70-200mm f4 or 85mm 1.8

Tyler138

Tyler138

Messages
1,320
Name
Alex Tyler
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

Will be buying a lens new lens shortly to go with my new cam i bought a while ago but i am in a bit of a pickle.

I have the nifty fifty atm and love it cant really fault it. Now as i just upgraded my body i am looking to get a nice lens to go with it. Only thing is i am not sure between the 70-200mm F4 non IS or the 85mm 1.8

I shot a lot of mountain biking and will be doing a ton of races in the summer so iam thinking the zoom will be nice but then i think about the 85mm would be nice at 1.8 in the dark woods.

Any thoughts on either of these lenses, i am really torn between them. How would the f4 cope in dark conditions, i know there are 2 stops of difference between them but usually like to shoot around 2.8ish so 1 stop difference. Is that a lot..?

If anyone could help out or have a say on any of the lenses or recommend another would help out loads.

Thanks,

Tyler
 
Can't see your kit bag profile on iPhone so bear with me;

If you can make up that stop of light on the zoom through increased ISI quite easily, I think you'll appreciate the versatility of the 70-200 because it's so different to the 50mm.

An 85mm is great - i love mine as a 'go to' lens when I need something extra - but it limits you to specific viewpoints that might not always be possible in the woods on a MTB trail.
 
specialman said:
Can't see your kit bag profile on iPhone so bear with me;

If you can make up that stop of light on the zoom through increased ISI quite easily, I think you'll appreciate the versatility of the 70-200 because it's so different to the 50mm.

An 85mm is great - i love mine as a 'go to' lens when I need something extra - but it limits you to specific viewpoints that might not always be possible in the woods on a MTB trail.
Click to expand...

Yeh thats kind of what i have been thinking about, i can allows put the ISO up or go back to the 50mm 1.8. I have a 7D as well btw.

How would the 70-200mm be at 200mm without IS as well...? Or is it just the case of getting a shutter fast enough n it will be fine.?

Thanks for the reply,

Tyler
 
70-200 is a great versatile lens, its weather sealed and the build quality is top notch. Not saying the 85 is a bad lens, it just hasn't got the build quality and the variable reach of the 70-200. Did I mention how fast the autofocus is?

TBH its not a heavy lens either and should balance nicely on the 7D, mine does on a 40D.

Just up the ISO if you need a faster shutter speed, you will have no problem with a 7D.
 
i think you should go for the 70-200 as it gives you many more options out of a lens. as you will probably know you can just boost the iso and i have had shots at 5000 that are very good from my 7D. the bokeh on the 70-200 is also awesome
 
Tyler138 said:
Yeh thats kind of what i have been thinking about, i can allows put the ISO up or go back to the 50mm 1.8. I have a 7D as well btw.

How would the 70-200mm be at 200mm without IS as well...? Or is it just the case of getting a shutter fast enough n it will be fine.?

Thanks for the reply,

Tyler
Click to expand...

Ah, 7D.... you'll be sorted for high ISO then :thumbs:

I used the 70-200 f/4 the other day in a gripped 5D2 and have to say, it was brilliant; not heavy, good reach, good bokeh, weathersealed..... Just a solid lens and considering they're what, £350 used, are a big of a bargain.

At 200mm it's sharp wide open so just bump the ISO up a stop or two (your 7D can easily do 1600-3200) and enjoy:)
 
Cheers guys think i will go for the 70-200mm, wait for one to pop up in the buy n sell section.

Any thoughts on it not having IS at 200mm..?
 
I think its only the IS that is weather sealed?
I have both, I love my 85 although it gets little use, the 70/200 will give you framing flexibility of course whereas the 85 means you will need to move if possible or crop. I do find the f4 a bit limiting though especially in winter.
The 85 is sharp from f2.5 onwards, the 70/200 from f4 onwards so you wont lose much in terms of "wide open use".
However you will need to use 1/250 on the zoom unless you have a very steady hand, 1/100 or even 1/50 on the 85 so its not all about which aperture will work.

Matt
 
I thought all L lenses were weather sealed, thats why they are so bloody expensive :bang:
 
Scotty Pro said:
I thought all L lenses were weather sealed, thats why they are so bloody expensive :bang:
Click to expand...

a few rubber rings don't cost that much. It is all about brand name, then exotic glass and the image (pun intended)
 
Tyler138 said:
Cheers guys think i will go for the 70-200mm, wait for one to pop up in the buy n sell section.

Any thoughts on it not having IS at 200mm..?
Click to expand...


70-200mm is far more versatile than 85mm. Both are 99.99% excellent lenses. But I'd get the zoom first.

no IS at 200mm is not a critical issue. With steady hands and good technique it is doable even at slower speeds like 1/80s. IS would not help too much with a moving subject.

If it is too dark (or too sunny), you may have to use fill flash.
 
My Dad has both of those lenses (so I've got to use them a few times), if you said you were just taking portraits I'd have suggested the 85mm, but for sports I'd go for the 70-200 every time. I have the f2.8 non IS version and have never found not having IS a problem at 200mm, just make sure the shutter speed is above 1/200th, which you will want it to be for most sports stuff anyway.

I thought all L lenses were waterproofed to some extent, more than non L lenses anyway, but it's just the more recent ones (ie not the 70-200 non IS versions) that have the extra seal at the mount to interface with the seals on the 1D (and 7D?) to make them fully waterproof.
 
Radiohead said:
I know, but for the OP's requirements I doubt an f4 lens will be sufficient unless he's throwing lots of artificial light at it.
Click to expand...

How do you mean?

Looking at things, his 7D should be able to provide very useable high ISOs to get decent shutters and retain enough DoF. I think he's into off camera flash going by sone of his other threads so additional light shouldn't be a problem.

Personally, just relying on a fast lens with a wide aperture is more a recipe for mis-focussing due to such a shallow DoF, especially with fast-moving bikes :)
 
Which is why I qualified it with the artificial light comments.

But he says:

....will be doing a ton of races in the summer so iam thinking the zoom will be nice but then i think about the 85mm would be nice at 1.8 in the dark woods.

Any thoughts on either of these lenses, i am really torn between them. How would the f4 cope in dark conditions

He's going to want 1/500s for mountain bike races, and even with 7D high ISO (which is good, but not the best) that's asking a lot with a lens that's only f4. I don't see too many f4's at bike races (or any sporting events) myself, but lots of 70-200 2.8's.

Personally I'd opt for a used non-IS 2.8.

All depends on the light being used.
 
Radiohead - wasn't having a pop, just didn't know what you meant :)

A used 2.8 with or without IS is obviously going to be an advantage, agreed. Don't know how that fits in with budget. But it's only a stop faster.... if he has the high ISO capabilities then why not use it......Like you say though, it's all very much dependent on available light and what additional light is being pumped in.

Overall, at the price they are, a used 70-200 f/4 is a brilliant buy and gets you the kind of versatility required at a bargain price :)

To the OP, the reality of it is down to what shutter speeds you are getting currently at f/2.8 and f/4 on your 50mm and at what ISOs. If you have room for manoeuvre (in a dark, worst-case scenario) on your ISOs before noise ruins things, then that's what you need to base things around :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Radiohead - wasn't having a pop, just didn't know what you meant :)

A used 2.8 with or without IS is obviously going to be an advantage, agreed. Don't know how that fits in with budget. But it's only a stop faster.... if he has the high ISO capabilities then why not use it......Like you say though, it's all very much dependent on available light and what additional light is being pumped in.

Overall, at the price they are, a used 70-200 f/4 is a brilliant buy and gets you the kind of versatility required at a bargain price :)

To the OP, the reality of it is down to what shutter speeds you are getting currently at f/2.8 and f/4 on your 50mm and at what ISOs. If you have room for manoeuvre (in a dark, worst-case scenario) on your ISOs before noise ruins things, then that's what you need to base things around :)
Click to expand...

Thinkg the F4 will be ok and the 2.8 is out of my budget and if needs do i can chuck the 50mm back on or get the flashes out.
 
I am not going to dispute the versatility of the 70-200 zoom and indeed everyone should have one in a well-rounded kit (prime junkies shhh). But I am going to say that nothing ruins a photo like camera shake or excessive motion blur when shooting sports in low light. And while large apertures like f/2 will give a shallow DoF, it will not be that bad when the subject is further away. The DoF increases dramatically with subject distance.

Example DoF with 7D and 85mm f/2 as an example.. at 2 meters, only 6cm DoF. At 10 meters, 165cm of DoF. That's QUITE a difference. I just might go for the 85/1.8 there instead of risking blurry shots at f/4.

Tyler, do you have any photos already taken under the conditions that you're going to be shooting MTB racing in? By checking the EXIF you can evaluate how much light there was present and from there see if an f/4 lens will cut it or not. Also the focal length in the pics will of course give you ideas on whether you need something longer or shorter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top