85 vs 100 vs 135

[mahleu]

I'm in the market for a fast lens, i have a fast 28 and 50 already so I was looking at the 85mm f1.8. Then I came across the 100 f2 and shortly thereafter the 135 f2. I'm really torn between these 3, from experience i've learnt that you simly deal with whatever lenses you have but I think the 100mm will probably get the most use.

Also, out of curiousity, how will the 100 f2 with extension tubes compare with the 100 f2.8 macro?

Thanks for any help/advice

[Fred Ragland]

... I think the 100mm will probably get the most use...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How will the lens be used?

Fred

[mahleu]

How will the lens be used?

Fred
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everything. Mostly revolving around people shots. Weddings, shows, occasional street, portraiture.

[Rob C]

You want to use an ultra fast lens with tubes?

Ciao - Rob C

[Andy M]

Up until a couple of weeks ago I owned Canon's 85mm f1.2 mkII, 100mm f2.8 Macro and the 135mm f2.

Both the 85 & 100 have now been sold, and the 135 will be staying in my bag.

I honestly think it's the sharpest lens made by Canon, bar none - including the 300mm f2.8. The bokeh is fabulous too.

Go for the 135 - you won't regret it

[Dr. Gary]

I'm in the market for a fast lens, i have a fast 28 and 50 already so I was looking at the 85mm f1.8. Then I came across the 100 f2 and shortly thereafter the 135 f2. I'm really torn between these 3, from experience i've learnt that you simly deal with whatever lenses you have but I think the 100mm will probably get the most use.

Also, out of curiousity, how will the 100 f2 with extension tubes compare with the 100 f2.8 macro?

Thanks for any help/advice
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I love the 135 f/2. I have a 2'x3' enlargement hanging on the wall in my office shot with a 1Ds Mk II that blows people's minds when they see it.

drgary

[mahleu]

You want to use an ultra fast lens with tubes?

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Occasionally. It would obviously be stopped down. Is there a problem doing this?

[Rob C]

Occasionally. It would obviously be stopped down. Is there a problem doing this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The short and simple answer is yes; you are better looking at micro lenses that have been designed to do the job or, at worst, slower lenses of your chosen focal length. Fast lenses are designed to be fast - used for poor light and for action and, as an aesthetic afterthought, for depth of field effects (shallow). You can do as you were suggesting in the physical sense, but don´t expect much.

Photography is one of those sciences where a lot of R´n´D goes into getting the best solution to a given problem; anything else is just compromise. You shouldn´t expect wonders outwith the design remit.

If you have the dough rey me to buy those fast long ones, then you will have no trouble buying a micro!

Ciao - Rob C

[mahleu]

If you have the dough rey me to buy those fast long ones, then you will have no trouble buying a micro!

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 85 and the 100 are actually fairly cheap. It's only the 135 which breaks the bank a bit.

[Khun_K]

The 85 and the 100 are actually fairly cheap. It's only the 135 which breaks the bank a bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 100/2.8 macro perhaps will be the most versatile, giving you a lot more range in focus and a very sharp lens.  Between 85/1.8 and 100/2 the center sharpness is equal but perhaps the 100/2 has better corner sharpness but the 2 lenses are head to head comparable, the 2 lenes I have might just be examples that I can refer to, I beleive there are other user have different opinion.
The 135/2 is a different lens because the image will be compressed a lot more, and of course quite sharp but I was not too sure if it is the sharpest lenses from Canon, having have more than 20 Canon lenses.  Certainly the 135/2 will be useful but I suppose for most type of picture taking, 100/2.8 will be more useful as a general lens and it is at least as sharp as 135/2, 100/2 or 85/1.8 if not sharper.

[marcwilson]

Hi,
I was actually about to ask about these same three lenses..but with a slightly different slant.
I'm looking for a longer focal length lens to use for stock work, mainly city, landscapes etc and won't be using at small apertures..more likely F5.6 and above.

So when used at these apertures does the L series lens still stand out in terms of image quality over the 85 F1.8 USM or 100mm F2?...or at these apertures does it become a level playing field where the 100mm looks good because of the combination of focal length, weight, size and cost?

[Jack Flesher]

At one time or another I have owned the 85/1.8, 85/1.2 (v1), 100/2, 100/2.8 macro and 135/2.  Keep in mind I use them on full fame cameras.  

First off, I can tell you all of them are excellent.  That said, both of the L's have the L look -- quite sharp, a bit crisper contrast, and a bit better color saturation than the non L's.  The others will render very similar to your 50/1.4.

Your decision is going to be based on your intended use and preferred focal.  At the end of the day, I hardly ever grabbed the 135 -- it was arguably the sharpest Canon lens I ever owned, even wide open, but for my style of shooting it was simply too long (on full frame) most of the time.  (However, It would have made a nice fast long lens on a 1.6 crop sensor!)

The 100 was great too, but I sold it when I got the macro, feeling the macro woudl serve double duty.  It didn't.  It is more than sharp enough at close focus distances,  but has a different look when used at normal distances.  In the end, I use my 90 TSE with tubes or extenders when I want to go close and replaced the 100 macro with an 85/1.2 for the added speed and slighter shorter focal length -- which I now knew I would prefer over the longer 100 and 135.  This is a great lens, and I loved using it, but it was so big it rarely went into the bag unless I knew for sure I was going to use it.  As a result it was never in the bag when I wanted it...  

So I now have the simple little 85/1.8, and carry it ALL THE TIME.  For me, it is the ideal second focal to compliment my 50/1.4 and then I also round a trio out with the 28/1.8.  I just returned froma trip to Europe where I carried only those three lenses and two 5D bodies -- and never felt like I needed anything else.

A word on the 28/1.8.  Previous versions of that lens I tried -- a few years back -- were nothing short of horrible.  However, it seems later versions may have been silently improved.  This new copy (purchased last fall) is in the same class as the 50/1.4 except for perhaps the extreme corners wide open -- I really like it.  Plus it's small and relatively inexpensive.

A shot from the 85 at f2, hand-held through a store window:



Here is another from the 28. Not the best shot, but shows the capabilities of the lens, including its handling of flare -- hand held at 1/15th, f 2.8:



Cheers,

[mahleu]

So I now have the simple little 85/1.8, and carry it ALL THE TIME.  For me, it is the ideal second focal to compliment my 50/1.4 and then I also round a trio out with the 28/1.8.  I just returned froma trip to Europe where I carried only those three lenses and two 5D bodies -- and never felt like I needed anything else.

A word on the 28/1.8.  Previous versions of that lens I tried -- a few years back -- were nothing short of horrible.  However, it seems later versions may have been silently improved.  This new copy (purchased last fall) is in the same class as the 50/1.4 except for perhaps the extreme corners wide open -- I really like it.  Plus it's small and relatively inexpensive.

Thanks for that, very very informative. I recently bought a 28/1.8 second hand and i've enjoyed it, especially for stage work. I think I will probably end up going for the 85 unless a cheap 100 pops up first.

[Geoff Wittig]

Thanks for that, very very informative. I recently bought a 28/1.8 second hand and i've enjoyed it, especially for stage work. I think I will probably end up going for the 85 unless a cheap 100 pops up first.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here's another vote for the 85 mm f:1.8 lens. It's light, it's cheap, it focuses quickly, and has very nice bokeh. It gives about 95% of the quality of the 85mm f:1.2 L lens for about 20% of the cost.