70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2

lmyamen · May 11, 2010

Ok so i sold off my Nikon equipment and am making the transition over to canon. I am working as an intern with a wedding photographer. I use his equipment but would like to have some of my own that is up to the task of low light weddings. I am stuck between what to get, either the 70-200 2.8 L that has great range, or the prime 85mm 1.2 which is just a incredible lens. What would you guys purchase between the two? I just bought my 40D body but have no lens, so this would be my first lens purchase.

Moogle Pepper · May 11, 2010

85 1.2 hands down and without a second thought. Bokeh is to die for and ridiculously sharp.

Oh welcome to the light side of the force.

zoomer · May 11, 2010

You will want them both. I would get the 70-200 first, the 85 is a bit more of a specialty lens but will give you a look nothing else will give you.

mmmatt · May 11, 2010

Neither! If this is all the glass you will be running, for a bit anyways. You first need a wide/normal zoom and then the telle stuff. 17-55 ($1100) + 85 1.8 ($380) + 70-200 f4 ($600) Total = $2080 The cost of the 85 1.2 is about $1900 by itself. Awesome lense but not nearly as necessary as what I have listed IMHO.

Matt

zoomer · May 11, 2010

mmmat is right. Sorry I did not notice this was your first lens.
Get the wide normal zoom first then the 70-200 then if you really need it the 85 (which you can get by without).

sabesh · May 11, 2010

I agree with Matt. However, I'd pony up the extra cash for the 70-200/F4 IS version. Cheers.

tenoverthenose · May 11, 2010

The 85 1.2 focus like a dog, not quite sure it is a wedding lens as much as a portrait lens. I'd say 135/2 over the 85 for weddings.

quark · May 11, 2010

I agree that for starting something lower and building a range of good lenses might be helpful. Have you looked at the 85mm 1.8? I really like the 50mm 1.4 for only $400 at weddings.

The zoom lenses are nice for well lit photography, but I think the 2.8 limitation will get on your nerves very quickly at indoor weddings.

lmyamen · May 11, 2010

quark wrote: »

I agree that for starting something lower and building a range of good lenses might be helpful. Have you looked at the 85mm 1.8? I really like the 50mm 1.4 for only $400 at weddings.

The zoom lenses are nice for well lit photography, but I think the 2.8 limitation will get on your nerves very quickly at indoor weddings.

Actually the more i look i think i am going to go with the 85 1.8 i really like the price, and it seems like a good quality lens. I am going to pick up a 580ex II flash also. And all in all i will still have alot less invested starting out then buying a 85 1.2 or 70-200 2.8L

cy88 · May 12, 2010

mmmatt wrote: »

Neither! If this is all the glass you will be running, for a bit anyways. You first need a wide/normal zoom and then the telle stuff. 17-55 ($1100) + 85 1.8 ($380) + 70-200 f4 ($600) Total = $2080 The cost of the 85 1.2 is about $1900 by itself. Awesome lense but not nearly as necessary as what I have listed IMHO.

Matt

Couldn't have said it better. However, instead of the 70-200, I would try to get my hands on a 135L for approximately $250 difference in the used market.

urbanaries · May 13, 2010

cy88 wrote: »

Couldn't have said it better. However, instead of the 70-200, I would try to get my hands on a 135L for approximately $250 difference in the used market.

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is ridiculously sharp, some say sharper than the Canon version and certainly cheaper. Lovedddd that lens. I only 'upgraded' to the 135 2.0 because I like to carry all of my lenses on me and the added weight wasn't worth the zoom. Can't go wrong with either, IMO.

Definitely get the 17-55, don't pass go or look at other options! Since I upgraded to 5D that is definitely the lens I miss the most. 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and at least one 580 EX are also no-brainers.

Have fun!!!

Vich · May 14, 2010

lmyamen wrote: »

Actually the more i look i think i am going to go with the 85 1.8 i really like the price, and it seems like a good quality lens. I am going to pick up a 580ex II flash also. And all in all i will still have alot less invested starting out then buying a 85 1.2 or 70-200 2.8L

The 85 1.8 is an amazing portrait and action lens as long as the fixed range suits. 85mm on a crop is a good length for grabbing portraits at a reception because it forces you into a flattering perspective distance. Not always a practical distance but it's not making them look fat.

But for major events that happen too fast to switch lenses (and for which your mounted prime is no good) - I prefer the zoom.

IMO weddings are 80% about catching the action (that is, not missing the action) with pro-caliber shots and 20% about amazing setup stills. Maybe that changes for seasoned pros but for me - I needed to worry about getting them first. A good pro-grade f2.8 zoom with IS satisfies the 80% way more often than a prime, and the 70-200 is so awesome it's also fine for the 20%. imho, not so much the 17-55 IS, great lens but short f2.8 lenses just don't (can't) have the bokeh advantage.

For a while I carried 2 cameras - 85 f1.8 on one, 17-55IS on the other. Or; 70-200 f2.8 on one and 35L on the other. Clunky but results justified.

Setup group formals are different because you have time to mount a prime suiting your need. Even still; the 70-200 is amazing and fine if the distance suits.

70-200L 2.8 or 85mm 1.2

Comments