| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2011 03:34:23 PM · #1 |
I have the 17-55 range covered with a 2.8is. I have a 50mm 1.4 for low light and/or nice bokeh.
So...
I can't decide between the 85mm 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8L. I'm a portrait photographer both indoor and outdoor, both studio and natural light. I'm not getting the 70-200 IS version...I don't think the IS is worth the price difference for what I do.
The 85mm range is covered by the 70-200 but there's obviously an aperture difference. If the 85mm 1.8 was $350 like it used to be, I'd probably get both, but the 85mm keeps getting more expensive and it's like $600 now.
What would you do?
Message edited by author 2011-04-16 15:34:59. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:04:11 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:09:46 PM · #3 |
That's a tough call. For what you do, both have their advantages, the 70-200 in flexibility, the 85/1.8 in aperture, and a small advantage in sharpness. You'd probably find that the 70-200 delivers the goods, and at longer focal lengths, you still have plenty of DoF control at f/2.8. That said, for very narrow DoF portraiture in the 85mm range, the 85/1.8 is the lens of choice.
I think you need to figure out how heavily you get into very narrow DoF, vs. how often you need the focal length flexiblity. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:18:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
That's a tough call. For what you do, both have their advantages, the 70-200 in flexibility, the 85/1.8 in aperture, and a small advantage in sharpness. You'd probably find that the 70-200 delivers the goods, and at longer focal lengths, you still have plenty of DoF control at f/2.8. That said, for very narrow DoF portraiture in the 85mm range, the 85/1.8 is the lens of choice.
I think you need to figure out how heavily you get into very narrow DoF, vs. how often you need the focal length flexiblity. |
I like me some shallow DOF...but not ALWAYS.
What do you mean when you say a small advantage in sharpness. How much of an advantage are we talking about? This is so difficult! lol. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:33:39 PM · #5 |
| I had the 85mm f1.8 and it was great. Later on, I ended up with the non is 70-200 f2.8l lens. I have not missed my prime one bit. I do the ocational wedding and portrait shoot. So having the flexability of the zoom, is great. Plus it serves as a nice big game lens. If you shoot the occational animal, aka dpcer... So for me, no regrets. It is a great lens, that i only have praise for. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:35:48 PM · #6 |
Also, FWIW, I believe you're making a mistake to dismiss the IS unless you practically always shoot with a tripod... It's not easy at all to hold these lenses still enough for critically sharp work in the 100mm+ range. I get SO much sharper results from my 100-400mm (at 100mm) than I do from my 70-200mm at 100mm ΓΆ€” and the 100mm macro is even better for stability, but it has the 3rd-generation IS vs the 100-400's 1st-generation...
R. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:39:37 PM · #7 |
I'm with  kirbic. A zoom lens can't beat a prime lens (in terms of quality), but I'm not sure if a 85mm adds very much to your 50mm, so I would go for a 70-200. It gives you more flexibility. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 04:52:34 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Also, FWIW, I believe you're making a mistake to dismiss the IS unless you practically always shoot with a tripod... It's not easy at all to hold these lenses still enough for critically sharp work in the 100mm+ range. I get SO much sharper results from my 100-400mm (at 100mm) than I do from my 70-200mm at 100mm ΓΆ€” and the 100mm macro is even better for stability, but it has the 3rd-generation IS vs the 100-400's 1st-generation...
R. |
Even with studio lights or good natural lighting and not being afraid to push the ISO? |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 05:18:15 PM · #9 |
Holy crap - is it my imagination or did the price of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM take a giant leap upward?? Last time I looked it was around $1600 - maybe that was for v1 but still - $2500??
eta: Jeeeez, it looks like prices have gone way up across the board. Gouging because of lack of availability from Japan?
Message edited by author 2011-04-16 17:21:51. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 05:25:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
Even with studio lights or good natural lighting and not being afraid to push the ISO? |
Yup. Even with...
Look, the IS is just another component of the tool. You don't need it all the time, but when you do need it you really, really need it. With the f/2.8 lens, if you were always shooting wide open and always shooting in very good light, maybe you'd never miss it, but...
Look, at 200mm on the 7D that's the equivalent of a 320mm lens on FF. Rule of thumb is "reciprocal of the focal length when hand holding. That means 1/320, 1/400, 1/500 to be reasonably sure of getting a sharp hand-held exposure. Call it 1/400...
"Sunny 16" says reciprocal of film speed at f/16 on a bright day. Shooting ISO 100, that's 1/100 at f/16, 1/200 at f/11, 1/400 at f/8... And if you want even a semblance of deeper DOF at 200mm, f/8 or f/11 is where you will be shooting.
That's in bright sunlight. Studio lights aren't that bright. None of this matters much for strobes, of course... But for any kind of outdoors, golden hour shooting, IS is a godsend. I'm a recent convert, and I have no idea how I managed without it for so long.
R. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 05:26:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holy crap - is it my imagination or did the price of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM take a giant leap upward?? Last time I looked it was around $1600 - maybe that was for v1 but still - $2500??
eta: Jeeeez, it looks like prices have gone way up across the board. Gouging because of lack of availability from Japan? |
That's exactly what's happening. BAD time to buy Japanese lenses...
R. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 06:19:57 PM · #12 |
| I think I'm going to go with the 85mm 1.8 for right now. I think it will provide me the most benefit for what I do at the moment. If I truly need the IS on the 70-200, I can't drop $2500 for it. Or $1800 for a used one. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 07:55:10 PM · #13 |
| The 85mm f/1.8 is amazing on a crop body camera. I know the math says 85 is between 70 and 200 therefor the 70-200 can cover the same focal length plus more, but there is more to a lens than just the focal length. Set that lens on f/2 with a crop camera and the images just seem to pop. The images are sharp, have great contrast and creamy smooth out of focus area. I had both the 70-100 f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 for my 40D and I found that I really preferred the 85 even though the big zoom cost me 3x as much. |
|
|
|
04/16/2011 09:57:18 PM · #14 |
| I've only used the Nikon equivalent, but the 85 is a beautiful lens. One advantage with the 70-200 is compressing field for effect, bringing the background into the shot for dramatic effect. Normally people want to blur the background, but it can also do some pretty cool dramatic things as well if you keep it intact. For instance, if you have mountains in the distance it will bring them up in prominence and compress them so they appear right behind somebody (just a hypothetical). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:10:58 PM EDT.
