70-200 f/2.8 VRII or 85G & 135DC?

I've been waiting somewhat impatiently for my name to come up and get my hands on an 85G to go with my 135DC & 50G. I've always enjoyed primes. Should I give up waiting for the 85G, sell the 135DC and just get the 70-200 VRII and save money too ($2800 value in the 85+135DC vs $2059 for the VRII)? Perhaps I could then use the savings plus sale value in the 50G to go towards a future 35G...

I do lots of portrait shots, and photos of my kid and family indoors and out and use a D700.

Thanks!

The 70-200 VRII is a fine portrait lens, and is used a lot by event photographers for that purpose. Event photographers usually work with two or three lenses only and do not have much time to switch lenses. That makes the 70-200 VRII lens very versatile for them.

However, the primes you mention are specialty portrait lenses. You can get a look from them that it is impossible to get from the 70-200 VRII. If your want a portrait lens and have the time to change lenses, those primes make better portraits than the zoom.

Most of my shooting is events of one type or another. For that reason, I bought the 70-200 VRII. I do some "mobile studio" portraits too, but the number is small in comparison to the event work. It the numbers were reversed and I did a lot of studio work, then without doubt, I would get the primes instead.

Perhaps you just need to work with a differnt vendor to get the 85?
--
Catallaxy

Personally, I would stick with the primes for the kind of shooting you described. The 70-200 is a great lens, but primes are ideal for indoor portrait work.

Richard Weisgrau
http://www.weisgrau.com
Author of
The Real Business of Photography
The Photographer's Guide to Negotiating
Selling Your Photography
Licensing Photography

It's rendering is very flattering and this is coming from a 105DC (similar rendering to 135DC) owner.

The 70-200VRII also focusses faster than the other lenses and will do the best job focus tracking kids during candids. If your portraits are actually sit-down posed sessions, the primes aren't as much of a disadvantage, but the 70-200VRII will be better if they are moving around, both for focussing and ability to change comps by zooming in or out. I like using the primes for candids but you have to foot zoom constantly if your child is moving forwards and/or backwards and you don't have as many options for compositions compared to shooting with a zoom.

However, the 70-200VRII is much larger and heavier than the other lenses and the primes are not only easier to handle but less imposing. That being said, the photographer's demeanor goes a long way to keeping subjects loose and relaxed in spite of the camera/lenses' bulk. All of the lenses you're interested in can make gorgeous images.

70-200VRII:



105DC:

You know that 85G is a sweet lens. For portraits it's spot on. And considering that's what you you do then it might be the ticket. However the 70-200 is so versatile and so freaking nice. Yes, I'm sure the 85 might be unequal for portraits. But with the 70-200 you get amazing portraits and you can use it for lots of different situations. I have no idea what the 85G costs, but you can't beat the utility of the zoom.

Personally I own 70-200VR2, 85 1.4G, sold 85 1.4D, 105DC and135DC. From my own experience, I think 70-200VR2 is a general lens while all the other three are special tools for special purposes. Always own the general tools first.

I have the 70-200VR1 and except for sports, it is probably my least used lens. It all depends on what you want to photograph. For photos where you want great background bokeh, the isolation of an f/1.4 lens is pretty hard to beat (I also have 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 35/1.8). Besides, the extra two stops you get with the f/1.4 over the f/2.8 can't hurt when you need the extra speed. While I will concur the 70-200 is a great lens, I feel f/2.8 is not a fast lens as some consider it to be, particularly when f/1.4 options are available. In my opinion, the f/1.4 lens can do something the f/2.8 can't do - but the reverse is not true. That is my opinion and you can take it for what it's worth.

IMO the 70-200 is a fantastic portrait lens. It gives you buttery smooth bokeh wide open.

Downside is size and weight. I haven't found it overly imposing on others while shooting but it isn't compact and easy to manipulate for long periods.

Apart from size and reach, anyone could have stellar results on the 70-200. It may be too long for use in close spaces. But so could the 85. And the 85 gives 2 more stops to play with if needed in certain lighting. I don't think DOF is going to make or break between the two.

That's a tough choice. 70-200 is such a versatile and awesome but hefty. And sounds like you prefer the primes. If you really, really like the look you'd think you'll get from the 85g and minimize the weight, I'd wait for the 85. I am don't know the age of your kids, but if you'll be shooting any sport shots, the 70-200 will be a better choice. Why not just keep the 135 and get the 70-200 for now, and later decide if you'd like to get rid of one or the other to get the 85? The most dipensible of all the lenses mentioned is the 50g, in my opinion. The mentioned 35, 85, 135 and 70-200 would make for a very potent portrait and action kit.

Here's two





with the 70-200 II.