Canon 85 1.8 or 70-200 2.8L??

kevingeary

I'm looking to add to my arsenal. I've heard amazing things about the 85mm 1.8, but the price has gone from around $399 to $599 on it.

The 70-200 covers the 85mm range, but there's an obvious aperture difference. How does the sharpness compare?

So what would you do? I shoot portraits indoor and outdoor both studio and natural light on a 7D.

Or am I overlooking a 3rd option?

damonff

85 1.2...if you really want to go there...

eoren1

Just googled price on the 85/1.8 and found it for 414 at Adorama.
Depending on your needs, seems like a great option

kevingeary

eoren1 wrote: »

Just googled price on the 85/1.8 and found it for 414 at Adorama.
Depending on your needs, seems like a great option

Thanks for the heads up!

kevingeary

What if I was also to go with the 100mm f2? Do you think there's enough of a useable difference between 85mm and 100mm to warrant having both? I've kinda decided that I don't want to lug around the 70-200.

My thoughts right now are to have 4 lenses:

17-55 2.8IS, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and 100mm f2.

HelenOster

kevingeary wrote: »

I'm looking to add to my arsenal.......I shoot portraits indoor and outdoor both studio and natural light on a 7D.

I was just pulling out some articles on portrait photography from the Adorama Learning Center for a customer who emailed me - maybe there's some useful info for you here, too.....


http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Portraits-Without-a-Studio

http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/The-Portrait-Photographers-Notebook-

http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/The-Portrait-Photographers-Notebook

http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/The-Portrait-Photographers-Notebook-The-Hair-Light

DeVerm

I think you're better off with the 17-55 and the 70-200. Less weight to lug around too and the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM (Mk I or II) is on my 7D as often as the 17-55.

ciao!
Nick.

divamum

I've owned both & the 85 and 100 are very close in field of vision; I'm not sure there's much advantage to having both in RL use. If i had to choose between the two, I personally preferred the 100 f2 to the 85 1.8 - it's typically sharper at 2.0 than the 85 is at 1.8 and I found the FL better for my needs - YMMV.

Better still is the 135L f2- one of Canon's "magic dust" lenses (it makes EVERYTHING look good) and an amazing tool for portraits anywhere you have the space to use it. It's hard to convey just how good this lens is until you use one for yourself!

I currently have a 24-70l, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (although I preferred the 100, it was too close in FL to the 135 - in fact, I had to sell it to BUY the 135 ) and the 135l.

The new Sigma 85 1.4 is getting good reviews too - I'm considering one for the future....:)

kevingeary

divamum wrote: »

I've owned both & the 85 and 100 are very close in field of vision; I'm not sure there's much advantage to having both in RL use. If i had to choose between the two, I personally preferred the 100 f2 to the 85 1.8 - it's typically sharper at 2.0 than the 85 is at 1.8 and I found the FL better for my needs - YMMV.

Better still is the 135L f2- one of Canon's "magic dust" lenses (it makes EVERYTHING look good) and an amazing tool for portraits anywhere you have the space to use it. It's hard to convey just how good this lens is until you use one for yourself!

I currently have a 24-70l, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (although I preferred the 100, it was too close in FL to the 135 - in fact, I had to sell it to BUY the 135 ) and the 135l.

The new Sigma 85 1.4 is getting good reviews too - I'm considering one for the future....:)

Are you shooting full frame though? I heard the 135 is too long on a crop sensor.

divamum

Nope not full-frame -7d. Works for me!

ETA: Define "too long". It's not the ideal lens indoors - especially for me, since my shooting space is tiny - but I reach for it wherever I can, because it's just that good.

Here's one from last week, shot at f2.5 (It's absolutely sharp at F2 and I regularly use it wide open, but I was quite close and wanted to be sure both her eyes were sharp in the shallow DOF):

tenoverthenose

135 FTW. It focuses amazingly fast and f2 with that compression is perfect.

thomasjm

Kevingeary,

So the first thing I consider when purchasing a new lens is what purpose will it serve. In your OP you mentioned that it will be used for both "portraits indoor and outdoor both studio and natural light."

The first thing I would ask you is do you have a crop sensor camera or a full-frame? I am just wondering if you will have enough room in your studio with even the 70-200mm lens. The effective focal length of of the 70-200mm lens on a Canon crop sensor camera is 112-320mm and the effective focal length of the 85mm lens on a crop sensor is 136mm. Even if you have a full-frame camera I think you need to ask yourself if you have enough room to use these lenses. How much room do you have in your studio? Are you going to shoot head and shoulder shots or full body shots? Renting lenses is a great way to try them out to see if you have enough room in a studio.

As far as the actual lenses they are different beasts, but are both used effectively for portraits. Obviously with a prime lens you will have to move around more to zoom in and out with your feet. Personally I like primes because they force me to think about the shot and composition more than with zooms. Simply because I am forced to move my feet and be more active with a prime lens I think it really helps my photography. On the other hand, working in areas where there is not a lot of room to spare zooms can be a blessing.

If you are concerned about the bokeh on one of the lenses, I think the real world difference between the two is negligible. The 85mm has a smaller aperture and is better at creating an out of focus background, the 70-200mm lens is much longer at the 200mm end and can create depth of field issues that the 85mm cannot match. Personally, I don't know if one would have a definitive edge over the other in terms of bokeh.

Low light shooting. Are you going to be shooting portraits in low light? I shot this portrait in low light, and i didn't want to crank up the iso to compensate, so I shot it at f2. This would have been harder on f2.8 lens. I don't like to shoot at ultra high iso, so I really like my prime lenses that can shoot at f1.2 or f1.4.


There are a lots of differences between the two. They are both great lenses I think you'll be happy with either lens.

Ps. Have you considered the 100mm f2.8 macro? I have never used it, but I know some beauty photographers who rave about it!!!

http://nocojoe.com/environmental-portraits/