RF 85mm f2: Suitable as a high-quality portrait lens for the R5?

pknittel wrote:

I'm looking for a portrait-suited lens as my third lens for my R5; I currently own the 24-105 f4L and the 16mm STM. Obviously, headshots and head and shoulders portraits are not adequately covered by my setup.

I dunno -- 105mm f/4, assuming you have the room, and you can capture the background you want, can do nicely.

While I'd love to get the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L (or the 85mm f/1.2L), unfortunately it's just out of my budget for now.

Ditto.

What I can afford is the 85mm f/2, or the 100mm f/2.8L. It seems like the former is a better choice as it won't be made redundant if/when I upgrade to the big white; but the 100mm f/2.8L seems to perform better optically.

In terms of resolution, the 85 / 2 seems to be the sharper of the two in the center, and typically, for portraits, the central region of the photo is where you need the sharpness. It also offers you an extra stop. That said, I'm not saying it's "better than" the RF 100 / 2.8L -- just that I wouldn't choose the macro over it for portraits.

Will I regret getting the 85mm f2? What would you do if you were in my situation?

Myself, I'd get it ('cause I did). It's small, light, and inexpensive compared to the alternatives, and takes fine portraits (all photos below taken with an R + RF 85 / 2 macro IS at f/2):

I also use it for hockey pics:

But, sure, I'd take the RF 85 / 1.2L or RF 70-200 / 2.8L IS instead, if anyone's feeling charitable. I'm just saying that it's decent if you're in need of a faster lens in that focal and aperture range.