Handsome Hedgehog

I now have the Canon 24-70mm and the Canon 135mm. I've used both for shooting outdoor volleyball competitions. I found that the 24-70 is often not enough reach while the 135 doesn't always provide images with enough room to crop. So I was debating whether to go for the 85 f/1.4 to add reach to the 24-70 or the 100 f/2 to decrease the reach of the 135. From what I've read, the tracking and auto-focusing is pretty much the same for the 85 and 100. The image quality is also very good on both. I do NOT need image stabilization since I'll be shooting at 2500/sec. My question is this. Is the $1600 85mm 3+ times better than the $500 100mm? Also, have any of the readers in this forum had experience with both of these lenses? The camera I use is the 1Dxii.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Some comments:

I do not think you need f1.4 for outdoor volleyball ......? !

IMO, the smaller lens elements of a 85 1.8 or the 100 f2 have a real good chance of faster focus ....

I would give serious consideration to use a crop frame body with the 24-70 !

..

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

a 70-200 is probably what you need.

ELNikkor

you definitely need the 70-200 f4 (or 2.8, depending on budget) zoom. The versatility of this lens will serve you way beyond volleyball, and is not lacking in sharpness...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You have already been given good advice regarding the 70-200, if you are considering spending over a grand on an 85mm lens Canon is not what you should be looking at as the Sigma blows it away. I am sure that the 100 f/2 would serve your purposes very well, but the 70-200 would offer much greater flexibility.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

70-200 2.8 and keep an extender in your bag.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Quick suggestion ----
Give the 85mm 1.8 a look see --- A whole lot less expensive then the 85mm 1.4 (which I understand is a great portrait lens but slow focusing) -- Image quality is excellent -- Also (if important to you) a lot lighter

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your understanding of the focus speed and appropriateness for sport of the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM is mistaken. However, the OP's stated need would be better filled with a 70-200 model of which there are many choices.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

You may of course be right on focus speed --- My reference was not based on experience but on the Lens Reviews at the time it was 1st offered -- The 70/200 is indeed an outstanding lens but @ $370.00 per copy the 85mm 1.8 is an outstanding sharp at a tack quick-light lens

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Both great lenses and the 85 f/1.8 is great on a crop sensor as well. Great value lens. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is a great lens and works well with the extender vIIIs. I would not spend the money for the 85 f/1.4 if the main interest is sports shooting.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'd also recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (instead of the f/1.4). $370 (+$25 lens hood). It's a bit smaller and lighter than either of the other lenses, very quick focusing, has very good image quality, is 1/3 stop faster than the 100mm, 2/3 stop slower than the 85mm f/1.4L... $100 less than the 100mm and 1/4 the price of the L.

The new 85mm f/1.4L has IS, which you say you don't need, but it's certainly not "slow focusing". (Both versions of the EF 85mm f/1.2L are a slower focusing, more portrait-oriented lenses that are more difficult to use for fast action/sports.)

The 85mm f/1.8 I'm recommending tends to have some chromatic aberration, but that's easily fixed in post-processing.

Compare for yourself....

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1168&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Yes, the $1600 85/1.4L is sharper in the periphery of the images, particularly wide open. There's not much difference in the center of the image area and stopped down to middle apertures you'll see little difference between them. Wide open the $400 85/1.8 is a little soft in the corners (note that those test shots are highly magnified and are done on a 5DS-R... one of the most "demanding" cameras, very "unforgiving" of any lens shortcomings).

You might also check out the Tamron 85mm f/1.4... Haven't used it myself, but I've heard good things about it, except that it might struggle to focus in low light on some cameras.

Another lens I haven't used, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 "Art" is also well regarded, but it's pricier at close to $1200 (tho still not as much as the Canon f/1.4L).

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

You might look at the EF 24-105mm f/2.8L II USM. The f/2 or f/1.8 are not necessary for sports as they will reduce the depth of field.

Haydon

I suggest the 70-200 2.8. For dynamic situations where images will be made at varying distances, the versatility and focus speed would reduce the limitations one could expect from a prime lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I've never used either lens, but this review suggests that the 100 F2 has a very slight edge over the 85mm F1.8.

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/166-canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-lab-test-report--review?start=1

Both lenses are physically small and have fast AF.

Toss a coin - you can't go wrong with either.