Khonihlav, "I don't care about sampling" is a pretty odd statement when it comes to imaging and I find it difficult to consider constructive or reconcile with the larger body of imaging wisdom / experience - but I'll leave that to the imagers forums. Calling anyone here 'ridiculous' or 'silly', or worse that spent years imaging with a scope and not having youself used the scope yet is to me maybe acceptable somewhere else, but completely out of place. Anything there to me specious and speculative.
Balu01, The reason I mentioned the 106 is that it natively has a larger imaging circle than the 85, this can be easily looked up. This has nothing to do with sampling (pixel size) but everything to do with what imo are reasonable expectations when it comes to sensor size. As far as the new flattener for the 85 and a full frame sensor, I have not used it and will reserve for anyone that has.
It is all too easy to speculate, and that I avoid. So just sharing my experience and NOT saying what to buy. For buying I exclusively go by what I have seen works, PM'ing or emailing folks using what I want to use and going by their time in the saddle and specific experience with it. There is a very expensive gulf between speculation and experience. Unfortunately speculation is the easier and more often posted.
The 106 also has reducers for it and I have not used any of that system, my data I referred to was from comparing real world results with a talented imager on this site. The net result or tradeoff between the 85/8300M and the 106 with the larger sensor with larger pixels being in ways obvious, you cannot later add resolution not in the data to begin with, and cannot add field that is not there to begin with. But you can make mosaic to add field size, which was the route I took.
At the end of the day it is about the images you want to make and what you expect from them. I am just talking about my own experience. For what I used the 85 was a great little imaging lens for my 8300M and i was happy with what it produced, routine good data that did not require much processing but a lot of imaging time to capture.