L or non L Macro vs Sigma 85mm 1.4 ex

[slclick]

You can do portraits on both but only macro on one, then there's the AF

 

[lexaclarke]

Sharpness is the last thing to matter.

Is this the same lexaclarke who said how much sharper cameras are without an AA filter, and how anyone who wants one with must simply have not tried one without ?

Yes except you're grossly misquoting me. We're not talking about future generations of camera sensor ten years down the line here, we're talking about a guy trying to capture the most important days of his family's life. Don't be so flippant.

Different things are more or less important for different roles and different situations. Nobody should want a less sharp lens or sensor, that just doesn't make sense. But there are situations where other aspects are more important. Something being less important isn't the same as it not mattering, either. It's nuts to pass up a sharpness increase when you have the option to take it for no extra cost, effort or downside, but in the case of something like this lens where getting more sharpness might cost you AF, that sharpness increase isn't such a vital point anymore. Getting more clarity out of your camera's files is a no-brainer; swapping lens operation for lens sharpness isn't such an easy choice.

If you're trying to get photos of your newborn child, the worst thing you can have is a lens or camera which is slow to operate and inaccurate. You don't have the time to mess about with that. If you can get a lens which is fast to operate and consistent and tough and versatile and unimposing and in budget and sharper than alternatives, great. But it's rare for there to be a lens that perfect, so you usually end up compromising on something. For this purpose, a slight increase in sharpness over other equivalent lenses is the part that is least necessary.

 

[Talys]

You can do portraits on both but only macro on one, then there's the AF

Yeah, that. the 100L is one of my personal, favorite lenses.

However, the 100 non-L is actually a spectacular-performing lens for its price. It doesn't have the luxury feel and build of the L, I have taken thousands of pictures with the non-L, and frankly, they're indistinguishable from the L. I ended up with both, because I needed two 100's mounted on separate cameras to take 2 angles macro.

The biggest difference is really the autofocus (the L is faster and more consistent) and image stabilization.

Really, another contender should be the Canon 85/1.8. It's only $350 new, often quite cheap used, and produces great portraits.

Size should matter too; the 85's are smaller than the 100's, though even the 100L is very light.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Hello Everybody,

thank you very much for helping me out here.
I just orderd the Canon 85mm 1.8 USM.

Cheers Everone.

Stefan

 

[lexaclarke]

Nice.

The 85 f1.8 is a seriously great lens. That and the similar 100 f2 are crazily good for their price and especially considering how old they are. No wonder Canon doesn't bother to update them.

 

[Talys]

Hello Everybody,

thank you very much for helping me out here.
I just orderd the Canon 85mm 1.8 USM.

Cheers Everone.

Stefan

Congrats! Solid choice, IMO.

You'll also enjoy the in-camera lens profiles with your selection, should you wish to save JPEGs in addition to or instead of RAW.

 

[slclick]

The LoCA is easily corrected in Post. Other than that anomaly, it's great lens

 

[jd7]

Hello Everybody,

thank you very much for helping me out here.
I just orderd the Canon 85mm 1.8 USM.

Cheers Everone.

Stefan

Congrats! Solid choice, IMO.

You'll also enjoy the in-camera lens profiles with your selection, should you wish to save JPEGs in addition to or instead of RAW.

I had a Canon 85 1.8 in the past and agree, it is indeed a very good little lens! I sometimes miss it for its small size and light weight, although after upgrading to the Sigma 85 EX it would be hard to give up the Sigma's IQ and aperture. I have thought about it occasionally though, for the convenience factor.

 

[Ozarker]

My opinion is you will rarely use a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens indoors on a crop sensor to photograph your baby. You'd shoot the hands and feet and some bubbles on the lips then be done with it. It's just too tight and slow. Focus will hunt indoors too. Once your baby is more mobile, it will struggle to keep up.

I personally love being close to my kids when photographing them, as my style is to be engaged with them playing to capture natural moments. The 35mm f/2 lens on a 7D body is great. Also the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is awesome in covering the "best" focal lengths on a crop body to engage with your kids. They both have really short minimum focusing distances too, so are super versatile for close up shots and full scene shots.

Very nice photos!