I am in a quandry...I have the 100mm 2. I really like the quality of the lens and the pics...I have been told by many "photographers" that I should have bought the 85mm...It is a slightly better lens and cheaper....Photodo rates them both almost identically. Photographyreview rates them almost identically...Is there any real difference between the two lenses other than the 15mm focal length???

-- Chuck Lipton (chuxter31@adelphia.net), March 20, 2002

Answers

photodo is correct, the images between the lenses are indistinguishable, all it comes down to is what subject you shoot most. the actual focal length of the 85mm is 81mm a bit too short for anything except a full torso portrait or a small group shot. the 100mm has an actual focal length of 99mm (18mm more than the 85)which gives you more distance and an ideal head and shoulders portrait. by the way, im sure you have noticed by now that the 100 2.0 has an internal dust problem, shame on you canon.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 20, 2002.

Yeah, the EF85 1.8 USM has a half stop more light gathering power.

I use this lens for upper body portraits and the optical quality and bokeh are wonderful. It's also slightly easier to use in tight spaces than a 100mm. However, the choice is a matter of personal preference and style, not that one is better than the other. The EF100 2.0 USM is a great lens and if you're happy, why change? The difference between them is subtle. If I need a real change, I switch to my EF135 2.8 SF (it's a great lens too).

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

I also have the 100/2 and have been told I should have bought the 85/1.8. I dissagree. I like what I have - the focal length is just what I wanted, and results have been consistantly excellent. Every 85/1.8 user I've heard from has been equally pleased with their purchase. People like to like what they buy, and that's easy to do with most EF lenses. Have the other "photographers" said why you should have bought the 85? I would suspect to validate their own preferences. Your preference seems to be working well for you - press on.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), March 21, 2002.

I've not owned either lens but I have owned an 85/1.8 Nikkor when I shot Nikons. At the time, the 85 was the only choice for speed (the 105 Nikkor was an f/2.5 lens). I would have preferred a longer lens of the same approximate speed. The difference between f/1.8 and f/2 is minimal. I would go for the longer lens.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 21, 2002.

Liana [School Xing]

The 85mm and 135mm lengths work very well together. And Canon makes the best 135mm in the world.

If you can afford it, try the 85mm f/1.2L.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 22, 2002.

I certainly hope the model for this snapshot(yes this is without artistic quality) is over 18.

-- thomas (toms@aol.com), March 22, 2002.

which lens was that shot with again?

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

"I certainly hope the model for this snapshot(yes this is without artistic quality) is over 18."

oh, gosh! otherwise you'd be looking at an UNDERAGE girl's PANTIES!!!

-- m. lohninger (anavrin@mac.com), March 25, 2002.

Panties! o_O

Get the 85.

'Nuff said.

-- Job Jeoba (jobJeoba@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

Does anyone know if the 85mm 1.8 is "much" sharper at say f8 than the 28-105 lens set for 85mm at f8?..in say a BxW 100ASA film/8x10 size print.

-- Terry Glass (terrygls@aol.com), May 31, 2002.

Since f8 is the optimum aperture for the 28-105, the difference in sharpness will be minimal, however, the flatness of field as well as linear distortion will be far better with the 85mm prime.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.