Excellent almost every way (I hate to sound like a fanboy)

Started Sep 29, 2015 | User reviews thread
TonyTguy Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: Excellent almost every way (I hate to sound like a fanboy)

Sagittarius wrote:

TonyTguy wrote:

It is a good lens. Times when the 70-200 does not make sense when you just physically do not have the working room to back up with the telephoto lens the 85 mm gets you that portrait FL and you can zoom with your feet if you had to.

What do you mean? 70mm is wider than 85, so why do you need more room with 70-200 than with 85?

the 70 mm focal length is too wide for filling the frame for a tighter head and shoulder so the extra FL length helps. I also do Not have to open my lens as wide on the 85 mm like you have to on the 70 mm FL to get like shallow DOF. Yes I use the 70-200 past 85 mm if I have the working room to exaggerate shallow DOF plus I can use F 4.0 at 135 mm for example if I need it, still get shallow DOF because of the zoom but at 85 mm it will not work the same no matter than prime or zoom.

Just remember the Three things that effect depth of field and you will know if you do not want to use F 2.8 because subject matter is not on the same focal plane I can stop down but to keep that compression I go to the zoom lens.

The close focus distance of the 85 mm prime vs the 70-200 at the equal close focus distance I can get 2 feet closer just about with the 85 mm. This means in close quarters or say a corporate event with lots of people I have a solid Two feet I can play with IF I need the 85 mm focal length where the 70-200 is just too long of a lens to use. OR I know I will not need anything past 85 mm so why bother taking the 70-200, just added weight

I can also if I have the room walk to the subject matter getting a like 105 mm look with the 85 mm and this can be playing with light and or background

I usually work with two cameras anyway so the 24-70 is the other lens with the 70-200 or 85 mm. For some fashion stuff the 58 mm and 85 mm is the combo where the 24-70 is not needed cause I am not shooting wider than 50 mm to avoid distortion of wider FL's

I thought about the 105 mm macro and having VR was nice, but it just focuses too slow and for macro I got the 60 mm.

I did not buy the 85 mm for the 1.4, just vs the 85 mm 1.8 the results out of the 1.4 version were just nicer and crisper, sucks to have to spend so much more money but final results is what I am looking for. I had to buy both 1.4 and 1.8 version, test and make a return of the 1.8 lens.

You also have less weight and less physical space to take with the 85 mm 1.4 prime if you do not need the 70-200.

The 70-200 has stabilization and I also have the 24-70 VR so for family portraits when handhold shots tend to be more VR helps. I use flash off camera most times with pocket wizards

I have both plus the 58 mm and a couple others

-- hide signature --

Best regards

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow