[Guest]

Is there much difference between these two lenses (esp at FF). I see the review on the 85f1.8 across all platforms but only the 8mb review for the 100f2. The intention would be to use FF so concern about purple fringing/min focus.

-

As far as I can tell the two lenses are actually different designs (7/9 vs 6/8) with the 85mm having slightly better max magnification and $100 less expensive so not obvious to me if there is much difference in optical performance. Has anyone experience with both lenses esp at max aperture ?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1301315298' post='7163']

Is there much difference between these two lenses (esp at FF). I see the review on the 85f1.8 across all platforms but only the 8mb review for the 100f2. The intention would be to use FF so concern about purple fringing/min focus.

-

As far as I can tell the two lenses are actually different designs (7/9 vs 6/8) with the 85mm having slightly better max magnification and $100 less expensive so not obvious to me if there is much difference in optical performance. Has anyone experience with both lenses esp at max aperture ?

[/quote]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/80881668

[Guest]

So link 1 says the 85 has higher contrast but the 100 has better bokeh; link says they are identical (contrast/resolution).

-

Link 2 does not indicate if full frame or not; while link 1 really favors the 85 for full frame.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1301321861' post='7165']

So link 1 says the 85 has higher contrast but the 100 has better bokeh; link says they are identical (contrast/resolution).

-

Link 2 does not indicate if full frame or not; while link 1 really favors the 85 for full frame.

[/quote]

Both are fine lenses, the 100mm f2 has the same purple fringing wide open.



Choose on focal length, I guess. I would get the 85mm f1.8 myself.

[wim]

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

[allanmb]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301341883' post='7185']

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

[/quote]



I just got the 85/1.8 and am delighted with it apart from the amount of CA, which thankfully cleans up nicely in CS5 automatically. What did you find bad about it? My copy is very sharp wide open, AF is very quick.



To the OP, I chose the 85 as wanted the extra speed over the extra reach (its not much either way I know). I also wanted to stay at 1.8 as I have a 28/1.8 and 50/1.8. Maybe some day I might come across the 200/1.8 :-D



Allan

[Guest]

I have no doubt the 135/2 is the better lens but the focal length is a bit long for my usage. I'm just looking for a fast lens for some indoors shooting without a flash. If the 50f1.4 was a better lens I would go that route.

[wim]

[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1301386343' post='7200']

I just got the 85/1.8 and am delighted with it apart from the amount of CA, which thankfully cleans up nicely in CS5 automatically. What did you find bad about it? My copy is very sharp wide open, AF is very quick.[/quote]

You must eb very lucky in that case.



My first one was decentered badly, the second had very bad vignetting, the third one was kinda ok, but PF was rather bad, and CA was there till F/2.8 - F/4 or worse, depending on the lighting conditions. And I really found it not very great wide open or close to wide open. Needed to stop down to F/2.2 to F/2.5 at least for acceptable results.



I had a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8 Mk I and 85 F/1.8 setup for low light photography, originally. The 85 was by far the worst of this little setup. The 50 Mk I was good, the 28 was very good.



Replaced them all with L-versions eventually (well, 28 with 24L), so no looking back anyway. In tests it is often said that the 85 F/1.8 is close to the 85L in performance, IQ-wise, but that certainly isn't my experience. Not even close.

To the OP, I chose the 85 as wanted the extra speed over the extra reach (its not much either way I know). I also wanted to stay at 1.8 as I have a 28/1.8 and 50/1.8. Maybe some day I might come across the 200/1.8 :-D



Allan

28-50-85 in F/1.8 is a great combo for low light, for sure. I was fortunate enough I could replace them with Ls however, which are distinctly better, certainly for my shooting styles.



Kind regards, Wim

[allanmb]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301528165' post='7241']

You must eb very lucky in that case.



My first one was decentered badly, the second had very bad vignetting, the third one was kinda ok, but PF was rather bad, and CA was there till F/2.8 - F/4 or worse, depending on the lighting conditions. And I really found it not very great wide open or close to wide open. Needed to stop down to F/2.2 to F/2.5 at least for acceptable results.



I had a 28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8 Mk I and 85 F/1.8 setup for low light photography, originally. The 85 was by far the worst of this little setup. The 50 Mk I was good, the 28 was very good.



Replaced them all with L-versions eventually (well, 28 with 24L), so no looking back anyway. In tests it is often said that the 85 F/1.8 is close to the 85L in performance, IQ-wise, but that certainly isn't my experience. Not even close.





28-50-85 in F/1.8 is a great combo for low light, for sure. I was fortunate enough I could replace them with Ls however, which are distinctly better, certainly for my shooting styles.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



I would really like to get the L equivalents but for my use I cant justify the cost because I don't use them that often; I am primarily a bird photographer.



Anyway, I haven't had the lens for long so don't really have any fantastic shots to show but below is my eldest son taken wide open with the 85/1.8. Looking closely at the few pics I do have so far has made me realise that the lens has some mild front focussing issues. Perhaps yours did too? Not an issue nowadays as most bodies have MA.

[Guest]

I think I'll just try an old contax 85f1.4 I have from my film days. I had hoped to use auto focus for this event but it sounds like the 85f1.8 is not a sure thing. Anyways at least this way the lens is 'free' since i already have it.