Can you justify both the 85mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 2.8 VR?

[J0seph]

I prefer the 85mm 1.4 way over the 70-200 2.8 VR. The vast majority of shooting I do is at weddings and events, most of which are indoors and most of which have poor lighting.

That being said, in a crowded space the long end of the 70-200 will just be useless to you since you won't have a clear shot at anything beyond maybe 100mm and sometimes less.

With the VERY short DOF of the 85 1.4 you can use selective focus to make a subject POP off the image when you can't get close.

Above 100 mm, if you are using an SB600/800 on camera you are going to get red eye.

The 85mm weighs a LOT less than the 70-200 and subkect seem to notice it a LOT less than the 70-200.

I have yet to see a really impressive indoor shot with a 70-200 in a non-studio setting where someone is shooting at 800+ iso at 1/125 or 1/60 and 2.8 . Sure you might see some PJ shots where there are lots of TV lights.

I own both and wish that I had just rented the 70-200 for those rare well lit outdoor assignments.
--
Joseph Allen
http://www.JallenImages.com

 

[BRJR]

Slowly add to your lens collection.
These are different lenses.
I use the 70-200 for bike races and parades
and landscapes. Its sometimes too big
and and heavy. Its in the backpack on
hikes.
I use the 85 f1.4 for portraits and street
photos. Its excellent for low light shots
hand held.
I'd get the 70-200 f2.8 first; its more versitile.
But, I love the 85 f1.4; one of Nikon's great lenses.
Win win.

maljo
70-200 f2.8 at the Pride Parade:

maljo:

And, purchasing both lenses, was a "no-brainer" for me

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

 

[BRJR]

I prefer the 85mm 1.4 way over the 70-200 2.8 VR. The vast majority
of shooting I do is at weddings and events, most of which are
indoors and most of which have poor lighting.

That being said, in a crowded space the long end of the 70-200 will
just be useless to you since you won't have a clear shot at
anything beyond maybe 100mm and sometimes less.

With the VERY short DOF of the 85 1.4 you can use selective focus
to make a subject POP off the image when you can't get close.

Above 100 mm, if you are using an SB600/800 on camera you are going
to get red eye.

The 85mm weighs a LOT less than the 70-200 and subkect seem to
notice it a LOT less than the 70-200.

I have yet to see a really impressive indoor shot with a 70-200 in
a non-studio setting where someone is shooting at 800+ iso at 1/125
or 1/60 and 2.8 . Sure you might see some PJ shots where there are
lots of TV lights.

I own both and wish that I had just rented the 70-200 for those
rare well lit outdoor assignments.
--
Joseph Allen
http://www.JallenImages.com

J0seph:

1. I agree regarding the 85 1.4D lens.

2. And, the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D lens should be a jewel of a lens for a "Nikon Shooter" fortunate to own one, period.

3. Regardless, of controversy or cost of the lens, the 85mm f/1.4 remains one of Nikon's "best ever lenses". And, yes, as with any lens or camera, it won't make one a "better photographer"; but, for me, it sure is a joy to both own and use this lens !!

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

 

[paratom]

I can.
85/1.4 for portrait and indoor sports
70-200VR for Wildlife, outdoor sports etc.

The 70-200@85 does not deliever as creamy bokeh as the 85.

I also find it abusive to shoot portrait with a lens of the size like the 70-200.

For me 2 totally different lenses.

 

[fjgindy]

Two different lenses for me too. I have a 85 1.8 and 80-200 2.8 and the 85 is priceless for me shooting in low light. I would have never gotten these 85mm shots (outdoors-at night-stage lighting only) with the 80-200. Sure would love to own the 85 1.4 someday though!

Al Green - Indy Jazz Fest 2007:





--
Nikon D50
Nikon 35-70mm 2.8
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 180mm 2.8
Nikon 80-200mm 2.8
Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DG 1.4x
SB-600

 

[Wordsmith]

Thanks for your responses everyone. I've decided to go for the 70-200 VR and the basic MacBook. I'll leave the rest of my money in the bank for a while, giving me some time to decide if I really need the 85mm lens.

I'm actually typing this from the MacBook I just picked up. I've upgraded it to 3 GB of RAM and a 250 GB hard drive, and it really flies in Photoshop and Lightroom. In fact, it doesn't really feel any slower than the Mac Pro it replaced.

As for using Aperture, I already did, and became increasingly frustrated with it over time. One of the many factors that caused me to switch to Lightroom is that Aperture was the only application I used that made owning a Mac Pro necessary. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to have to own a quad-core workstation to get decent performance out of a glorified RAW image browser. Mobility is more important to me, so I sold the Mac Pro, and have used the money to get a MacBook and some better glass.

Thanks again everyone for your input.

--
A Nikon and some lenses.

 

[WmBoyle]

I have the 85/1.4 AIS and love it - the AF version is better wide open and, if the body's AF is properly calibrated, saves the time of focusing the beast by hand, and I'd have one if I could justify the expense, but you might want to think about this: the 85's developed their reputation for short FL portrait work on 35mm FF - on DX they have the FOV of a 127mm lens on FF - is that the FL you want? A 60mm would = 90mm, but Nikon's 60 is only a 2.8, and there is no way it can produce the soft OOF backgrounds of th 85/1.4 - or the 50/1.2

A 50/1.2 on DX is equal to 75mm on FF, not a lot shorter than the 85 on FF. If that's more the FL you want, it might be the answer - it's sharper at wide apertures than the 50/1.4 and produces much better bokeh. The FL is more convenient indoors unless you are into tight framing, close the the FOV of the 135, long the popular FF standard for longer FL portrait work.

Buy that or the 85/1.4 (depending on preferred focal length) and the 70-200 and get the plain jane computer or wait for new models - the lenses will still be serving you well years fter the computer is in the recycle bin.

WmB

 

[IeraseU]

Then the 70-200VR is more versatile (as zooms usually are). I'm just getting started working with models, and I could not justify the 85 already having the 70-200, but I do envy it's small size and weight.

--
http://www.southfloridapics.com

 

[sfnikon]

Probably a good choice for now but dont forget about the 85/1.4 for later. I have both and love them in different ways. The 70-200 has great optics and is versatile if you are an event shooter and need to 'get the shot'. However the 85/1.4 is truely a special lens. I used to hate people who would rave about that special 'look' of the images of various legendary lenses but now I have become one of them. I take pictures of friends and family and use the 85/1.4 in maybe 25% of the shots however almost all of my most cherished images are from the 85/1.4.
--
Jake

 

[pmong]

As I mentioned, I have both. Use the VR outdoor. The 85mm f/1.4 is amazing for low light shoots. These three were taken under rather harsh lighting and no flash at graduation.

 

[Grig]

Get 70-200VR... I am talking out of many weddings I shot and shooting...

I was using my 85 1.4 only when 70-200VR was sent for service... Period.

Bokeh - is about the same, beleive me...

Speed - VR takes care of dark areas although it can't stop motion, but still works for me...

You can take a look of my galleries below... Almost all of my best shots shot with 70-200VR.

Thanks.
--
Real photography - it's just the ability to see what was already created by God!
http://www.pbase.com/grig

 

[Yadaday]

Grig, Very nice galleries! Yada

Get 70-200VR... I am talking out of many weddings I shot and
shooting...

I was using my 85 1.4 only when 70-200VR was sent for service...
Period.

Bokeh - is about the same, beleive me...

Speed - VR takes care of dark areas although it can't stop motion,
but still works for me...

You can take a look of my galleries below... Almost all of my best
shots shot with 70-200VR.

Thanks.
--
Real photography - it's just the ability to see what was already
created by God!
http://www.pbase.com/grig

 

[Martin Koistinen]

My advice to you is to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and the MBP. Then, when your finances allow again, get the 85mm f/.4

Why? Because the 70-200mm VR is a WONDERFUL lens. It has excellent IQ and its ability to define a narrow DoF, if necessary, is excellent too! This lens has lovely out-of-focus rendition is second only to the 85mm f/1.4!

At the end of the day, the 70-200 is much more versatile, not only because it is a zoom, but also because of its speed and the VR to boot. If you find you really need the 85mm f/1.4 for a wedding or whatever, rent one until you can afford your own again.

When you get your MBP, be sure to get the fastest CPUs you can get and also, as much RAM as you can get. If you have a choice on video RAM or chipset, get the best again. The latter will probably make the most difference for you, but maxing out the CPU and RAM will allow you to extend the life of this machine to you. Oh, also make sure you have Firewire 800, my first gen MBP doesn't and I'm not happy about that.

Although you didn't ask, I recommend Aperture for its excellent DAM abilities and ease of use and its ability to integrate into your life with its own Mac-integration capabilities or the great number of plug-ins that have come available. However, its rendering is not the best, so I also use PS3 which provides all of the wonderful Photoshop capabilities, but also the RAW rendering capability of LR. (Or rather, LR has the RAW rendering capabilities of PS3). I don't mean to start-up a debate about which tool is the best, etc., I'm just sharing what works for me.

Best!

--
-- Martin

'Every portrait painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself.'

• From 'The picture of Dorian Gray' by Oscar Wilde