). This would save having to carry a 85 f2 prime. Besides, based on Gordon Laing's review, it looks like the 2.8 produces a shade better overall IQ at the same aperture.
Right, he especially points out better ergonomics than on the F/2.8 version (better rings arrangement, in his opinion). Vignette looks better on the F/4 version. Stabilization is also a tad better. He didn't find any significant optical difference at comparable focal length + aperture in normal conditions. Colors are a bit warmer on the F/2.8.
But in travel pictures of family, don't you want the locale to be obvious rather than a blur? Or did you just mean that you'd use the camera at home for portraits as double duty? In that case, for a lot less money, you could get the f/4 zoom and some prime lens for portraits, one that opens wider than f/2.8.I have pretty similar considerations for travel, but would probably pair a 15-35 f4 with the 70-200 f2.8 instead. While this combination is about 400g heavier and that the f2.8 is bigger, it allows for portrait shots of family members (which is essentially a 'requirement'
An F2.8 allows for the option to have nicer bokeh. To capture a sharper background, it is possible to stop down, and/or focus at the hyperfocal distance.
If you and others want to know almost everything about this lens, take a look at the review published on the South Korean portal popco.net. In my opinion, they make the best lens reviews in the Internet outside of YouTube. I used Google translator to translate the headings of the individual pages from Korean to English.
While that could be true, an image depends on more than just bokeh. I have compared the 85 f1.2 with the 85 f2, and found that I prefer the overall rendering of the former. I guess a good photographer would be able to use the latter such that images from it would appeal as much as those from the f1.2 to most people; but, alas, I am not so good and only sort of improving incrementally. Besides, I was trying to find a good travel combo, and would prefer 2 zooms without having to bring along a prime - not so much the weight, but trying to keep lens switching to a minimum.
I was addressing two things, since I wasn’t sure which you meant. The fast prime was for portraits around home. For travel portraits, which I see as a positive alternative to selfies, isn’t the point that it shows that the person is at this remote/beautiful/exotic spot? In that case blurring out the beach/volcano/mountain seems to be counterproductive, and thus calling for stopping down.
It's for travelling. However, blurring out the background for travel photos would be desirable in various situations, particularly at crowded scenic spots where it would be hard to avoid distractions, or when such effects are intended (by me). So having the option to do both would be good for me.
