70-200 2.8 II vs. 85mm 1.2 II - general opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I use the 70-200 for all my group portraits (when possible) and my 85 for my Bride and Groom Portraits. The 70-200 is great with the IS to capture images at that focal length in low light. Best images come from the 85, but the 70-200 has its special place at a wedding too.
 
Upvote 0
wickidwombat said:
since i got the sigma 85 i have almost stopped using my 70-200 i'll probably sell it and get a 200 f2L since i really only use the 70-200 if i want 200mm these days

in your situation i would just go with the 85 it blows the doors off the 70-200 for image quality and is 2.5 stops faster

I'm NOT sure if I agree with this. 85L Maybe has sightly advanatge with the BOKEH, but not sharpness and IQ. I would take 70-200 f2.8 IS II over 85L anytime.
 
Upvote 0
Your question is really hard to answer. I own the 85mm f/1.2 Version II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Version II as well. I use them for a variety of purposes, none of which might coincide with your uses. Things are comnplicated by you owning a 7D as your camera of choice. I, and probably the majority of those using the 85 and 70-200 have a full frame camera on which to use them. It is not necessary to have full frame to love using either lens; it's just that the difference in angle of view between the two formats makes my uses potentially different from yours.

One use I make of the 85 is the obvious - for very narrow depth of field portraits. I shoot mostly at f/1.6 to f/2.8 because shooting at f/1.2 and getting all the parts of my subjects' faces in focus is usually too hard to do quickly and consistantly, and viewing wide open at f/1.2 gives me a better chance for an f/1.6 exposure to be spot-on focused. Occasionally I'll get the odd shot to look great wide open, but I can't count on it. This is not a "fault" of the lens, but a result of my shooting style and the laws of optical physics. Usually, careful manual focus is more reliable than autofocus for this purpose. I also use this lens very successfully for - amazingly enough - very narrow depth of field product shots. The focusing routine here is about the same, but I am more likely to shoot at f/1.2 or 1.4 because it's easier to use the narrow focus on products and small objects (i.e., easier than people's faces - which have a certain fixed distance between eyes, nose tips, and ears). This lens is amazing for both purposes, and its bokeh is deservedly famous for its great dreamy and smooth character.

The 70-200 f/2.8 ver. It is another animal entirely. I use this lens much more. Hey, it's a zoom, for goodness sake, meaning that it can replace many fixed focal length lenses - and it does. This lens is so sharp, that, aside from the 85 with its amazing maximum aperture performance and sharpness, I need no other lenses in its focal length range, with the exception of special purpose TSE and macro lenses. This makes the zoom much more versatile - what it's meant to be. And, you can confidantly shoot this lens wide open if you wish; it's that sharp and good, and only gets a little better by f/5.6 at any focal length. When I have a large or medium size product, groups of people to be shot quickly, people shots that work best at focal lengths different from 85mm, environments that need a longer lens, any situations where fast changes from one focal length to another are helpful, action (sports), or just anything that I'm trying to capture that moves or has the potential to move, this lens is the one to go to. The biggest negative is that this lens is heavy and somehwhat large, so that if that is a controlling factor, beware; of course, the 85 is quite heavy itself, but is still quite a bit lighter and smaller than the zoom. The bokeh is a little more "nervous" than that of the 85, but it's excellent for a complex zoom wide open or one stop down. In any case, the bokeh of all other lenses in its focal length range is nervous compared to that of the 85.

There you have it - my use of the two lenses in question laid out for you. What you do, especially as your camera would render the two lenses' "effective" focal lengths to become equal to 135mm for the 85mm, and 112-320 for the 70-200, on a full frame camera, makes my uses not as indicative of what you might best use them for. You really need to think this one through for yourself.

Regards,
David
 
Upvote 0
If you want to nail the shot the 70-200 II will practically do it without flaw. If you have time to pose and set things up and do multiple shots, the 85L may give you one that worked but it will really blow your socks off.
The magic of the 85 is the bokeh.
The magic of the 70-200 is sharpness, contrast with very little CA, fast locked on focus.
I just convinced myself again why i don't need the 85LII. :D
Edit...
Somehow I did convince myself to own the 85LII. :D I gave up my 50L for it and it seems to be a better focal length mix than the 24 on the 1dm3 at around 31mm and the 85 on the 5DM3 with the 85LII. I will still use the 70-200 but more for when i need 200mm and stopping motion in a wedding scenario. The focus speed of the 70-200 can't be beat.
 
Upvote 0
I also own both lenses and have to say they behave completely different.

The 85L offers that beautifull dreamy bokeh, but forget if you want to use it wide open, you better make sure your subject is not moving an inch (very narrow DoF and slow AF). Keeper rate is not so high (but since I only acquired this lense recently, I may need to pratice more). For headshots I stop the lens slightly down to get the whole face in focus (1.6-2.8). For torso shots wide open works well, because due to the longer working distance you have sufficient DoF to het the whole face in focus.

The 70-200 is really fast focussing and my preferred option for subjects that don't like to stand really still (such as kids). I love the clarity and the bokeh when used at the longer end. It works very well for action, and also for headshots. I use it almost always wide open. It's certainly more easy to work with.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.