Author Topic: 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4L (Read 20973 times)

Talanis · « **on:** June 17, 2009, 21:04 »

I'm thinking about my next lens and can't decide between those 2. At the moment, my 17-50 f/2.8 is always on my camera. I'm doing mostly portrait and want something a bit longer than 50. I have the Canon 75-300 which is a PoS and I almost didn't use it in the last 2 years (mostly out of frustration for the results each time). I like the versatility of the 70-200 but the f/1.8 of the 85mm is pulling hard too.

Any comments from experience? suggestions?

Thanks

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2009, 21:21 »

Hard to beat a 70-200 for versatility. I've not owned an 85f1.8 so can't compare side by side. Certainly both are worth having but would go for the "more useful in more cases" one first.

puravida · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2009, 21:48 »

Prime lense is always far superior than zoom, in speed and quality. If all you need is 85mm , it would be ridiculous to carry an 85mm contained in a 200mm . Zooms are always a compromise. It's convenient, but you can't beat the glass on a prime 85mm vs the 85mm on the zoom, whatever .

charlesknox · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2009, 22:38 »

I just bought a 70-200 F4 and wow amazing quality i love having that so much for shooting portraits I personally can't stand primes but That's my vote

Susan S. · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2009, 22:46 »

Both....

but I use the 85 1.8 much more than the 70-20f4, as the latter isn't fast enough for indoor sport/dance/theatre, which is where I use it most. The 85 has paid for itself twice over with a single image on istock that I couldn't have taken with any other lens (except the 85 1.2L - but it wouldn't have paid for that!).

If you do outdoor sport, outdoor candid portrait, closeup detail shots, the 70-200f4 is a useful versatile lens - and in a large indoor space with studio lighting is excellent. But I don't do that stuff so often.

Perry · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:10 »

That's a weird comparison...

Why not 70-200 f/4L vs. 85/1.8 AND 200/2.8 (you can get both at same price)

I'd choose primes. I almost entirely shoot with primes; better optical quality, better speed, better price tags... The primes (85 & 200) are also small and black, they don't look as "loud" and threatening when you shoot with them.

Perry · « **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:11 »

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:31 »

I just shot a wedding with the 85 1.8. But did not try the 70-200 4.0 yet. I also had a 200 mm 2.8 L prime with me. The 85 is a great lens and I love it on full frame. I believe it is one of the lenses with the best price for quality. I however stop it down to 2.0. Its great for portraits.
But mostly I use a 200 prime for outdoor portraits. It is more flattering for people with big noses :-) With the 200 L-prime you can make also great outdoor fullbody shots wide open. Its also sharp at 2.8. a 70-200 4.0 would be to slow for me, but different people have different preferences.
Generally since I tried out the 70-200 2.8L and have the 24-70L I tend do rather invest in primes.

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:28 »

i shoot a lot with the 70-200 2.8. It is a great lens, sharp, fast etc...

I have heard the 70-200 f/4 is very comparable albeit not quite as fast. I think it is always a tough decision weather to go with a prime or a zoom. If you shoot a lot on location and outdoors, it can be a pain trying to carry 3 lenses to cover all your shooting needs. If you know what you are going to shoot however, perhaps a prime is sufficient.

gostwyck · « **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:47 »

I'd agree with all of the above regarding the advantages of prime lenses over zooms.

Thirty years ago, when I started in photography, the standard portrait lens was always the 135mm. Of course in those days zooms were nothing like as good, as numerous or as affordable as they are now. Even so I still consider a 135mm to be the best for portraiture.

Canon's 135mm f2.0 L is staggeringly sharp, incredibly fast and light on the camera too. It's generally reckoned to be the sharpest lens Canon produce. I picked mine up second-hand from eBay and it is my favourite lens to use. That's what I'd recommend every time.

MikLav · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:53 »

I just can say that I am quite happy with my 85mm f/1.8, and having 1.8 is a great deal. The lens is perfectly sharp at f1.8 (but DOF is very shallow; and chromatic aberrations very noticeable at f1.

; and also having 1.8 is a great help for autofocus when there is not so much light.

Milinz · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:03 »

Quote from: Susan S. on June 17, 2009, 22:46

Both....

but I use the 85 1.8 much more than the 70-20f4, as the latter isn't fast enough for indoor sport/dance/theatre, which is where I use it most. The 85 has paid for itself twice over with a single image on istock that I couldn't have taken with any other lens (except the 85 1.2L - but it wouldn't have paid for that!).

If you do outdoor sport, outdoor candid portrait, closeup detail shots, the 70-200f4 is a useful versatile lens - and in a large indoor space with studio lighting is excellent. But I don't do that stuff so often.

Is that this one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3704781-youth-orchestra.php

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:09 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 18, 2009, 04:47

I'd agree with all of the above regarding the advantages of prime lenses over zooms.

Thirty years ago, when I started in photography, the standard portrait lens was always the 135mm. Of course in those days zooms were nothing like as good, as numerous or as affordable as they are now. Even so I still consider a 135mm to be the best for portraiture.

Canon's 135mm f2.0 L is staggeringly sharp, incredibly fast and light on the camera too. It's generally reckoned to be the sharpest lens Canon produce. I picked mine up second-hand from eBay and it is my favourite lens to use. That's what I'd recommend every time.

I just checked out the 135mm... it looks very nice yes

I hadn't read much about it before. Here are some links for others who are interested

The digital picture review

Fred Mirada Reviews

BH photo link

A shame it doesn't have IS

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2009, 05:35 »

Have used the 135 as well, totally agree with what was said about it, it's great and it's awesome. definitely a lense planned for future purchase. The 85 has no chance against it, but then it's much more expensive, but totally worth it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:18 »

Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 05:09

A shame it doesn't have IS

Trust me __ it's so fast you really don't need it.

Perry · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:22 »

Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 04:28

it can be a pain trying to carry 3 lenses to cover all your shooting needs.

I think having a big and heavy lens on your camera is also a pain (70-200/2.8 weights
about 1590 grams and equally as fast 200/2.8 only 765 grams (of course on IS on that one, but still...).
I think the weight is much easier to carry in a bag than on the camera.

I usually carry around three lenses, one wide, one tele and one normal (50mm). I'ts amazing how
limiting your choices of focal lenght increases creativity and trains the photographic eye.
With zooms I tend to stand where I am and just crop by zooming - no creative angles here.

The combination of three lenses weights often about the same as 70-200/2.8
and the camera is much lighter (and looks less threatening)
to handle.

Perry · « **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 18, 2009, 06:18

Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 05:09
A shame it doesn't have IS

Trust me __ it's so fast you really don't need it.

Many also tend to forget that IS doesn't help freezing moving subjects. And if subjects are not
moving, nothing can beat a tripod.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2009, 06:55 »

BTW the 200 2.8 L is of the same build as the 135 2.0 L and its also cheaper. It also has almost a similar rating as the 135 L.

araminta · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:07 »

I have both and I would say that from an IQ point of view the 70-200 is at least as good as the 85mm.

But I would say they are both useful in different situations: the 70-200 f/4 is perfect for outdoor candid portraits (e.g. events, weddings) while the 85mm is perfect for indoor/low light portraits.

The choice has to be made on your main usage IMHO, not on IQ because they are both excellent.

The 135mm f/2 with an optional 1.4x extender (-> 190mm f/2.

is also a wise choice

I have myself decided to have all of them... thanks to my micro earnings

But still waiting for the 135 which is on backorder.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:30 »

Quote from: araminta on June 18, 2009, 07:07

I have both and I would say that from an IQ point of view the 70-200 is at least as good as the 85mm.

But I would say they are both useful in different situations: the 70-200 f/4 is perfect for outdoor candid portraits (e.g. events, weddings) while the 85mm is perfect for indoor/low light portraits.

The choice has to be made on your main usage IMHO, not on IQ because they are both excellent.

The 135mm f/2 with an optional 1.4x extender (-> 190mm f/2. is also a wise choice

I have myself decided to have all of them... thanks to my micro earnings But still waiting for the 135 which is on backorder.

135 f/2 with an extender will not be a 190 f/2 it will more likely be an 190/ f 2.8

Talanis · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:52 »

Thank you all for the input, it's been very useful

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2009, 08:32 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on June 18, 2009, 07:30

135 f/2 with an extender will not be a 190 f/2 it will more likely be an 190/ f 2.8

I'd avoid the extenders, they're both rubbish IMO (assuming you want stock quality images). I've bought them both and sent both back.

If you have an outstandingly sharp and fast L lens and then stick an extender on it ... hey presto, you now have a soft slow lens. I'd rather shoot with the original lens and then crop the image down, the results will be far better.

puravida · « **Reply #22 on:** June 18, 2009, 08:36 »

Quote from: Perry on June 18, 2009, 06:26

Quote from: gostwyck on June 18, 2009, 06:18
Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 05:09
A shame it doesn't have IS

Trust me __ it's so fast you really don't need it.

Many also tend to forget that IS doesn't help freezing moving subjects. And if subjects are not
moving, nothing can beat a tripod.

true, IS is not an excuse to learn to handle your camera steaily. moreover, you only need IS if you're carrying a mother of a lense, as bulky as those zooms . prime lenses are shorter , lighter, better optics, and even with CA stopping down to the sweet spot, you still end up with more usable aperture than your best and more expensive zoom. but that's already be said by others (perry, gostwyck).

as for carrying too many primes. it's moot when you think that carrying a 70mm the length and bulk of a 200, or 24 the length and bulk of a 70 , in a zoom, it makes it more ridiculous.
worse, 24mm prime, or a 70mm prime,etc has far less CA and a lot faster lens speed.

zooms are cool for travel and fun. even if a "pro" insists on a zoom, you can bet your bottom $ that in general, you still end up using a specific FL and aperture, due to the limitations of a zoom lense.
so paying the extra bucks for a zoom is really a great waste. you could end up with a number of primes that kick the shits off any zoom that cost an arm and a leg comparitively.

araminta · « **Reply #23 on:** June 18, 2009, 10:18 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on June 18, 2009, 07:30

135 f/2 with an extender will not be a 190 f/2 it will more likely be an 190/ f 2.8

I've written "two.eight", but the "eight"has been seen as a smiley

Quote from: gostwyck on June 18, 2009, 08:32

I'd avoid the extenders, they're both rubbish IMO (assuming you want stock quality images). I've bought them both and sent both back.

If you have an outstandingly sharp and fast L lens and then stick an extender on it ... hey presto, you now have a soft slow lens. I'd rather shoot with the original lens and then crop the image down, the results will be far better.

It depends: the 1.4x is quite good and produce very good IQ if your lens has excellent IQ. I get very good result with the 70-200 and I've read that the 135 is the lens which gives the best result with the 1.4x extender.

I'm 100% sure it is perfectly usable for stock as I bet the 135+1.4x is a lot better than a consumer grade lens (e.g. the 18-200mm)... but it is obviously even better to use a native 200mm of course.

And f/2.8 is not a slow 200mm as the only faster 200m lens is the 200 f/2... which is another story.

Many wildlife photographer do use extenders successfully... have a look at http://www.juzaphoto.com/ to see what king of IQ you can achieve with an extender associated with an excellent lens.

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:04 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 18, 2009, 08:32

Quote from: Freezingpictures on June 18, 2009, 07:30
135 f/2 with an extender will not be a 190 f/2 it will more likely be an 190/ f 2.8

I'd avoid the extenders, they're both rubbish IMO (assuming you want stock quality images). I've bought them both and sent both back.

If you have an outstandingly sharp and fast L lens and then stick an extender on it ... hey presto, you now have a soft slow lens. I'd rather shoot with the original lens and then crop the image down, the results will be far better.

I unfortunately agree. I just spent the last few hours doing a test and a blog post. I tested plain lens, 2x extender, 1.4x extender, upszing 2x ... 4 ways to get to 400mm. The best of course was just a lens, but in second place.... upsizing. Save your $$

http://simplefoto.com/news-editorial/camera-gear/what-is-the-best-400mm-lens/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4L (Read 20973 times)

Talanis

PeterChigmaroff

puravida

charlesknox

Susan S.

Perry

Perry

Freezingpictures

leaf

gostwyck

MikLav

Milinz

leaf

Freezingpictures

gostwyck

Perry

Perry

Freezingpictures

araminta

Freezingpictures

Talanis

gostwyck

puravida

araminta

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors