With 70-200mm f4 USM, Do I need a 85mm f1.8?

<p> </p>

 

 

<p ><em>Faysal already has a 50mm, that is close enough to an 85mm, the added flexibility and range the zoom gives would make me prioritise that.</em></p>

<em> </em>

I also have the 50/1.4 in addition to my 85/1.8. The 50mm will do, but at f1.4 it's too soft versus the 85/1.8. The 85/1.8 at 1.8 is amazingly sharp for f1.8. my 50/1.4 has to be stopped to f2.0 —or more— to equal the 85mm.

Also the bokeh on the 85 is <em>better</em> versus the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8. I've owned multiple copies of the 50/1.8 Mrk 1 and 2.

 

 

<p>I tried to be as thorough in explaining my kit and my needs, but apparently I failed to do so.<br /> I do have an APS-C camera and I intend to upgrade to another one, unless my wife miraculously allows me to get the 5d (at which point id be looking for a smaller ef prime for wide angles probably).<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5957079">Jim Krupnik</a>, I hate you. That ef canon is only 100 more at bhphoto for the non grey market one. I can afford it and justify its cost. It is still a 77 filter like the Tokina size so I'll be ok. That being said, I cannot justify getting the 2.8 right now. Its not feasible, and honestly, I'd rather sell an f/4 to get the money for the 2.8 in the future. I like nice things. My father's outlook is to always get the nice things that make you happy, if you can get them. Right now, the nice thing that will make me happy is the f/4.<br /> As for my 50mm, its the 1.8 plastic version. Not any of the fancier variants. That being said, I am still amazed by what it can do for being of such little quality and worth.<br /> There may be a chance in heck, maybe, that I could get the 70-200 f/4 IS, but then I would definitely not be getting the 85mm 1.8. <br /> I do like the 85mm 1.8 because even the non L version takes some pretty sharp shots. Most people have given that lens a great review and honestly no one has talked me out of it because it hasn't done the job.<br /> I think I might have to update my question to this now:<br /> 70-200mm f/4 and 85mm 1.8 OR 70-200 f/4 is (no 85mm)?<br>

Hopefully nobody catches this before I finish my edit:<br>

Let me go ahead and state, yes I plan on doing a lot of portraits, just as much as I intend to use the 70-200mm for all its capabilities. And yeah, again Jim, I hate you. The 10-22 is in my shopping cart.</p>

<p>I would vote for option 1. No IS can replace 1.8 but a monopod or tripod can prevent camera shake.</p>

<p>Option 2, no question from me. I use IS all the time, can't believe anybody would ever vote against it, best money you can spend on a lens, way more useful than f1.8 (which you have at 50mm anyway) and no IS. The 85 is not that much different from the 50 (any image you can take with the 85 you can take with your 50 and crop a bit), the 70-200 is a completely different tool and will open up completely new areas for you. Why would you want an effective 320mm lens without IS? 1/200 second is plenty good enough to stop a lot of subject motion but often not enough to stop camera shake, who wants to carry a tripod all the time? Not me!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Scott, let me go ahead and state that I love my Lowepro 450 AW backpack, which conveniently holds a tripod at the center front of the bag. The extra weight of the tripod is no big deal because in my current profession, I need to be able to carry a 50 pound rucksack and 40 pounds of armor for a good distance. So on my off time, lugging a tripod is seriously not a big deal for me. <br>

That being said, I know that at 200mm the lens will be basically useless to me handheld.<br>

Thinking aloud here, I think it looks like I need to decide, how much hand held work do I expect to do with the lens on the long end. I guess the more work I do, the more compelled I am to just scratch the 85mm off the list.<br>

Also, how does the IS react on the tripod?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Also, how does the IS react on the tripod?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can leave IS on when the <strong>70-200/4 IS</strong> is tripod mounted. Other IS lenses may not have the tripod detect function.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I definitely ruined a few of my first shots with my 28-135 is the first time I had it on a tripod. Looked fine until I loaded the images. This is so hard! I'll make my decision soon enough, and I'm going to feel both great and horrible about it either way until I hold the fruits of my judgement.</p>

<p>Warning: Next 2 blocks of text is why I ended up at the point I am now.<br>

As a student in college, my source of income used to be side gigs here and there. Club photography provided easy cash and easy access into the night life. But so did the simple and easy act of lecture photography at a liberal arts school. I'd sign up for a gig, show up halfway through, spend maybe 10-15 minutes composing the shot depending on the rooms, and make an easy buck. It wasn't unprofessional, it was realistic for a job where the subject would just be standing in the exact same spot for 2 hours.<br>

Since then I had no idea what I wanted so I enlisted, but in a beautiful 321 days, may enlistment ends, and it will be back to school, this time with a goal and hopefully an MD by the end of it. Being a student will mean significantly less income, and basically living like a bum in comparison to my wife. So i see myself shooting a lot of those gigs and then some.<br>

I feel I can successfully do those lowlight gigs, portraits, and some real estate photography with the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. I have a 580exII if i need some mobile lighting. I think I've made the decision.<br>

If anyone has some last second suggestions that do not include the f2.8 and an L lens that costs more than the ef-s 10-22, I'm up for it. But I'm holding off until the end of the month for the ef-s and in 2 days or so, I'll be buying the IS it seems. </p>

<p>Low light gigs with the 580EX II? I don't know...</p>

<p>It honestly depends on what it is. For a lot of those lectures, they are smaller auditorium style rooms. It would work to my advantage. That being said sometimes flash isnt appropriate for those situations, and ill have the is feature and heck if im too lazy to bring in a smaller tripod, ill just use a monopod</p>

<p>Here is an image from my 70-200, now I have a 2.8 IS but my point is well made with this shot. I shot at 400iso, 1/125 @ f2.8, but the same shot with better DOF could have been taken at 800iso and f4, you can't drop the shutter speed any more without getting subject motion, the IS easily takes out any camera shake. I used a 550EX as a little fill on this too, manual at 1/64. 550EX's are the unloved bargain in the secondhand EX range, $200 for almost 580EX II functionality.</p><div></div>

<p><Off topic><br>

The gentleman in Buffdr's example image should be politely informed that the bottom button on a suit or blazer jacket is NEVER buttoned. And that three buttons is generally inadvisable in the first place.<br>

</Off topic></p>

<p>Faysal, lectures can be dim places, but the subject stands still and has a light on him/her so an IS zoom could work. Of course, if you aren't shy about where you walk around during the lecture, the prime could net you higher quality images (less noise) so it depends on the intent for the photos—web publishing or small print images in reports, the zoom is more than enough IMHO.</p>

<p>I made it work with my 28-135mm is, mostly on the 135 end shooting 5.6 with basic IS function. <br>

I think I can make it work. I was shy the first time I didnt, but then I began thinking this exact phrase "I don't know you, but I know I'm going to get paid, so I don't care" and all shyness vanished.<br>

And just so i could finally be decisive about this matter (usually, it takes me about 1 day to think a seriously financial matter over, but one very devoted day) I bought it.<br>

Let me clarify, I being me, it being the f/4 IS, with the overpriced ring. I heard too many complaints about the cheaper plastic chinese knock offs breaking on them.<br>

Sigh.<br>

By the way Scott, that shot totally sold me.</p>

<p>Stay with the Canon OEM Tripod Mount Ring A (W). By the way, as an example, it will outlast the plastic bearings inside the Canon OEM Tripod Mount Ring B (B) (which is not compatible with the 70-200/4 IS).</p>

<p>I grew up using prime lenses. I got my first manual camera at 6 (my father was a photographer too), and I didn't own any zoom lenses until I was 20 or 21. I'm 26 now.</p>

<p>Using primes, I've learned that A) they're typically sharper, brighter, and more consistent, and B) they have more of a 'look' to them. I like the 85mm focal length for anything, especially portraits. I find the focal length is long enough to create a little compression and limit what I show in the photo, but is short enough that I can usually use it as a walk-around lens.</p>

<p>Also, I also use my Nikon 85mm to shoot sports over the 70-200. But I'm usually fortunate enough that I can get close.</p>

<p>If you want to carry less, or more importantly if you're going to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 anyway, just get the zoom. Personally I wouldn't shell out for the IS version, but that's just my personal experience. I can tell you that if Nikon made a 70-200 f/4, I'd already own it.</p>

<p>Faysal,</p>

<p>Glad you liked the shot, the zoom just works in this kind of environment. I didn't do any sharpening to the image and the compression has made it look very soft. I have put a detail at 100% of the focus point of the image, to see the stitching in the hat is plenty good enough for me.</p>

<p>Have fun, Scott.</p><div></div>

<p>OP later wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>70-200mm f/4 and 85mm 1.8 OR 70-200 f/4 is (no 85mm)?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the type of shooting you describe, I think that the IS version of the f/4 zoom would provide more utility, more flexibility, outstanding image quality.</p>

<p>Again, I own the <em>other</em> two lenses (non-IS zoom and 85mm f/1.8) and consider them both to be really wonderful lenses. For the types of photography I do, I sometimes do carry both and use them both.</p>

<p>That said, if I were shooting crop and looking for a very useful and versatile and optically fine lens for photographing portraits and other subjects, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens might be higher on my list than either of these. If you are convinced that you need the 85mm prime for portrait work, perhaps the EFS lens plus the prime would be another option to consider.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

<p>Why not buy a used 70-200mm 2.8L IS? For about $200 more than a new f4.0L IS, you'll be able to pick one of these up. </p>

<p>I'll put in another vote for the 70-200/4 IS L, especially if you've settled on getting just a zoom for now. It's optically a little better than the non-IS version, and, more importantly, it gives you up to four stops more handholdability, which is invaluable for photographers like me.</p>

<p>Faysal - as Isaid earlier I have the 70-200 F2.9 non IS, 70-200 f4 Is and the 85 F1.4. I shoot full frme, APS-C and APS-H bodies. Of the three lenses the 70-200 F4 IS is the one I use the most. The IQ is very high and it is still a reasonable weight and size. I would vote for your optio 2. As an owner of both the F2.8 and F4 70-200 lenses unless you shoot sports or low light get the F4 zoom. I fi nd that my 70-200 F2.8 only gets used for sports as it is a pain in the ass to carry compared to the F4 lens.</p>

<p>Faysal Akbik,<br>

I hate you too, and I like the way you think.... Here are a few shots that highlight IS on the big 70-200 zooms, and the wonderful IQ of the 10-22 zoom. The portraits of Bella the spoiled rotten dog that owns a friend of mine were made with a 70-200 f.2.8 IS lens, wide open at 200 mm, hand held, at 1/60 sec, and at ISO 400 with a 50D at about 10 feet or so. The bokeh at f/2.8 is very nice on a crop camera, but it is the IS that kept the images clear of ghosts and blur at 1/60 sec. Sweet....</p>

<p>The shots from the Florida Everglades are courtesy of the Canon 10-22 lens with either a 30D, or a 40D. Ditto the pool and golf course shots in Arizona. No computer magic was done, as even the sensor dust is still there... They are all direct RAW to jpg conversions. The first 10-22 shot is looking into the eye of the sun, with maximum glare on the water surface to boot, and illustrates just how well the 10-22 deals with flare. Most lenses in this class fall on their face under similar conditions. No filters were used in any of the shots. If you go through with buying the 10-22, I will be proud to have you hate me, and you will be thrilled with your choice :).</p>

<p>Just a warning... These shots are somewhat larger than they should be for in-thread display, and IE tends to distort them when viewed in the thread. Just "save" the images to your PC, and then you can view them at their full posted size, and without any distortion.....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4708459282_7bab4ef2ab_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="724" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2184039503_de0a494024_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2184110851_c74e9ca72b_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2344583140_9a4334e0c3_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2343757727_076dd5fb6f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4357837482_dabe0f480a_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></p>

<p>For portraits you want a prime. If the subjects are willing to be photographed. Otherwise the 70-200mm would be a better option if your subjects are active, but even then prime could be a better choice.<br /> There are a number or reasons why, and to understand, you should try using a prime [several times] on willing subjects [or tolerating ones].<br /> Bokeh, blurred background, composition that you focus on [rather than standing in 1 spot and zooming, since it feels the easier thing to do].<br /> Even with 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II I would want a 85mm f/1.2 prime lens for portraits. Weight is another reason, zooms are usually heavier, but the biggest thing is the lack of zoom that opens up the photographer to think about other things than zooming - composition.<br /> And even if you don't shoot wide open and use a 85mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 or f/4 that your 70-200mm could do, still you will learn to prefer the prime if you use it enough [for portraits].</p>

<p>Jim, get the horizons straight. Also, you might consider not having the horizon cut every one of you scenics in half. Sorry, but your crooked horizons shout.</p>

<p>Faysal, get the IS on your 70-200L, you'll not regret it. Do without one of the other lenses if you have to. This is simply an incredible lens that you'll be grabbing all the time. Yes, use your tripod, when possible, for the very sharpest results (low ISOs, low shutter speeds, etc.) but you'll be tempted to hand hold lots of shots with this very versatile lens. The sharpness will spoil you.</p>

<p>David Stephens wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Jim, get the horizons straight. Also, you might consider not having the horizon cut every one of you scenics in half. Sorry, but your crooked horizons shout.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I don't believe that Jim posted his photos here in the hope that you would critique them.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Thanks for the sample shots guys, the f/4 will be here any day now, it takes a while to ship to an APO!<br>

I'll be getting that 10-22 in a month, but Jim, are the puppy shots taken with the 10-22? </p>