I need a new lens to shoot beauty and I've used the Canon 100mm f2 and it's great!!! However, I suppose I should rent an 85mm f1.8 to compare. But I would love to get your advice and no, I'm not interested in any other lenses.
I prefer the 100 2.0 to the 85 1.8, and prefer the 85 1.2 over them both, but its very short for me, even if I were to use a crop chip camera, which is almost never. the 100 2.0 I can sometimes use for half body shots. on a cropped chip camera the 100 2.0 is a ok length for me and beauty.
Will King Photography wrote: Because it's 1/3 the price. If you don't need the extra speed, why pay so much? The 85mm f/1.8 is as sharp as the 85mm f/1.2.
it is very sharp, but the look is also a little different, maybe not worth the price difference to most people, but there is a different look to the lens, which is why it is very popular even at the price it goes for. The 135 2.0 is also very good and has a nice look, and the 200 2.0 is amazing, but way pricey and huge to use in many situations. On a cropped chip camera I would go for the 135 2.0 myself, on a full frame the 200 2.0, and for a cheaper route the 200 2.8 is nice, but then I shot beauty more often and much prefer the effect of long glass, I often shoot at 300mm on FF 35mm DSLR format.
My personal opinion is that those two lenses have the same wonderful ratio quality/price...
The verdict is only in which focal lenght you prefer...
Both are great portrait lenses!
Nicholas Freeman Photo wrote: I have the 100mm 2.8 macro for beauty shots and fashion, and the 85 f1.2 for head shots and most everything else.
It really ends up being what works best for you though.
the new 100 macro has a much more pleasing bokeh, still a tad short for me, but its an improvement for people shots, however, it is much more money. The IS can be of help if shooting in available light ever.
another near similar pricepoint lens that is also very good for beauty is the 70-200 f4 non IS, very sharp, nice bokeh and a great range, at the longer end you can get what appears to be lower DOF than the 100 2.0
StephenEastwood wrote: another near similar pricepoint lens that is also very good for beauty is the 70-200 f4 non IS, very sharp, nice bokeh and a great range,
also true, a very good lens for pretty much everything, I just dont use zoom lenses.
but I could recommend this one.
it is very sharp, but the look is also a little different, maybe not worth the price difference to most people, but there is a different look to the lens, which is why it is very popular even at the price it goes for. The 135 2.0 is also very good and has a nice look, and the 200 2.0 is amazing, but way pricey and huge to use in many situations. On a cropped chip camera I would go for the 135 2.0 myself, on a full frame the 200 2.0, and for a cheaper route the 200 2.8 is nice, but then I shot beauty more often and much prefer the effect of long glass, I often shoot at 300mm on FF 35mm DSLR format.
Which 300mm do you use most?? f2.8 or the smaller f4
have both, but more often use the 4.0 since its easier to carry in the cases and not as intimidating. When I want to intimidate I use the 200 2.0 I rarely use natural light alone and rarely shoot below 5.6 or 8 so its not often that I NEED a 2.8 300mm or 400mm for a shot. On the 400mm end I actually prefer and use the DO lens more than I ever used the 2.8.
I need a new lens to shoot beauty and I've used the Canon 100mm f2 and it's great!!! However, I suppose I should rent an 85mm f1.8 to compare. But I would love to get your advice and no, I'm not interested in any other lenses.
I'm using a 5Dmk2...
Thank you!
David
Both are superb the only difference is that IMHO the 100mm f2.0 presents less CA wide open than the 85mm f/1.8, but since you can correct CA in most PP programs I would say: you won´t go wrong picking one or the other.
Both are superb the only difference is that IMHO the 100mm f2.0 presents less CA wide open than the 85mm f/1.8, but since you can correct CA in most PP programs I would say: you won´t go wrong picking one or the other.
I also have a 70-200 non-IS f/4 L and I like it quite a bit. I've shot with the 2.8 IS version and, damn, that thing is heavy! I've found the f/4 can be a little tough to keep in tack sharp focus since it doesn't have the IS function but, when shooting with it, I either put it on sticks, use a monopod, or brace myself against a wall or something.
I used to have an 85mm 1.8 USM in my bag but I sold it. Wish I hadn't done that! I really liked the lens and, for the money, it produced really nice results. Would I like to have the 1.2 L version? Sure. But that thing is pricey!
The 135 f/2 L is the next lens on my buy list when I have a spare grand. I hear or read nothing but awesome things about it.
StephenEastwood wrote: another near similar pricepoint lens that is also very good for beauty is the 70-200 f4 non IS, very sharp, nice bokeh and a great range, at the longer end you can get what appears to be lower DOF than the 100 2.0
I own that lens as well as the 85mm f/1.8. I love both although I wish I'd have gotten the IS version of the 70-200mm. It just makes more options for handheld use. My 5D MKI only syncs (reliably) at 1/125 sec. and the IS just insures you won't have camera shake at longer focal lengths in the 200mm range.
I rarely use natural light alone and rarely shoot below 5.6 or 8 so its not often that I NEED a 2.8 300mm or 400mm for a shot. On the 400mm end I actually prefer and use the DO lens more than I ever used the 2.8.
