Nikon 70-200mm 2.8f vs. 85mm 1.8f-G

Started Feb 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
D Knisely Senior Member • Posts: 2,053
Re: Nikon 70-200mm 2.8f vs. 85mm 1.8f-G

I have been considering the 85/1.8 as well, but the reality seems to be that using zoom at a longer focal length (200+mm) will provide just as shallow of DoF and the longer FL produces a more flattering image of most subjects (esp. women) to my eye.  But the icing on the cake is that the 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4, and even the 70-300VR and 28-300VR have VR, which the 85s all omit!  They also have quite pleasant bokeh at 200mm.

The 85s (1.8, 1.4, D & G) don't have a particularly close min focus distance or high magnification either (which the longer zooms do).  The only advantages are shorter focal length head shots with very shallow DoF, the ability to shoot in very low light wide open (limited value), and the obvious potential to be a very light-weight solution.

For me, the lack of VR clinches the deal.  I'm just going to stick with the 70-200s, but I get excellent headshots with the 28-300VR at 300mm and wide open as well.

Doug

 D Knisely's gear list:D Knisely's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow