Canon 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 or 100mm macro for portraits

scottduffy

scottduffy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

Since i've purchased more Canon gear i'm thinking about a portrait lens to go along with my 50d and 17-55 IS. Now this may be quite controversial as i've owned 2 85mm f1.8 and never thought either were great despite their stellar reputation here and elswhere. I've never owned the 100 f2 and so i've only got reviews to go on there which rate it equal with the 85mm but i was thinking should i plump instead for the 100 macro as it'll certainly be sharper but without the same quality of bokeh. I wouldn't imagine i'd be doing much macro photography but i suppose then i would always have the option.

Opinions please.

Regards

Scott
 
I'm not an expert on Canon lenses, but thought the macro lens was an f2.8 - Canon do a 100mm f2 though (non macro) which is supposed to be good.
 
I would say you wont beat the 135mm L f2 lens. Think is well regarded for its sharpness and is sharper than the 100mm L macro lens.

 
I have the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8 macro and use them interchangeable for portraits with no issues. The 85 focusing is better but its not a deal breaker for not using the 100 when the need arises.
 
scottduffy said:
Hi Guys,

Since i've purchased more Canon gear i'm thinking about a portrait lens to go along with my 50d and 17-55 IS. Now this may be quite controversial as i've owned 2 85mm f1.8 and never thought either were great despite their stellar reputation here and elswhere. I've never owned the 100 f2 and so i've only got reviews to go on there which rate it equal with the 85mm but i was thinking should i plump instead for the 100 macro as it'll certainly be sharper but without the same quality of bokeh. I wouldn't imagine i'd be doing much macro photography but i suppose then i would always have the option.
Click to expand...

Personally I try to avoid the very widest apertures when shooting people as I don't really like very little to be in the depth of focus. It's so easy to have one eye sharp and one eye soft or to have most of the face sort of sharp or there abouts and the ears and hair definitely not, but if going for that look and going for lovely bokeh would the Canon 85mm f1.8 be the best choice? The angular bokeh is a matter of taste I suppose.

I don't suppose I've helped much but I just thought it was worth raising a question against wide aperture portraits. Lenses are often at their best stopped down a bit and if trying to get more than an eye in focus that's where you're going to be. With an APS-C camera if going for anything relatively tight like a head and shoulders shot I think I'd be using apertures of f5.6 and smaller and once you're there a vast number of lenses are sharp enough (do you really want razor sharpness anyway?) and good enough.
 
woof woof said:
Personally I try to avoid the very widest apertures when shooting people as I don't really like very little to be in the depth of focus. It's so easy to have one eye sharp and one eye soft or to have most of the face sort of sharp or there abouts and the ears and hair definitely not, but if going for that look and going for lovely bokeh would the Canon 85mm f1.8 be the best choice? The angular bokeh is a matter of taste I suppose.

I don't suppose I've helped much but I just thought it was worth raising a question against wide aperture portraits. Lenses are often at their best stopped down a bit and if trying to get more than an eye in focus that's where you're going to be. With an APS-C camera if going for anything relatively tight like a head and shoulders shot I think I'd be using apertures of f5.6 and smaller and once you're there a vast number of lenses are sharp enough (do you really want razor sharpness anyway?) and good enough.
Click to expand...

Good point Alan. I'll probably be using f4 or thereabout so i don't suppose the actual aperture will matter but the bokeh might well. Food for thought. Cheers guys.

P.S probably can't afford the 135L just now but another good suggestion.
 
100mm macro L is hard to beat. I think it has the edge over 85mm in terms of sharpness, and IS is a huge help. The 85mm does have a unique selling point - the f/1.8, but you need to be pretty sure you will use it enough to justify buying a somewhat "lesser" lens.
 
ive looked into both lenses,and to me the 100mm macro is way better than the rest.i should be getting mine soon...hope it helps.
 
I was never fond of the 85/1.8 plus I found it too close to 50mm tbh.

The 100/2.8 USM is a lovely lens really. I bought it for macro though & it is certainly my lesser [never?] used lens. So much so I've been thinking about selling it recently if you are interested.

I use 50mm & 135L so I'd be tempted with one of the 100mm lenses if I were you.
 
I'm gonna buck the trend here and say the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is my favourite portrait lens (on both FF and APSC). I have the 'holy grail' of primes but it's still my preferred lens.

I've also started to use my Sigma 105 mm HSM 2 for portraits which is nothing short of stunning!
 
Both the 85 f1.8 and the 100 f2.8 are excellent lenses and I would be happy to use either (IMHO the 85 is the best bang for the buck in the whole Canon range) and the Tamron 90mm macro has a very good reputation too. If you are shooting with a 100mm on a crop sensor and have your back against a wall you won't be able to move back any further whereas the 85 will give you a bit more space.. at the end of the day both the lenses you are considering are very good... and sharp isn't always good in portrait photography in any case
 
Sample shots

EF 85 f1.8 on the front of a 5D mkI:











And with a 24-105 f4 L IS.. can you really tell the difference?

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top