85 1.2 vs 70-200 II

mrjames

mrjames

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,240
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I have a 70-200 IS, which I love- useful lens
but shooting at f2.8 isn't really giving me really hyper sharp images- I prefer to stop down to f4 if I want the bit I put in focus to really stand out by being super sharp
so i'm thinking about selling and putting in some more for the II version

but i'm also weighing up the possibility of keeping the 70-200 IS and adding an 85 1.2 instead.

I'm shooting commercial pictures, and I really would love to be shooting medium format digital but that's not going to happen any time soon
my question is, which would give the closest approximation to the medium format look- 200mm f2.8 or 85 1.2

i'm not really interested in smallest depth of field, i'm most concerned about that shallow depth of field with a really really sharp bit in focus- the thing that gives medium format that 3d quality and pop
and for isolating a subject against a backdrop even when the subject is a full body shot (think brenizer effect but less extreme)
when I need sharp f2.8 images I use the 50 1.4, which I love at 2.8 but depth of field isn't so shallow

so what do you guys think- 85 1.2 or upgrade the 70-200, maybe 135f2?
 
Have you the mkI 70-200? I have the mkII copy and it's very sharp, as good as any of my primes to be honest, wide open.

The 135L is seriously sharp, great for outdoor use when you can put some distance between you and the subject but not so indoor.

I've only just got a 85L so can't really offer a balanced view. Had the Sigma 85mm before which I have nothing but praise for. It gave the pop you talk about and at 2.8 was awesome.

Depends how much versatality you need really. I would have a look at a mkII copy if you need the flexibility of the range they are far better than any other zoom I have had.
 
Go to a 1DS or 5D, it'll be the 1Dmk3 that's holding you back more than anything
 
I'd go full frame and a 85L or 135L, although the 70-200 MK II is a brilliant lens too and versatile. I looked at your site quickly, you've got some really nice model posed shots so any of these lenses you should make sing.
 
I think you need to hire them and try for yourself. It's a lot of money and I'm not sure anyone else can tell you what you need to know.

FWIW, 70-200 Mk2 is a fantastic lens and a safe bet either way. It might even do what you want. 135/2 will. 85 1.2 is an acquired taste. A mate of mine was using one and said it's the one lens that he'd change from Nikon to get, but in the same breath said how hard it was to use at f/1.2 - eye sharp, eye-lashes OOF :eek: It's known to be a quirky beast too.
 
I only have the 70-200F4 non IS, but I do have the 85L and it is an awesome lens. As mentioned it's hard to get a shot accurately at first, but you do get used to it. On moving objects it's obviously more difficult, but I mainly use it for portrait stuff. I've been using it a lot for gigs that are in small pubs, so the band is anything from 10ft-40ft away. It's such a good lens at those distances. I have had to dial in some adjustment as I noticed it was out when shooting a bit further away than that, but after that it's great. Easily my best lens and worth every penny, despite it weighing loads! I personally like extra weight on the camera as it helps me keep it steady, which is one of the reasons I bought the grip for the 5Dmk3 too.

It's a 10/10 lens for me.
 
You can't really fault either 200mm f/2.8 or 85mm 1.2, although the former will be easier to focus accurately. Also as mentioned 135mm f2 is a very nice middle ground compromise that looks very MF like to me
 
Oh, that's what I forgot to mention. The 85L is VERY reliable in low light. I really thought that it would possibly be a bit of an issue due to it being VERY slow focusing, but so far I only came across one scenario, but that was light shining directly on the lens whilst the room was darkness.
 
thanks for the replies

I actually shoot with a 1ds2 as well as my 1d3

I guess first priority should be to upgrade the 70-200 to a mk2, as I use teleconverters too so with the mk2 I can be shooting a 140-400 f5.6 and i've heard it's sharper than the 100-400

not that I really shoot sports/wildlife- but it's a possibility


I'll make a concious note to keep my 70-200 at 85mm, to see how I like the perspective

it will be a long time before I can afford either, but I need to have a goal and decide which one to aim for- although time will tell which one I eventually go for
 
HoppyUK said:
I think you need to hire them and try for yourself. It's a lot of money and I'm not sure anyone else can tell you what you need to know.

FWIW, 70-200 Mk2 is a fantastic lens and a safe bet either way. It might even do what you want. 135/2 will. 85 1.2 is an acquired taste. A mate of mine was using one and said it's the one lens that he'd change from Nikon to get, but in the same breath said how hard it was to use at f/1.2 - eye sharp, eye-lashes OOF :eek: It's known to be a quirky beast too.
Click to expand...

i've always thought hiring seemed like a bad idea
you pay out about £100 and then you decide you like the lens and then have to shell out another 1k to buy it

if you just buy it for 1k you can shoot it for 2 weeks and then if you're not getting on with it just sell it for probably zero loss
 
mrjames said:
i've always thought hiring seemed like a bad idea
you pay out about £100 and then you decide you like the lens and then have to shell out another 1k to buy it

if you just buy it for 1k you can shoot it for 2 weeks and then if you're not getting on with it just sell it for probably zero loss
Click to expand...

you will never sell for the money you bought new. hiring is a good idea IMO. I always use lensesforhire.co.uk and I'm always happy. Their prices are really good as well.
 
sthwild said:
you will never sell for the money you bought new. hiring is a good idea IMO. I always use lensesforhire.co.uk and I'm always happy. Their prices are really good as well.
Click to expand...

i'd never buy a new lens though- I have bought all my equipment used (except for an 85 1.8 which I bought new and then sold for about £50 less than I paid for it after using it for a year)

£90 to hire a 70-200 2.8 IS- I bought one used for £900 and I could sell it for £900 still

£50 to hire a sigma 150mm macro- I bought mine for about £200

I would be interested in hiring the 200mm f2, or 300mm 2.8 for sports but at over £200 to hire I would have to charge a lot more than I do to turn a profit- and I struggle getting paying clients as it is!
 
They are two of the most amazing lenses I owned. there's truly something special about that 85L on full frame though, but then the versatility and sharpness of the 70-200 is a definite benefit.

I found the 85L a great lens to leave on the 5dii though and it was what I had on my camera 80% of the time. The 70-200 only came out on day trips when I knew I'd need the length. Seeing as you already have the mki I would go for the 85L first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top