03-28-2011, 07:51 PM
Having owned three 85 F/1.8s, I'd suggest you try the 100 F/2, or if you don't mind spending a little (ok, a fair amount) more, a 135L.
There's no comparison. You won't look back. And when you get a few extension rings, it will double extremely nicely as a macro lens, with better rendering, IMO, than the 100 F/2.8 Macro or the 100L Macro. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Add an Extender 1.4X, and you have a 189 F/2.8, with extremely little loss of IQ.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
There's no comparison. You won't look back. And when you get a few extension rings, it will double extremely nicely as a macro lens, with better rendering, IMO, than the 100 F/2.8 Macro or the 100L Macro. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Add an Extender 1.4X, and you have a 189 F/2.8, with extremely little loss of IQ.HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
