70-200 2.8 IS II vs. 85 1.2 II for Portraits?

DPReview007 wrote:

candleJack wrote:

ok55 wrote:

I wouldn't consider a 70-200 a replacement for the 85L. The blur at 200mm f2.8 might be pretty similar to the 85L two stops wider but the perspective is totally different. The,greater depth in the 85 image coupled with the blur makes all the difference & can be very addictive.

I don't think Canon's in any great hurry to replace the 85L so I'd say go ahead and buy it.
Brgds

Excellently put! Perspective coupled with shallow dof is what makes this special.

By perspective, you guys mean a wider angle of field, right?

Not only that. You are mentioning the field of view, or how wide is the angle that the lens sees. Perspective however is directly related to subject distance and even though you might think that subject distance is something that you - the photographer - controls, it's not as simple as that.

The photographer mostly thinks about the framing he wants, but that framing can be achieved by using a wider lens and stepping closed or a longer lens and moving back. The same framing of the main subject (or same magnification) with 2 different perspectives. The talented and aware photographer is careful about this choice, because it greatly impacts the mood in the photo.

To put it simply, with the wider lens the camera is closer to the subject, and the picture conveys that. The viewer therefore feels closer to the subject, as if he was part of what's going on it the photo. With the longer lens the camera is further away, and again, the viewer feels it, like he is watching from a distance.

It's not that one is better than the other (although there is that saying: "if you want to take a better picture, get closer"), but the "intimate" perspective is harder to achieve technically while maintaining the same amount of perceived background separation, probably why the 85L is f/1.2 and so expensive.

In other words, what the 85 1.2 II can do compared to the 70-200 2.8 is to achieve equivalently shallow depth of field from a shorter distance away from your subject / with a wider angle of view / more of the background (albeit completely creamed out.)

(And of course it lets in more light in low light situations. Although that advantage is cancelled out by the lack of IS compared to the 70-200.)

So presumably, if you shoot outdoors, the 70-200 is just as good if you just want to achieve that shallow DoF effect. i have shot taken with mine at 200mm at f2.8 where only the closer eye is in focus.

If you shoot outdoors it's unlikely that you'll ever be shutter speed limited, so I actually think the 85L is better in that situation as the IS doesn't come into play. And btw, I haven't done any investigations, but I think you're wrong to assume that the 85/1.2 doesn't actually give you 2 and 1/2 more stops. I mean, sure, the sensor sees something closer to a f/1.4 lens, but that's still 2 stops more light than the zoom.

Is this summery correct?

Bottom line is: the 85 is technically worse in chromatic aberrations, sharpness (still very sharp) and vignetting, slower to focus and overall more difficult to use. It has only one advantage: it gives you the possibility to create unique "atmosphere" portraits. You and you shouldn't expect every snap to be magical.

Your zoom is excellent overall (minus bokeh in my opinion) so if there isn't something in particular that you feel is missing, then the 85L might not be worth it for you.

Best regards,

Alex