Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon 85mm f1.8 vs 100mm f2
#1
Hiya everyone!



I have been shooting with my faithful 17-40mm f4 (~27-64mm f5.6) on my 1.6x crop body (see signature) since late 2008 and would like to add another, longer lens for portrait & co works to my kit. However, I wasn't able to find very clear answers regarding the Canon 85mm 1.8, 100mm f2 and the new 100mm f2.8 Macro.



Since I intend to travel as light as possible with a maximum of 2 lenses and an external flash, I do not intent do purchase the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS / IS Mark II due to its hefty weight and steep price tag. (I'm even thinking of selling my battery grip to reduce weight.)

Basically what I am looking for is smooth bokeh at an aperture of f2 to f2.8, high contrast, accurate and fast AF similar to my 17-40mm f4, and preferably as little visual CA (Chromatic Aberration / achromatism) as possible. I downscale and usually sharpen my processed 10MP RAW files to about 4.5MP (2592x1728px) for punchier results.



What I found out is that on photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com, the Canon 100mm f2 is generally sharper, has less CA (wide open from f1.8 to f2.8) and produces slightly more appealing bokeh than its cheaper sibling. However, kenrockwell.com states that the bokeh of the 85mm is better, which might be due to personal preference maybe oO

Also, many users on amazon.com / .co.uk / .de and .fr seem to get slighly more contrasty and sharper results from their 85mm f1.8 primes at f2.8 than with the longer one.



Another question would be if the optional lens hood would be worth investing in. I read that it's one of those cheapo designs that simply snap onto the tread.



Personally I doubt that the 70-200mm f4 IS will deliver very nicely blurred backgrounds and foregrounds at focal lengths between 70 and 100mm wide open, or am I mistaken? Perhaps some of you has either lens and can share their experience.



I hope you can enlighten me here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



Cheers





Harald
#2
Hi,

[quote name='Project2501' date='06 June 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1275780541' post='256']

Hiya everyone!



I have been shooting with my faithful 17-40mm f4 (~27-64mm f5.6) on my 1.6x crop body (see signature) since late 2008 and would like to add another, longer lens for portrait & co works to my kit. However, I wasn't able to find very clear answers regarding the Canon 85mm 1.8, 100mm f2 and the new 100mm f2.8 Macro.



Since I intend to travel as light as possible with a maximum of 2 lenses and an external flash, I do not intent do purchase the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS / IS Mark II due to its hefty weight and steep price tag. (I'm even thinking of selling my battery grip.)

Basically what I am looking for is smooth bokeh at an aperture of f2 to f2.8, high contrast, accurate and fast AF similar to my 17-40mm f4, and preferably as little visual CA (Chromatic Aberration / achromatism) as possible. I downscale and usually sharpen my processed 10MP RAW files down to about 4.5MP (2592x1728px) for punchier results.[/quote]

As little CA and other visual aberrations (like PF), precludes the 85 F/1.8 IME. You'd have to go for the 100 F/2 (better than 85 in this regard), 100 F/2.8 Macro (better again) or 100 F/2.8L IS Macro (slightly better than the older macro). I am also taking weight and price tag into account here. However, IMO, 100 mm on crop is a little long for general portrait work, and personally I would rather consider the 60 F/2.8 Macro. Its AoV on APS-C is about equal to that of a 100 mm on FF, which is the old standard FL for portraits. And it is slightly sharper than the old non-L 100 mm Macro. It also is a lot lighter and smaller than any of the lenses you mentioned, and cheaper too.

Quote:What I found out is that on photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com, the Canon 100mm f2 is generally sharper, has less CA (wide open from f1.8 to f2.8) and produces slightly more appealing bokeh than its cheaper sibling. However, kenrockwell.com states that the bokeh of the 85mm is better, which might be due to personal preference maybe oO

Yes, it is personal preference. Bokeh is a quality influenced by personal judgment, to a very large degree. If you want the best bokeh of the lenses you mentioned, the 100L Macro is the one to go for, as in, the smoothest bokeh.

Quote:Also, many users on amazon.com / .co.uk / .de and .fr seem to get slighly more contrasty and sharper results from their 85mm f1.8 primes at f2.8 than with the longer one.

Well, that is a matter of processing I think. Many more people have an 85, plus it is more useful on crop than a 100, and therefore there might just be better images taken with the 85 on the 'net than taken with the 100. Personally, I didn't like the 85 F/1.8 a lot, especially because for my uses it only became useful past F/2.2 - F/2.5.

Quote:Another question would be if the optional lens hood would be worth investing in. I read that it's one of those cheapo designs that simply snap onto the tread.

Yes, it is, if only to prevent flare and ghosting with the light coming in from the wrong angle.

Quote:Personally I doubt that the 70-200mm f4 IS will deliver very nicely blurred backgrounds and foregrounds at focal lengths between 70 and 100mm wide open, or am I mistaken? Perhaps some of you has either lens and can share their experience.

I had it, and its predecessor too. The IS version is very, very sharp, from wide open, except in the nearby areas, close to MFD, especially at the long end. Other than that it is a truly excellent lens. The older version without IS is almost as good, slightly worse wide open, but not really noticeable, but it is slightly better close to MFD.



When you do portraits, in order to have a closely cropped face, or even a head and shoulders portrait, sharp from the tip of someone's nose to the cheeks close to the ears, you actually need at least F/4 if not F/5.6. When you get a bit further away, you can get away with larger apertures, of course, but at the longer end even F/4 is cutting it very fine.



This is also true for any of the other lenses you mention, except for the zoom bit of course.

Quote:I hope you can enlighten me here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



Cheers

You could also consider the 24-105L IS, BTW, if you are considering a zoom that can do portraits. On APS-C it is the ideal portrait zoom, being centered around 50 mm. Wide open it is slightly softer, which goes away after stopping down for 1/3 of a stop. I have used it a lot for portraits on my own 40D when I still had it.



There is some overlap with the 17-40L of course, but that is never a problem IMO; it just means fewer lens changes.



I did not include the 24-70L, basically because it is more expensive than any of the lenses listed here, and because it is rather heavy (its nickname is "The Brick" for a reason).



So, summarizing:

EF-S 60 F/2.8 Macro - very, very good wide open, great FL for portraits on APS-C, bokeh ok

85 F/1.8 - I personally don't recommend, because of PF and (lack of) sharpness wide open, bokeh ok

100 F/2 - good wide open, a little long for portraits on APS-C, bokeh ok

100 F/2.8 Macro - very good wide open, a little long for portaits, bokeh less good

100 F/2.8L IS Macro - very, very good wide open, a little long for portraits, smooth bokeh

24-105 F/4L IS - great portrait zoom, bokeh ok-ish

70-200 F/4L - great general tele zoom, amongst others for portraits, bokeh ok-ish

70-200 F/4L IS - greatest general tele zoom, also good for portraits, slightly less sharp close to MFD, bokeh ok-ish



Other lenses I could think of are:

24-70 F/2.8L - very good, also on the bokeh front, but heavy and expensive

50L - extremely good, greatest bokeh of all (fore- and background), but only an AoV equivalent of 80 mm on FF, and rather expensive

85L I or II - extremely good, great background bokeh, but very expensive and very heavy, and slow focusing



If you want to go longer there also are the135 F/2.8 SF and 135 F/2L, which are a great and most excellent lens in that order, and fall within your budget since you are also considering the 100L Macro and 70-200 F/4L IS, both have excellent bokeh, but are a little too long for my taste when it comes to portraits on APS-C.



Personally, if I had to choose, knowing my own predilections, considering you have a 17-40L, I would opt for two lenses actually, the 60 Macro and the 70-200 F/4L, which in combination with the 17-40L was my most used set-up for quite some period of time (prior to getting back to primes). It is nice to have IS, but not an absolute necessity <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />. With those lenses you can then always decide which one you will leave at home when it comes to that. Alternatively, the 60 Macro plus either the 100 F/2 or the old 100 F/2.8 Macro.



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 ....
#3
Frankly, I think it doesn't really matter which of them you chose.



I personally would take the 85/1.8 ... CA is nothing that couldn't be "repaired"

in postprocessing (at least to a certain extend) ... CA also doesn't appear in

every picture ... just in those with high contrast borders preferably near the

borders of the image ... bokeh is a very personal thing ... eventually the 100/2

is better ... but this nevertheless doesn't mean the 85/1.8 is "bad" in this regard.



I personally found the focal length of 85 to be a bit more practical if you use it

indoors ... 100 is noticably longer there. Eventually try both in a well equipped

photoshop to get your own experience with them.



just my 2cts ... Rainer
#4
Of the mentioned lenses I only have the 85mm f/1.8, which I've only given limited use.



Easy one first, the lens hood. It clips onto a ring at the front of the lens. Personally I prefer a bayonnet fitting as it feels more secure. In practice, the lens seems well resistant to flare even with filter fitted and no hood, so I wouldn't rate this as essential. I don't bother with one even in direct sunlight.



The lens' biggest weakness is colour fringing. High brightness areas (such as near-blown highlights) have a purple fringe at or in front of the plane of focus, and green fringing behind. This is significant even when stopped down to f/2.8 or so. Small white objects and reflections can be a nightmare in direct sunlight. Putting aside the colour fringing, the bokeh looks good to me as long as you have enough subject to background separation.



My sample front focuses, but this was easy to tune out with body micro-adjust. I don't have any complaint on sharpness even wide open (on 7D).
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)