85 mm portrait lens vs 70/200 2.8 question please

[simonharris]

hi everyone,

i have been doing headshots lately with a 70/200 2.8 and while I am generally pleased with the results , I haven't shot with the 85 mm canon lens. From what I read, it is a great lens but I would love to know from someone who has USED BOTH!

is it a quantum leap or does one need to really see the differance? Would love to hear some educated opinions..

kind regards,

Simon.

 

[Tremint]

If you have 70-200 f2.8 IS II thats the only lens you need. Shoot at 200mm.

The 85mm is also an awesome lens and it give a nice bokeh. But the @200mm you get a nice bokeh and also a nice compression on the background.

Prefer using 200mm vs 85mm. I head that 135mm f2 is close to the 200mm with the lightness factor.

200mm @f2.8 with IS is much better than 85mm. (if you dont mind the weight. That is a big factor)

 

[hotdog321]

hi everyone,

i have been doing headshots lately with a 70/200 2.8 and while I am generally pleased with the results , I haven't shot with the 85 mm canon lens. From what I read, it is a great lens but I would love to know from someone who has USED BOTH!

is it a quantum leap or does one need to really see the differance? Would love to hear some educated opinions..

kind regards,

Simon.

I've owned and heavily used all the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses and own the 85mm f/1.8. I only bought the 85mm to shoot low light stuff and frankly have not used it in years.

The 70-200 f/2.8 (now using the "IS II" model) is so incredibly flexible and useful for everything from portraits to sports to events to news to occasional landscapes that it remains glued to one of my full frame bodies full time.

As far as headshots go, an 85mm is a little short, IMO. The 135mm-200mm range is generally more pleasing.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

hi everyone,

i have been doing headshots lately with a 70/200 2.8 and while I am generally pleased with the results , I haven't shot with the 85 mm canon lens. From what I read, it is a great lens but I would love to know from someone who has USED BOTH!

is it a quantum leap or does one need to really see the differance? Would love to hear some educated opinions..

kind regards,

Simon.

Simon,

Looking for "quantum leaps" in performance of lenses is a dangerous prospect, and can send you down some VERY expensive rabbit holes.

Your 70-200 f2.8 is already one of the finest zooms in its class. I certainly wouldn't expect huge improvements with something else.

The two lenses you are talking about have three basic things in common:

• They both can shoot at 85mm focal range.
• They both can shoot at f2.8
• They both have stellar image quality at f2.8

Now, what's different about them:

• The 70-200 is a zoom with a broad focal range. The 85/1.8 is a prime.
• The 70-200 is very large and very heavy. The 85/1.8 is quite small and compact.
• The 70-200's brightest aperture is f2.8. The 85 will open up to f1.8.

Of all of those similarities, optical quality will likely be the least noticeable. The most noticeable difference involves size and weight.

For me personally, I love the 70-200/2.8 II most when I'm shooting people, mostly single adults or couples, and mostly outdoors. The 85/1.8, however, is a far "friendlier" lens, smaller and lighter to work with as a photographer, and far less "intimidating" for the subject. Although some find it slightly soft at it's full open f1.8, I find that aperture quite pleasing for single person portraiture (though certainly, care should be taken at such thin DOFs).

It can probably be boiled down to the 85/1.8 being a very specific lens, where the 70-200/2.8 is a bit more general. While I can certainly recommend the 85/1.8, there's an awful lot of overlap between it and the zoom, and I could really only recommend it to someone who already knows WHY they want it. If you don't already have a specific thing in mind, it's probably not yet time for you to get one.

 

[simonharris]

Thank you everyone for your replies, as usual dp review proves to be a great resource for info.

You have all pretty much told me what I suspected and I wont waste my time borrowing /hiring etc as I am pretty stoked with my 70/200..... what a lens. About the only time I take it off is when I do real estate interiors!

Again, thanks to you all for your opinions.

 

[kevindar]

I own both the 85L II, and 70-200 2.8 II.

Strictly for head shots, I like the 70-200 for several reasons. First off, you really want to shoot head shots at 135 or longer. that would give you enough distance to your subject to have a more flattering perspective.

Second, for head shots, 1.2 is a little hard to use, and you are so close that you probably wont have much in terms of DOF. you can end up with really cool results, but I find the 85L excels at half body portraits, or even full body, where it gives you a flattering perspective, and obliterates the background at f 1.2

I remain in the camp of not finding the zoom making the prime redundant. there is still something magical about the 85L II, esp for low light and half and full body portraits. but for your stated intent, the zoom is a better choice

This is what the lens can do at 1.2 for full body shots, with a little distance from your subject.







--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevindar/

 

[chironNYC]

hi everyone,

i have been doing headshots lately with a 70/200 2.8 and while I am generally pleased with the results , I haven't shot with the 85 mm canon lens. From what I read, it is a great lens but I would love to know from someone who has USED BOTH!

is it a quantum leap or does one need to really see the differance? Would love to hear some educated opinions..

kind regards,

Simon.

Simon,

Looking for "quantum leaps" in performance of lenses is a dangerous prospect, and can send you down some VERY expensive rabbit holes.

Your 70-200 f2.8 is already one of the finest zooms in its class. I certainly wouldn't expect huge improvements with something else.

The two lenses you are talking about have three basic things in common:

• They both can shoot at 85mm focal range.
• They both can shoot at f2.8
• They both have stellar image quality at f2.8

Now, what's different about them:

• The 70-200 is a zoom with a broad focal range. The 85/1.8 is a prime.
• The 70-200 is very large and very heavy. The 85/1.8 is quite small and compact.
• The 70-200's brightest aperture is f2.8. The 85 will open up to f1.8.

Of all of those similarities, optical quality will likely be the least noticeable. The most noticeable difference involves size and weight.

For me personally, I love the 70-200/2.8 II most when I'm shooting people, mostly single adults or couples, and mostly outdoors. The 85/1.8, however, is a far "friendlier" lens, smaller and lighter to work with as a photographer, and far less "intimidating" for the subject. Although some find it slightly soft at it's full open f1.8, I find that aperture quite pleasing for single person portraiture (though certainly, care should be taken at such thin DOFs).

It can probably be boiled down to the 85/1.8 being a very specific lens, where the 70-200/2.8 is a bit more general. While I can certainly recommend the 85/1.8, there's an awful lot of overlap between it and the zoom, and I could really only recommend it to someone who already knows WHY they want it. If you don't already have a specific thing in mind, it's probably not yet time for you to get one.

I think this is an excellent answer. I personally find the 85/1.8 much easier to use in situations where you know you will have the ability to frame what you want with that specific focal length. I sold my 70-200/2.8 and replaced it with a 70-200/4 because of the inconvenience and difficulty of using the and carrying the heavier lens. But I an not a professional, so I am not in situations where I can be all geared up with no other role to play.

 

[simonharris]

Kevin thank you for your well thought out response. It pretty well says it all really. And LOVE
Your shot...!

 

[Dan_168]

is it a quantum leap or does one need to really see the differance? Would love to hear some educated opinions..

I have both 85 1.2L II and 70-200 F2.8 IS II and a 135L, while I love the 70-200 but for portrait, it's the 85L + 135L I prefer, "quantum leap", not really, but there is enough difference for me to make me want to use the two prime every time instead of the 70-200 F2.8L II. The Bokeh from the 70-200 is not as good, it's a F2.8 lens not F1.2/F2 lens, in fact, I found even my old version 1 70-200 F2.8 IS has nicer Bokeh than the MK II, the MK II is much sharper at widen and long end but worse Bokeh than MK 1 if you ask me, I have done some side by side back then when I first got the lens but this is mainly my event lens not my portrait lens so I decided to keep the MK II and sold the MK I.

With that being said, I guess there is no need to reiterate what's been said about the 85L II you may have read everywhere already, now if we are talking about the EF 85 F1.8 vs the 70-200, the choice may be a little harder, but between the 85L II and 70-200 the choice is really easy for me, I prefer the two prime combo instead of one zoom.

 

[kevindar]

Kevin thank you for your well thought out response. It pretty well says it all really. And LOVE
Your shot...!

My pleasure and thank your for the compliment.