85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah I meant background difussion should be numerically similar but then the subject would appear flatter on the 200 shot due to compression. Sorry.

Sorry, still not correct - the amount of OOF blur will never be as great with f/2.8 as with f/1.2 for the same framing, because in that case, aperture alone determines DoF.  Yes, you can get numerically the same blur as at 85/1.2 by using the 70-200/2.8. In fact, 130mm f/2.8 gives the same DoF as 85mm f/1.2, and 200mm f/2.8 gives much thinner DoF. But...it's not the same shot.  Three factors determine DoF: aperture, subject distance, and focal length.  For the same framing, the last two factors cancel each other out.

Consider an example - a headshot at 85/1.2 (granted - only one eyelash in focus).  If you change to the 70-200, set to 135/2.8, you get the same DoF, but now you don't have a headshot - you've cut off the hair, chin, and ears.  So...you back up to get the same framing, and there goes your thin DoF.

[elflord]

i own 5d m2 , 24-70mm f2.8L , and 50mm f1.4 USM. i do some portraits recently and my friend use nikon 85mm f1.4G. i was so amazed with the picture produced by the nikon lens. the bokeh is so creamy compare to my 50mm f1.4. so which one is better in term of bokeh and sharpness at wide open ? the 85mm f1.2 or the 70-200mm since both lens have similar price tag in my country.

On a similar budget, I picked up the 135mm f/2 and the sigma 85mm f/1.4.

[wickidwombat]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L ISII  and I recently got the sigma 85f1.4 which I was deciding between getting the canon 85f1.2L

The primary reason for the 85 for me was for wedding use
I decided to go with the sigma over the canon mainly due to focus speed
the canon 85f1.2 is slowwww to focus particularly if you change from a near object to a far object then back to a near object , if changing focus at similar distanced obbjects its not too bad. but the sigma is much snappier I would estimate maybe 3 times faster.
However I thought the canon f1.2 Was sharper at 1.2 than the sigma was at 1.4 the canon is no doubt a stunning lens, if you can live with the slow AF then it is the lens to have for IQ in my opinion it lives up to canons claim of the definitive portrait lens. The other thing I didnt like was the fly by wire manual focus rather than a mechanical manual focus. just not a fan of this setup

I have tested the sigma against the 70-200 and I find the sigma at f2 significantly sharper than the 70-200 at f2.8 and for weddings moving my position i can cover everything the 70-200 can so I have found that the 85 has almost completely replaced my use of this lens for these events. Primarily because it is so much lighter and smaller, less likely to bang the lens into something and shooting for 10 hours the 70-200 weight really starts to take its toll (still a brilliant and all round awesome lens which i love so dont get me wrong here) I find the sigma 85 IQ to be about equal to the 70-200 wide open at f1.4 vs f2.8 but at f2 the sigma is gold.
My copy is heavily front focusing and i had to dial in +13 AF microadjust so while i have a break in wedding shoots I have sent it in to be looked at to see if they can get it closer to neutral I dont have a problem with a little micro adjuct but +13 is significant and I was worried that a future body might not have the adjustment range to compensate.

I dont know if that helps your decision, just some information from my experiences to factor into your considerations the sigma is 2 and a half times cheaper than the canon 85L too

[Daniel Flather]

— Bokeh — Portraits — 85/1.2L —

/thread

[decltype]

+1 for the 85mm f/1.2 II

The 70-200 IS II is extremely versatile and a great performer, with a very usable focal length range on FF. However, I found it too large and unwieldy - and too much of an attention-grabber for everyday use. If you can live with below-average AF speed, you will love the razor-thin DOF and the beautiful rendering of out-of-focus elements the 85 can produce.

[D.Sim]

For versatility, can't beat the 70-200. If you were to shoot primarily portraits, then yes, the 85mm would be the way to go, but elsewise, the 70-200 would be something far better to fall back on.

[birdman]

I would either go with: Sigma 85/1.4 or Canon 85/1.8--which is a WONDERFUL lens!! Razor freaking sharp and light on the budget and hand.

Then, I would get the 70-200/4.0 IS. You would have portrait needs met and telephoto lens to boot. The Sigma is supposed to be excellent, and they hold their value quite well. The 85/1.2  is amazing, but a little overpriced in my opinion. Of course, the Nikon 85/1.4G is around the same price also. I guess the amount people pay always dictates price of goods. Economics 101

[drummstikk]

Nobody can tell you what to do since only you know where your passion lies in terms of subject matter and how you render it (i.e., with paper thin DOF), but if this is your third lens . . . ?

For my part, the novelty of f/1.2 can only last so long. I use my 70-200 every single day I take pictures, but can completely get my fill of the 85mm f/1.2 with one or two rentals per year. When I think extreme shallow DOF will enhance the look of a certain job, I rent a 1.2 and try to come up with a few other "self-assignments" to explore its possibilities in other ways. By the time it's due back to the dealer, I'm never really that sorry to see it go.

[Robert Welch]

I have the first version of the 70-200/2.8IS and the 85/1.8. I would love to get the 85/1.2, but unless you use it at 1.2-1.4, you might as well save the money and get the 1.8 from what I can tell. I've seen some wonderful images from the 1.2, it's got a quality at that aperture that is unmatched by any other lens. As has been mentioned before, It's not just the amount of bokeh, but the quality is ethereal, almost dreamlike. I've heard the closest any other short tele lens comes to it might be the Leica 1.4, but even then the Canon is preferred by some. So if it's for portraits with a unique look you desire, that is the lens to get. If you require versatility, the 70-200 is the obvious choice, though I've heard the 2nd version has a harsher bokeh quality than the first version has, trading that for superior sharpness, IS effectiveness and maybe focus speed. I prefer the more creamy bokeh of the first version, and find it plenty sharp for my portrait work. If it's more for sports or other work, the 2nd version would probably be the better choice.

[rahkshi007]

If you don't have 70-200II, i would recommend it. But if you purely want the best portrait lens? Get the 85LII

70-200 is a sharp lens but doesnt give the look anywhere near the 85L. However the 85 @1.2 is nerve breaking to shoot at. be extreme careful. Thus, i mostly shoot it at F1.6-2.2.. 

Bokeh wise, someone mentioned the 85 1.2 and 70-200 @200 2.8 would give the same look.. NO. it's not. n I took couple shots to see how much differences (for my own references at well)
all shot handheld, lowlight, straight out from camera, used 1d2 (FF would give a better look, isnt it?)
85L @1.2



70-200 @ 85mm 2.8



70-200 @200 2.8



BONUS: 200mm F2.0 IS

Wow! i really like the shot of 85mm@f1.2 compare to 200mm@f2.8

[vuilang]

Nobody can tell you what to do since only you know where your passion lies in terms of subject matter and how you render it (i.e., with paper thin DOF), but if this is your third lens . . . ?

For my part, the novelty of f/1.2 can only last so long. I use my 70-200 every single day I take pictures, but can completely get my fill of the 85mm f/1.2 with one or two rentals per year. When I think extreme shallow DOF will enhance the look of a certain job, I rent a 1.2 and try to come up with a few other "self-assignments" to explore its possibilities in other ways. By the time it's due back to the dealer, I'm never really that sorry to see it go.

Strange... i have them both.. but my 70-200II sit home all day and my 85LII roll with me through-out battlefield

[mkln]

save for both
they're currently the only two lenses I own for my 5d2.
very happy with both. use 70-200 more often because it's more versatile.
but 85L still blows me away when I look at the pics.

also I find the 70-200 without BG to be too front-heavy
the 85L with BG is very balanced. without it it's still ok.
85L, no BG = the highest quality/size ratio I get with the 5d2. fits a small dedicated bag. small volume, heavy weight tho (85L is almost 1kg alone  )
with the 70-200 you need a dedicated backpack or large bag (but a shoulder bag will hurt. your neck will hurt anyway).

[Pakman]

In a nutshell - The 85mm is more of a specialized lens with amazing IQ even wide-open and the ability to get to f/1.2. The 70-200 the versatile, practical choice for everyday use  (that would I get before the 85L). Plus you have the new world of possibilities with the TC 1.4x and the 2x.

[drjlo]

If one continues to shoot over the years, one will eventually want both.  70-200 II is indeed as good as a f/2.8 zoom can probably ever be, but shooting at 85mm focal length at f/1.2 and still getting sharp subject with induplicable bokeh is priceless, a feat still unmatched by any other company.   

[EvilTed]

Get both - I intend to

1.2 is going to let in a lot more light than 2.8.
Sure you can get "nice" bokeh with the 70-200 (I have one) but a prime lens it aint...

ET