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.
85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II
- Thread starter rahkshi007
- Start date
- Status
Seems like an apples to oranges comparison, but if you are looking for Bokeh quality only, you'd probably want the 85. If you need more versatility and quicker focus (and more sharpness too) or IS, go with the 70-200.
Upvote
0
As said it is a bit of apple to oranges.
However, I'm very impressed by the versatility of 70-200 II for people photography - on full-frame where f/2.8 gives often is short enough dof and 70-200 gives a more suitable fov for people work than on APS-C. Overall the 70-200 is an incredibly well-performing lens, despite that it is a zoom it is nearly as sharp as a prime. The fast AF and IS makes it work well in non-optimal conditions.
So I'd say you should have a really strong case for the 85/1.2 if you choose that before you have the 70-200.
However, I'm very impressed by the versatility of 70-200 II for people photography - on full-frame where f/2.8 gives often is short enough dof and 70-200 gives a more suitable fov for people work than on APS-C. Overall the 70-200 is an incredibly well-performing lens, despite that it is a zoom it is nearly as sharp as a prime. The fast AF and IS makes it work well in non-optimal conditions.
So I'd say you should have a really strong case for the 85/1.2 if you choose that before you have the 70-200.
Upvote
0
I
idea_hamster
Guest
AFAIK, the rule of thumb is generally that prime lenses will be sharper, simply because they're ground to a specific shape and don't need to accommodate shifting light patterns. The 85's bokeh is, of course, legendary.
That said, they are both stellar, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II may be able to deliver a similar depth of field at the long end, although some reviews suggest that this new version sacrificed some bokeh quality for increased sharpness.
Upvote
0
I also vote for the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II - it's my favourite lens. It does take great portraits with nice background bokeh, even wide open at 2.8 the pics are useable. Definitely more useable than those taken wide open with the 85 f1.2L USM II which is a great portrait lens stopped down to 2.0 or further but does not quite excel in other areas due to its slow AF. My main application of the 85mm is actually walk around shots at night since the big aperture gets me good shots even without tripod/monopod.
Upvote
0
Well if it helps put it in perspective, @2.8 and 200mm the 70-200 should have similar bokeh as a shot cropped similarly to the 85 @1.2.
I personally sold the 70-200 2.8 IS mkI to pay for the 85, but the reality of it is I needed to buy the 135 to fill the gap left by 70-200. I just don't like using zooms.
I personally sold the 70-200 2.8 IS mkI to pay for the 85, but the reality of it is I needed to buy the 135 to fill the gap left by 70-200. I just don't like using zooms.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
kbmelb said:
No, it won't. First off, bokeh is quality of blur, not quantity. Now, I'm sure you meant quantity, but even then, if you frame the shots similarly with different focal lengths, only the aperture determines the DoF, and f/1.2 will beat f/2.8 by quite a bit.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
H
hoousi
Guest
Unfortunately, if you have the funds, get both! I got the 85 2 weeks ago before the 70-200 because of the canon rebates, the salesman wrote me down the price he'll make me for the 70-200 on a business card, so I wasn't in a hurry an fetch it for my b-day in march.
2 different horses:
85 is just an uber portrait lens and marvelous for indoor candids (af mostly fast enough for kids running around if in the zone)
70-200 for the range, is and speed.
If I hadn't had the funds to get both in the same year I would have probably opted for the 70-200 for its versatility and waited to get the 85. The 85 blows a fifty 1.4 out of the water with ease, just yesterday I put the 50 (Sigma) back on again and just found it lacking in many ways.
2 different horses:
85 is just an uber portrait lens and marvelous for indoor candids (af mostly fast enough for kids running around if in the zone)
70-200 for the range, is and speed.
If I hadn't had the funds to get both in the same year I would have probably opted for the 70-200 for its versatility and waited to get the 85. The 85 blows a fifty 1.4 out of the water with ease, just yesterday I put the 50 (Sigma) back on again and just found it lacking in many ways.
Upvote
0
C
cps_user
Guest
Michael_pfh said:
Well I agree with the fact that the 70-200 II is tremendous - I use it quite a lot. But I don't agree that the 85 doesn't excel in other areas: it's meant to be used at 1.4 or even 1.2 if you ask me
. AF is more than fast enough for portrait shots (it is accurate) and the dreamy quality you get can in no way be replicated by the 70-200.
Upvote
0
I own them both, and for sports or action, the 70-200 is epic greatness. But for those images of the kids and you want not to document, but creat, the 85 is WAY better.
I had 70-200, sold to get the 85, sold the 85 to get the new 70-200, missed it too much, and sacrificed the 14 L II for the new 70-200 to have both. Different area of use, and one doesn in no way replace the other.
I had 70-200, sold to get the 85, sold the 85 to get the new 70-200, missed it too much, and sacrificed the 14 L II for the new 70-200 to have both. Different area of use, and one doesn in no way replace the other.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
kbmelb said:
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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
D
decltype
Guest
+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.
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
