Prime or Zoom?

Jamesbjenkins

Hey all, I need your opinion on something. I currently have a couple of pro zooms (24-70 and 70-200) and I'm thinking about dropping the 24-70 and buying an 85mm 1.4...

I mostly shoot portraits and weddings, and I know that the 85 1.4 is great for portraits. I'm just concerned about its versatility for weddings. I don't have much experience at all with primes. I haven't been too thrilled with the performance of the 24-70, but in all fairness until recently I was shooting a Nikon D90...

What are your thoughts about the pros/cons of making my proposed move?

Moogle Pepper

Rent one and see how you like it.

johng

the 24-70 and 85 1.4 are apples to oranges. Without the 24-70, what do you intend to use for full-body shots or group shots or reception shots? Sure the 85 is a great portrait lens. The 24-70 isn't but that's not what it's really for (you'd be better off using 70-200 2.8 for your portraits than the 24-70). I just don't see how 24-70 vs 85 is an either/or. They do two different things.

Jamesbjenkins

johng wrote: »

the 24-70 and 85 1.4 are apples to oranges. Without the 24-70, what do you intend to use for full-body shots or group shots or reception shots? Sure the 85 is a great portrait lens. The 24-70 isn't but that's not what it's really for (you'd be better off using 70-200 2.8 for your portraits than the 24-70). I just don't see how 24-70 vs 85 is an either/or. They do two different things.

good point. My biggest pet peeve is changing lenses in the field, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. I plan to keep the 70-200 on my D7000 and have the other lens on the D700. I know the 24-70 is the better lens, but does anyone know how it compares to the newer 24-120 f4?

Maybe a better question is, is the 85mm 1.4 enough better than the f1.8 version to justify 3.5x the cost?

zoomer

Not a good idea, in practice the 85 is more of a specialty lens.
85 1.8 would be fine for almost everything.

inno

To answer your question, NO the 1.4 isn't good enough to justify it over the 1.8.

ThatCanonGuy

I'd get the new 85 1.8 (or rent one). It looks like it's gonna be pretty sweet. I'd keep the 24-70 and 70-200, and try to scrape up enough cash to get the 85 1.8.

Primes vs zooms really depends on your style. Primes, you have to change lenses more often (usually). Primes, more bokeh. Primes, sharper. Primes, better image quality for the price. All of that is generally speaking. Zooms give you more flexibility, but they're usually heavier.

I think if you want to go for primes, you need to get a 35mm or so for the wide-angle shots. Which do you use more--the 24-70 or the 70-200? You might consider replacing the 70-200 with an 85mm. That is, if you don't use the 100-200 range of your 70-200 a lot.

Why were you considering the 24-120? It's f4, which would give you less bokeh. I think the best options are 24-70 + 85 1.8 + 70-200 or if you really want to go light, and like shooting with primes, 24/28/35/something + 85 1.8 + 70-200.

Jamesbjenkins

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I'd get the new 85 1.8 (or rent one). It looks like it's gonna be pretty sweet. I'd keep the 24-70 and 70-200, and try to scrape up enough cash to get the 85 1.8.

Primes vs zooms really depends on your style. Primes, you have to change lenses more often (usually). Primes, more bokeh. Primes, sharper. Primes, better image quality for the price. All of that is generally speaking. Zooms give you more flexibility, but they're usually heavier.

I think if you want to go for primes, you need to get a 35mm or so for the wide-angle shots. Which do you use more--the 24-70 or the 70-200? You might consider replacing the 70-200 with an 85mm. That is, if you don't use the 100-200 range of your 70-200 a lot.

Why were you considering the 24-120? It's f4, which would give you less bokeh. I think the best options are 24-70 + 85 1.8 + 70-200 or if you really want to go light, and like shooting with primes, 24/28/35/something + 85 1.8 + 70-200.

I saw the MSRP on the new 85 1.8 is only $499, which is exciting. I just recently sold my D90 and bought a D700 & D7000 (2011 was a good year ), so moving forward I will probably use both the 24-70 and 70-200 at the same time. My only main reservation is that I really hate to change lenses in the field, but I can probably get over that in time. I love the bokeh and shallow depth of field that primes provide, and they're definitely a lot easier to lug around for 6 hours. I will probably place a pre-order for the new 85mm 1.8.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Art Scott

for my .00002 cents worth...personally...if all I was doing was portraits and weddings...I would stay with the 24-70 / 70-200 and leave it at that...
I shot for over 20 yrs with only a 70-210 ...I mean everything at the wedding...yes I had to be a ways back for very large wedding parties but my flashes had guide numbers of 120 - 200 so I had no worries...receptions I got what I wanted and needed...it is simply all about knowing how to use the equipment...during that time I was also shooting concerts in large venues as well as clubs....when I got my first 28-70 I had to completely learn how to shoot with it and even now I still lean on my 70-200 the most for portraits and weddings... never had a client complain about any image not being sharp as a tack...all lenses have sweet spots for performance....