On a crop body, I'd say 50 1.4. On a FF body, 85 1.2. I find 70-200 too heavy for a long session of shooting. The bokeh of 70-200 is also a little harsh compared to 85 1.2. If you shoot at small apertures most of the time, I’d pick a light lens.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
+1. The tests by lensrentals.com are more objective and representative than any other tests considering their larger sample size, and Roger uses some cool instruments that the DxO guys probably never heard of....and the last of the major reviews is in:
Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.
But to DXO, we're still on the overall 'poor' end of the scale. If the sensor only had more pixels, this lens would score higher... Ridiculous.
Those same jokers gave the new 85mm Otus a score of 38 for Canon and a score of 49 for Nikon based solely on the D800/800E/810's higher resolving power. Rubbish.