Canon 100mm f/2

[drb5]

Been considering one of these, but can't afford to buy new.

Looking around they are a bit thin on the ground, unlike the alternative 85mm f/1.8, where there are a few secondhand units for sale.

Is this a good or a bad thing? I'm quite sure i wouldn't lose any more money on the 100 than the 85, but is it just down to initial cost when new, that more people buy the 85?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

There is one on ebay with over a day left, and looks affordable to me. I am sure you could easily find it.

These lenses don't normally get much use, unlike the likes of 24-70/2.8, so you will be buying close to mint.

But then I can't see a reason not to go for 85/1.8. These 15mm are negligible - try it with a zoom lens. f/2 and f/1.8 may be a more significant difference (1/3 stop).

 

[drb5]

We know Ebay stuff can go to silly prices within 30 seconds, but i'm keeping an eye on it.

I've read the 85 is actually that touch softer at 1.8, than the 100 is at 2....not a big deal i know, but as i also already have the 50 1.8, i suppose i'm trying to space them out a bit more. With it being on FF too, the extra reach might be of use.

 

[apkent]

I'm having this same debate with myself at the moment.

I've currently got a sigma 24-70 f2.8 and want something just a little longer with as good low light performance.

The 85 seems very popular and would be my first choice, if it wasn't so close in length to what I've already got.

The 100 would probably be a better, more useable, option but doesn't seem to be mentioned very often.

 

[drb5]

For me, i started off hating primes and i'm slowly beginning to only have primes!

I don't mind moving into or away from the shot a bit.

100mm suits me a touch more if i decide to get an extender too.