Next Lens! Which way?

[alchera]

Hi all,

Looking towards my next lens and debating internally between two:

EF 85mm f/1.8
or
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Uses will be varied, but portraiture will be right up there for useage. The Macro appeals on one side as does the 1.8 on the other.

Wanting to know differences in the lenses from experience as in sharpness, low light performance, and in particular potraiture and candid shots.

Anything to help me decide would be muchly appreciated.

[DJT]

I'd say go the 100, just because it will be more versatile.
Even though I'm on the Nikon side of the fence, I have the 85 f/1.8 & the Tamron 90mm macro f/2.8. I take the 90 everywhere with me. I very rarely use the 85, but when I do I really enjoy the pics it takes and although I doesn't get much of a workout I have no intentions what so ever of selling it.

Sorry I guess I haven't really helped have I

[dche5390]

The 85mm is more suited for low-light DoF play whereas the macro, does have a "slower" AF as it will try to 1:1 on most things.

I've owned both, with the 85 1.8 on Nikon and the 100 macro (USM and L version) with Canon.

In terms of focal lengths, there is minimal difference at that range (as we're not talking about wide angle).

I think you will get more bang for buck with the macro, as it produces amazingly sharp portraits.

Both lenses are sharp. The 85 is probably marginally faster. But the MFD you get with the macro, and the added bonus of 1:1, takes the pick for me.

And just to confuse you, there's also the 100mm f/2 that is identical to the 85 1.8. But it can be had for cheaper usually when secondhand.

I don't know what camera you're shooting with (1.6x or FF of 1.3x), but when I mounted my first 85 on crop, I found it way too tight for framing indoors. Just keep that in mind. You'll need quite a lot of space between you and the human subject.

[alchera]

I'd say go the 100, just because it will be more versatile.
Even though I'm on the Nikon side of the fence, I have the 85 f/1.8 & the Tamron 90mm macro f/2.8. I take the 90 everywhere with me. I very rarely use the 85, but when I do I really enjoy the pics it takes and although I doesn't get much of a workout I have no intentions what so ever of selling it.

Sorry I guess I haven't really helped have I

You are selling yourself short - you have helped!

I was leaning towards the 100mm ... maybe I go the 85mm f/1.2 (instead of the 1.8) down the track

[alchera]

The 85mm is more suited for low-light DoF play whereas the macro, does have a "slower" AF as it will try to 1:1 on most things.

I've owned both, with the 85 1.8 on Nikon and the 100 macro (USM and L version) with Canon.

In terms of focal lengths, there is minimal difference at that range (as we're not talking about wide angle).

I think you will get more bang for buck with the macro, as it produces amazingly sharp portraits.

Both lenses are sharp. The 85 is probably marginally faster. But the MFD you get with the macro, and the added bonus of 1:1, takes the pick for me.

And just to confuse you, there's also the 100mm f/2 that is identical to the 85 1.8. But it can be had for cheaper usually when secondhand.

I don't know what camera you're shooting with (1.6x or FF of 1.3x), but when I mounted my first 85 on crop, I found it way too tight for framing indoors. Just keep that in mind. You'll need quite a lot of space between you and the human subject.

Camera is a 1000D so 1.6 and the next being a 7D will be the same. I have the nifty fifty for portrait shots also, but was looking for a bit more length or tighter framing outdoors (and indoors where applicable). Candids too of course

I looked at the 100mm f/2 but thought the Macro option could come in handy at times ... sharpness is a definite "must have" so I think you have helped push me fully towards the 100mm ... if I decide on expanding the portrait portfolio then perhaps I will look at the 85mm f/1.2 down the track.

Thanks for your advice

[dche5390]

I wouldn't get the 85 when you already have the 50. The 85 is literally 2-3 steps forward in terms of FoV.

The 85L, requires some time to get used to its turtoise AF system. It has a lot of glass to turn. May not be the best lens for candid portraits. The 85 1.8 on the other hand, is pretty damn fast. But if you want fast, sharp, and awesome L glass, the 135L fits the bill.

I've got a 100 USM macro that I may consider letting go of (although I had only recently entertained the idea of doing a macro a day sort of thing project). PM me if you like.

Like I said, the macro's AF is something different to your usual glass. Just something to keep in mind. And for actual macro work, you'll be stopping down alot and will require insane amounts of light at f/16+.

[alchera]

I wouldn't get the 85 when you already have the 50. The 85 is literally 2-3 steps forward in terms of FoV.

The 85L, requires some time to get used to its turtoise AF system. It has a lot of glass to turn. May not be the best lens for candid portraits. The 85 1.8 on the other hand, is pretty damn fast. But if you want fast, sharp, and awesome L glass, the 135L fits the bill.

I've got a 100 USM macro that I may consider letting go of (although I had only recently entertained the idea of doing a macro a day sort of thing project). PM me if you like.

Like I said, the macro's AF is something different to your usual glass. Just something to keep in mind. And for actual macro work, you'll be stopping down alot and will require insane amounts of light at f/16+.

Thanks for the heads up regarding the 85L . 135L is next in line after this purchase actually!

Will drop you a PM shorlty.

Was thinking that the macro side of it would be good to muck around with on the odd occaission. Have not really explored that area yet and wanted to have a dip ... thought this could be the perfect opportunity to get an idea of whether I wanted to branch out into macros on top of everyhting else whilst still having a lens that can give me my main needs.

[dche5390]

The tamron 90mm and the 100mm USM are really good starters as they're relatively cheap. If you only want amazing portraits, the 135L is good and I would actually recommend it as the first lens to get. I does get rather tight on 1.6x so it is probably more useful outdoors. The DoF at f/2 is surreal.

I've gone through a lot of gear. Perhaps it is part of the journey to branch out to different sorts of photography and thus acquire a lot of paper weights, but knowing what you want is the key objective. For every dollar saved, it is a dollar not spent.

[alchera]

135L is next on the list