85mm f/1.8 vs 100mm f/2 vs ? - new lens considerations

AbbyK · Dec 4, 2012

Hi,

I was actually a member here a few years ago but my visits to the site sort of tapered off and then I forgot my account info... so I haven't been here in a while. You guys were always a good source of information, though.

I currently use a Canon 30D most of the time, with a 30mm 1.4. I also have a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5, but I almost never use it because it's a POS compared to my 30mm. Sometimes I like to reverse it or freelense with it, but that's about it.

I want a new lens, preferably less (way less) than $500. That is about my maximum, but of course cheaper is preferable. I want something longer than the 30mm, but still fairly versatile. I like wide apertures (hence the 1.4) and sharpness.

Right now I'm considering an 85mm 1.8 and a 100mm 2.
I also just learned of the existence of the 28-75 2.8, which seems to warrant some consideration as well.
I tend to shy away from zooms, though, but just because of my experience with the 28-105. It just can't compare to a nice prime, perhaps the 28-75 can't either? But I like the fixed aperture. It's definitely at the top of my price range, though. And then 28 is awfully similar to 30, so when would I ever use that?

You will probably ask what I shoot/want to shoot. I shoot my life, mostly. I like people/animals, landscape details, random things.

I feel that one of these lenses will give me a nice range, since I have a wide-ish view with the 30mm, and then whatever other lens I went with would give me a bit of a longer view.

I feel that I should ask about a 50mm too. Everyone likes 50mm, but I feel that it is rather similar to 30mm and that is might even be a little tight on the 30D since it is not a full frame body. But I think that the 30mm does distort things a little if I'm too close, and that's obviously no good. I don't think a 50mm does that, at least not as much. I have a 50mm 1.7 for my Minolta XE-7, and I like it, so it's something to think about for the 30D. But I keep thinking that the difference between 30mm and 50mm is not extreme.... would it even be worth it?

Anyway, I guess I'm asking for your opinions and experiences on and with these lenses, and if you have any recommendations for others. I tried not to ramble too much. Hopefully this post is clear.

Thanks!

JAC526 · Dec 4, 2012

I am going to buy the 100f2. But I shoot on a 5dc which is full frame. 100mm may be a little long for crop sensor.

You may want to consider the 85 for that reason. I went back and forth between these two lenses.

KenC · Dec 4, 2012

Either of those lenses would work well as part of a kit that includes the 30 mm. If you had a 50 I would say 85 is too close, but there is a pretty big difference between 30 and 85. Both lenses have very good reviews and good reputations, although a lot more people seem to have the 85, I'm not sure why. I am considering one of these lenses, probably the 100 because I have a 50. In your case, the 85 is far enough from the 30 and will give you a real telephoto "feel" - I always liked these focal lengths and I've had both an 85 and a 100 on film cameras. If you decide you want more reach later you can get the 135 or 200, or a good telephoto zoom - Canon has several.

Derrel · Dec 4, 2012

The 100/2 Canon is probably one of the LEAST-BOUGHT, least talked-about primes in the Canon lineup....and yet, I have seen some fine,fine work done with it on the original Canon 5D, by Europe's Dirk Vermiere, on pBase. I do not own the Canon 100/2, but I do have their 85/1.8 EF, which I think is a very fine lens. FAST, light, small, fairly priced, unobstrusive. On 1.6x it's a narrow-angle telephoto lens...with FAST speed, for low-light or wide-aperture shooting. It's small too, so it does not cause a lot of hassles in carrying,etc.

The 28-75/2.8 from Tamron is one of the best 3rd-party zooms ever offered. Minolta licensed it for themselves....Sony has re-upped that license. I beleive Pentax then Hoya/Pentax have also made a version of it...the zoom gives you focal length flexibility. Bob Atkins tested the 28-75 against the Canon 50/1.8 prime...the zoom is the sharper lens, and MORE-resistant to flare than the Canon 50/1.8, which is a low-tech,simple 50mm design with a low cost point of around $100, so the idea that a zoom costing 3x more outperforms it makes some sense.

If you like telephoto-type images, narrow angle of view, then the 100/2 makes a HUGE amount of sense....it is a very,very FAST f/2.0 tele with an angle of view akin to a 160mm on FF...that's a neat kind of angle of view for outdoor work, and other narrow angle of view type shots. It is less-versatile than a zoom, but OTOH, it is a very FAST-aperture, longish telephoto...

scorpion_tyr · Dec 5, 2012

Both the 85mm f/1.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 are great lenses. There are very few (key words being "there are") some third party lenses that perform almost as good, just as good, or even better than the Canon versions. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is tack sharp even wide open and in my opinion is just a hair less in quality build than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. Some actually prefer the Tamron because it has a shorter minimum focusing distance and can be used for "almost macro" work with excellent results. The lens can definitely take a beating too. You can usually find used ones going for around $300.

The 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome fast prime. I've used one for portraits, indoor basketball, and indoor theater and dance (both with horrible lighting) with awesome results. The focus is fast, quiet, and very accurate even in poor light. You can usually find them for about $350 on Canon's refurbished site.

There's also a new 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens from Canon, but that's only 10mm different from your 30mm, and minus the wide aperture, but they're only $200.

The 50mm f/1.4 is another good lens for around $350 refurbished from Canon, but in my opinion the 85mm f/1.8 is a little better in quality and focusing.

I don't have any experience with the 100mm f/2, but Canon has 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lenses on sale at times for just a little over $600 on their refurbished site. I've had that lens for about 6 months now and have used it A LOT, and I've been very pleased with the results. It's a true macro lens in case you ever want to fill your entire picture with a dime, but it's also great for portraits and some sports. They have the non-L version refurbished in your price range, it lacks IS, but from the reviews I've seen it's just a hair less sharp, so still an impressive lens.

I speak highly of Canon's refurbished lenses because they come with everything a brand new lens comes with, a 90 day warranty, and they're sometimes even cheaper than what people sell used ones for online. They also have GREAT customer service. Here's the site for Canon's refurbished lenses: Canon Direct Store - Refurbished Lenses & Speedlites