I scanned the archive to see if anyone had tested these lenses against each other and what their findings might have been. Going through the which-one-to-buy queries. I am familiar with their stats, min. focus, etc. What I'm looking for is shooting results, is one sharper than the other? Are there qualities beyond the specs? Leaning toward the 100 at this point. Anyone?

Peace.

Michael

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), January 11, 2002

Answers

My understanding is that they are very similar in performance. Unless you have a particular preference for the "85mm look" or "100mm look", most people seem to decide on the basis of cost judging from previous threads on this topic.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

there's one review around from someone that recently compared the 85mm, the 100mm, and the 135mmL on his website, with many samples. His first conclusion was that it was nearly impossible to tell the lenses apart on identical headshots (he moved farther and closer-away to his subject, depending on focal length; so only the background changed). His second conclusion was that the L lens was overall the sharpest, and that wide-open, the 85mm was a tad sharper than the 100mm. On the other hand, he thought that the 100mm had nicer out-of-focus areas (bokeh, if you like).

he tested the 100mm with a second unit to check that he didn't get a bad sample -- but apparantly the tests remained the same. the 85mm is slightly sharper, he says. I'll take the review with a grain of salt, and i looked at the images he posted, and i couldn't tell *any* difference between sharpness (actually, when comparing very fine details, i thought the 100mm was sharper!).

this is more a question how close you want to be to your subject. it's about a foot worth's difference, i think. and if you already own a 50mm, it doesn't make sense to get the 85mm over the 100mm. Among others, I own the 100mm, and i'm extremely happy with the results.

-- m. lohninger (anadirn@mediaone.net), January 12, 2002.

here's the link...

my feeling is that he's confusing lack of DOF with lack of sharpness. the 100mm, with the same f/2 is going to have less DOF than the 85mm. that's what i think is going on here... parts of the images at that f-stop are falling out of the acceptable circle of confusion.

-- mariel lohninger (anadirn@mediaone.net), January 12, 2002.

In an off list message to Bob I said..."I'm just going to buy a 100 and be done with it. If there is anything I have learned its that nobody can tell me which lenses I can work with and those I cannot...only I can."

I have nothing between the 50 and the 200, 100 looks to be perfect. So I'll just get it and go to work.

Thanks Bob and Mariel.

Namaste,

Michael

see my website at: http://www.hintlian.com

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), January 12, 2002.

I recently obtained a 100 2.0 and am extremely happy about the lens. I compared it to the 85 1.8, which I thought seemed a little 'short' for my tastes. The 100 is extremely fast and has wonderful bokeh. I use this as my available light lens along with my 50 1.4 for a wonderful short combo. I also recently compared the 100 2.0 to my brother in law's 100 macro 2.8 in an indoor setting and the macro lens hunted and wouldn't af while the 2.0 immediately locked in. You should enjoy your 100 purchase.

-- Dale Wilson (edw@maddinhauser.com), May 20, 2002.

>the macro lens hunted and wouldn't af

Interesting. Was the focus limit switch on or off, do you remember?

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), May 20, 2002.

The focus limit switch was off. The light was bad, but, with the great reviews and reports that I had heard about the macro lens, I was surprised to see that it hunted. But, I have the 7e and my brother in law the 3, so maybe that makes a difference as well. I also was surprised at the size difference between the two lenses. The macro was much larger.

-- Dale Wilson (edw@maddinhauser.com), May 20, 2002.

>I have the 7e and my brother in law the 3, so maybe that makes a difference as well.

Oh, wait - you didn't test each lens on the *same* body, then? That would explain it - the 7/7E is notorious for poor low-light focussing. Of course it'd hunt when the 3 doesn't, unless you had a flash unit with a red AF assist light on the 7E.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), May 20, 2002.

Oh, and true macros basically have to be longer than equivalent-length non-macro lenses. They need to accommodate the longer focus helical - when focussing on something close up you either attach extension tubes to move the lens further away from the film or you rack out the end. Or stick additional lenses on the end, of course.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), May 20, 2002.

I am sure that you are right. I was just surprised that 2.0 to 2.8 made such a difference in af speed/capability. My 7e with my 2.0 was fast and locked in instantly with no flash assist at all. Go figure. Thanks.

-- Dale Wilson (edw@maddinhauser.com), May 21, 2002.