Jump to content

85mm f1.8 or 70-200mm F4 IS


gurbally_seth

Recommended Posts

<p>70-200 f/4 IS is $900-1000. 85mm f/1.8 is $400, 70-200 f/4 non-IS is $600. I'd say with the money for the IS, you can buy both the 85 and 70-200 non-IS. :D The 70-200 is light enough that you can hand hold it. :)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Providing you get the one which best suits your needs, you are on to a winner, I've got the 85/1.8 and the 70-200/4 non IS, both are very good.<br>

I haven't had the 85/1.8 long, but what I've seen I like a lot.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have both, and went for the 85/1.8 first and just recently got the 70-200. I got the 85/1.8 first because I bought it at the same time as my 40D and couldn't have afforded the zoom. If you have the money for the zoom, I would get that first because of the versatility. The 85/1.8 is a joy to use and you'll still want it I'm sure, but you'll miss more pictures by not having the zoom than by not having the fast prime.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You could buy both the 85/1.8 and the 200/2.8 L for the price of the 70-200/4 L IS. </p>

<p>If you absolutely insist on IS and you are going to be primarily outdoors for sports and portraits then I'd go for the 70-200/4 L IS. Not sure how useful the IS will be in your situations though.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crop or FF body? You mentioned portraits, and for a crop body cam neither lens would be ideal. And possibly the same for

events, depending what they are.

 

You need to be more specific before a recommendation can be made.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p dir="ltr">For portraits there's really no substitute for a fast aperture. I had all Canon's f/4 zooms and sold them because of that. Light? Yes. Versatile? Undoubtedly. Sutable for portraiture? Not IMHO.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Last piece of advice: Also consider the 100/2 and of course, the mighty 135/2. The bokeh is worth it.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yakim, I agree with you that nothing beats canon's 135mm. If I could afford, I will rightway go for 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and 135mm f2.Yakim.<br>

135mm is definitely on my immediate list, but I have heard romours that it is getting an upgrade as is 35mm f1.4. Will wait for a couple of month for 135mm. Thanks</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I second primes for the portraits. If your portraits allow you to move around lots I'd go for the prime. I've have the 100-400 IS that doubled as my portait lens in the 100-200mm range and now I've add both the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 (which doubles for portaits) I've notice improvement in picture quality compared to the zoom. Granted the 100-400 isn't as sharp as the 70-200 but it comes down to prime vs zoom. The crazy shallow depth of field the primes offers is very useful also.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I would not hold my breath for a 135/2 update. Save from adding IS (which would make it a lot more expensive) there's nothing to upgrade. And anyway, making purchase decisions based on fictitious future products is not a good strategy, at least not IMHO.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yakim wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>For portraits there's really no substitute for a fast aperture.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and no. Yes, there are some situations in which using f/1.8 for portraits could be very useful. But no, in most portrait situations - especially with the slightly longer focal lengths that the f/4 zoom would provide - you often would want to shoot at a somewhat smaller aperture such as f/4. The depth of field is very narrow on a long lens at f/2 and larger - so small narrow that one eye can be in focus and the other not.</p>

<p>Bottom line, the OP really wants both lenses equally. So it seems to me that it comes down to a question not of "which lens is better than the other," but more one of "which will get me the most mileage while I wait to get the other." As I pointed our earlier I use both lenses, but if I had to shoot most subjects with only one or the other I would definitely grab the zoom first - as much as I like using the 85mm prime.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...