Author Topic: 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4L (Read 20978 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** June 18, 2009, 15:04 »

I will agree with the comments on primes over zooms. However for practical purposes, I think the zooms are more useful.

I own both the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 F4 (both IS and non - I need to sell the non). As beautiful as the images and bokeh are with the 85mm, I find I have a LOT more opportunity to use the 70-200 and it is no slouch in the IQ dept. either.

madelaide · « **Reply #26 on:** June 18, 2009, 16:39 »

Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 11:04

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/

I'm impressed with the 100-400 performance. I want one! And someone to carry it!

mjp · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2009, 02:57 »

For original poster, We have 2x 70-200 4L's and 85mm 1.8F and 85mm 1.2L as well at the studio. I have used 85mm F1.8 a lot (portraits to product to macro shots). It is great for the price and is very sharp but not sharp as the 1.2L version but very near to it. I have also used 70-200 4L which is now replaced the F1.8 85mm lens in my camera back. It is good for portraits, landscapes, studio work etc. I have used it with 1.4x extender as well (e.g. stock images from airshow) with good results. I have not used the 2.8L or the IS version, but the IS is very good thing to have when shooting low light situations. I would go to 70-200 over the f1.8 85mm.

br, MjP

araminta · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:28 »

Quote from: leaf on June 18, 2009, 11:04

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/

Interesting test: thanks for sharing!

I've almost the same gears as you and purchased them for the same purpose

However, I have the 70-200 f/4 and not the f/2.8 and I've recently seen an interesting post on Fred Miranda forum where somebody made a test to compare the sharpness of the 70-200 (which is supposed to be legendary) with the Sigma 180mm macro and the Sigma was a clear winner, the 70-200 being quite soft.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/780073

The problem is that it was a close-up shot taken at the MFD and it seems that the 70-200 is not that good for close-up but shines at "normal" distance. I don't know if the 70-200 f/2.8 do have the same symptoms, but as your test has been done on a close-up photo, it would be interesting to see the result on a far subject.

Moreover, as a microstock photographer, we also all are "pixel-peepers"... but I would say that for non-stock photo, the sharpness is most often not the most important point and I try to avoid judging whether the sharpness is good or not on a 100% crop

araminta · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2009, 13:05 »

As I was quite surprised by the test result, I've done a similar nonscientific test: rainy weather, not much light, quite noisy, but we can still compare sharpness: the subject is a roof at about 100m, 100% crop (center), taken with a 5DmkII on tripod, manual focus using Live View, mirror lockup, remote shutter, 3 photos each time, the sharpest is kept.

100-400 @ 400mm: the sharpest one obviously

70-200 f/4 IS @ 200 + Canon TC 2x: definitively not as good, but quite good I would say

70-200 @ 200 up sized 2x in PS (bi-cubic): as I was expecting, this is definitively the worst result (less noise because lowest ISO):

My conclusion is thus different: the TC obviously degrade the IQ, but it is still far better than up sizing the picture. This is especially true with the 1.4x TC... the 2x used here is not as good.

As I said before, the 70-200 seems to be known to be quite soft for closeup at MFD which may explain Leaf's result. But I've quite often heard even pro photographer using TC with good result provided that it is used with a high quality lens.

For microstock, as photos are reviewed at 100% and sharpness is a must have it is better to avoid TC, but for "artistic" photos, a TC on an excellent lens gives good results quite often.

Another test?

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2009, 13:44 »

^^^ That's interesting but I still don't think that up-rezzing is a fair test.

Personally, if I wanted to capture an image of a subject that would be full-frame at 400mm and I only had a 200mm lens available (plus the options of extenders) then I would just use the 200mm lens and crop the image down to half it's original size.

Ok, the image will be half the size (but still more than enough to qualify as a Large size at IS) but it will be markedly better quality than when taken using the extenders.

You only really see the degradation in quality with extenders when you are using a decent prime __ then it's huge.

araminta · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2009, 14:35 »

Cropping a photo at 200mm in order to fit a 400mm framing imply 1/4 the number of pixels which may be enough indeed, but I would say that if you don't have a 400mm but only a 200mm, the best solution would be to make a different composition and keep the full image size.

As Leaf, I've purchased the 1.4x and 2x extenders with my 100-400mm not for stock but for wildlife and birds photography: buying a 600mm or a 800mm was not an option for me .

And contrary to Leaf, I won't sell my TC

Susan S. · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2009, 22:43 »

Quote from: Milinz 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

that's the one

leaf · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2009, 03:29 »

interesting test araminta. Perhaps I will have to do some more testing

and strange how different results you got than I did.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2009, 10:10 »

I all these photo equipment fora, like Fred Miranda and SLRGear, I often see comments about someone having a faulty lens, less sharp than experienced by others, and this is about expensive lens too, those that most people say great things about, such as Canon 70-200 L. What is the problem with these manufacturers' QC? I get even afraid of ordering an expensive lens that will travel to Brazil and then have such issues. $:-\$

Milinz · « **Reply #35 on:** June 22, 2009, 13:32 »

Quote from: Susan S. on June 19, 2009, 22:43

Quote from: Milinz 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

that's the one

It's NICE ONE!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4L (Read 20978 times)

lisafx

madelaide

mjp

araminta

araminta

gostwyck

araminta

Susan S.

leaf

madelaide

Milinz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors