70-200 VR II and 85mm f1.4???

[george_irwin]

<p>I would love some advice:</p>

<p>I am planning to buy the Nikkor 70-200mm VRII - I already have the 14-24 and 24-70. However, I also like the look of the 85mm f1.4 - would it be unnecessary to have both?? Portraiture is my favourite form of photography and I do a lot of it. I like the idea of the DoF control of the 85mm, but I'm not sure whether it will give me significantly different/improved results over the 70-200mm.</p>

<p>I would be very grateful for any advice!!</p>

<p>Thanks </p>

<p>George</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The 70-200/2.8, at 85mm-ish, does look very nice ... and wide open, you do have quite shallow DoF and pleasing bokeh. The newer zoom will also be more flare resistant and will have CA under control a bit better than that prime, which is from a slightly older generation of glass. And, of course, the zoom has very good VR, which can contribute hugely to sharpness under some circumstances.<br /><br />If you're going to be getting the big zoom anyway, start there and live with it for a while. You might be very pleasantly surprised, and will keep your wallet happier.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>The zoom lens (with VR) will never quite equal what the AF 85mm f1.4D Nikkor will do at f1.4 or f1.8, older design and all.</p>

<p>Perhaps you are located in a area where you can rent both lenses and see which works better for portraits for you?</p>

<p> </p>

[george_irwin]

<p>Thanks for the quick responses - both very helpful. <br>

Unfortunately, I don't live anywhere near "civilisation" so can't rent any lenses - will have to buy online! I am determined to get the 70-200 - just debating the 85mm.... </p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I have the "holy trinity" the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 and in terms of quality, it's hard to beat. Whether the extra 2 stops at 85mm will be useful for portraiture is a bit of a guess. You might want to calculate the depth of field at portrait distances for the 85. At f/1.4, at 5 feet the depth of field is just under an inch, that's right, an inch. That's fine if you want sharp eyes and nothing else, but it's not that helpful for "regular" portraits. It "leaps" to just over 2 inches at f/2.8. The only argument for the 85 is the lighter weight, but no AFS. I'd love a 24-105, like my Canon friends have, but theirs is a f/4, an f/2.8 24-105 would be pretty unwieldy. I love the 24-70, and the 70-200 is amazing, albeit heavy. I don't know what else you like to photograph but for me the 70-200 is much more useful than an 85 prime would be and the quality is quite excellent.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>"I am determined to get the 70-200 - just debating the 85mm.... "</em><br /> I`d wait for a 85/1.4AFS. If it is released in a future, you`ll be happy not having bought the older version. And the VRII is a <em>useful</em> wonder.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Both lenses are excellent and certainly not mutually exclusive. The two extra stops are very useful to stop movement in low light and to clear backgrounds, so is the legendary bokeh of the 85/1.4. It's also a lens designed to make people subjects look good while the 70-200 Mk II is very contrasty and the images can look "edgy" in comparison. After a few weeks' honeymoon with the Mk II I've regained my appreciation of prime teles.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>We got a 70-200mm VR II into my store. Though I don't need one, I covet one.</p>

<p>I've got an 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens and its a joy on a D700. The thing about the VR II lens is the size and weight. </p>

<p>If you don't need the zoom range for other shooting, the 70-200mm is big at 8 in. x 3.5 in., plus the lens hood. Also, the 85mm f/1.4 is comfortable to hand-hold at a little over one pound. The VR II weighs over three pounds and, even with the VR, I can't imagine using the VR II for close portrait work where framing is critical without at lest using a monopod.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>My reply is predicated on your using an FX camera (you didn't mention it). Eric's comment on the DoF is important. Lots of folks hear the 85 is a great 'portrait' lens, thinking 'portrait' = 'head and shoulders' shots or half-body portraits. With an 85, that'll put you quite close to the subject, where shallow DoF can wreak havoc, proximity can cause issues with lighting (you and/or the camera might get in the way), and the closeness may make your subject less than comfortable.</p>

<p>I agree with Matt - go for the 70-200, shoot it a bit and see how you like it. I'd add seeing where you land in terms of preferred focal length. Unless you're shooting full-length portraits or small groups (e.g. families), it might very well not be 85mm.</p>

<p>Consider getting a 70-200/2.8 VR instead of the VRII...IMO the slight bit more corner softness when shot wide open would be a plus for portraits, and you'd save a bit of money. If you decide to go with a prime, consider the 105 and 135mm f/2.0 DC lenses. They're designed for portraits, and the DC feature is well worth investigating.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I have both the 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkors. I love the 70-200 for its VR capability when doing hand-held candids, but the weight can be excessive when carrying it around a lot. In general, the 85 f/1.8 works very well at weddings and parties and it is certainly less obtrusive!</p>

[george_irwin]

<p>Thank you all for your replies - really appreciated. It seems the collective opinion is as divided as mine! To clarify one or two things:-<br>

I use a D700. <br>

I do also have a 50mmm f1.8, which I enjoy. Perhaps a good compromise would be to go for the 70-200 and get the 85mm f1.8 which is a whole lot cheaper than the 1.4.......?? Good points about the weight of the 70-200 as well. <br>

I suppose, as with everything, it all comes down to personal preference - I'm sure I'll be happy whichever way I go! Thanks for all the advice though - certainly helps to clarify the important considerations!!</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>1. I owned an 85mm f/1.8 AF-D lens, switched to the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D and never regretted the decision. The 85mm f/1.8 AF-D is certainly smaller and lighter than the f/1.4 AF-D, but I found it not to be as sharp or contrasty as the f/1.4 AF-D at any aperture, particularly at f/2.8-4.0. I would read Bjorn Rorslett's reviews of the 85mm f/1.8 AF v. 85mm f/1.4 AF-D (the 85mm f/1.8 AF is the same 6 element/6 group design as the f/1.8 AF-D):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html</a></p>

<p>2. I didn't buy the 85m f/1.4 to shoot portraits at f/1.4- that's just not something I'd do. I bought the lens to be able to shoot tack-sharp portraits starting at f/2.8-4.0, two-three stops down on the f/1.4. The 85mm f/1.4 does that.</p>

<p>I've owned the current version of the 80-200mm f/2.8 and I've tried the 70-200mm VR lenses. With the ED glass, they're good wide open at f/2.8; but they aren't as sharp or contrasty as the 85mm f/1.4 at f/2.8-4.0. The tele zooms also exhibit varying levels of center-to-corner illumination at and near wide open.</p>

<p>3. I bought the 85mm f/1.8 AF-D, then the f/1.4 AF-D, while still shooting F5's and F100's. I then suffered through years in the wilderness shooting D100's and D200's before getting a pair of FX D700's.</p>

<p>On a full-frame camera, the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. On a DX/APS-C camera (e.g. the D300/300s), the 85mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 127.5mm lens. Its still useable for portraits, but is awfully long in cramped, indoor spaces.</p>

<p>If I had stuck with DX-sensor cameras, I would have bought the newish 50mm f/1.4 G lens. At a FF-equivalent length of 75mm, the 50mm G lens would be a more practical all-around prime choice. </p>

<p>Certainly, a 70-200mm lens at 70mm would yield the FF equivalent of 105mm- still a little long indoors. Its annoying that Nikon has never produced a DX lens geared for portraits, like, say, a 58mm f/1.4 G or a 50-100mm f/2.8 G.</p>

[george_irwin]

<p>Eric, thanks for all that info - much appreciated. I had seen Bjorn Rorslett's review before and it is very useful stuff. I must say though that I wish you had said I shouldn't buy the 85mm lens - it would have made the decision much easier!!<br>

I think I need to sit down in a darkened room for a while and make a decision!!</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I need to sit down in a darkened room for a while and make a decision!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would take a well-lit room, makes the lack of f/1.4 a bit more bearable ;-)<br>

But yeah, maybe a slight bit off-topic, but how about 105 f/2.5 Ai or AiS? Cheap, and excellent for portraits, and way way lighter than the f/2.8 zooms.</p>

[george_irwin]

<p>Ha!! You're right - well-lit room it is! <br>

Had thought about those 105, but I had struck them off the list.... For the sake of my own sanity, they're staying struck off!!! </p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>George, A bit late but..... You will never regret buying the 85mm f1.4 it is a magical lens!</p>

<p>I purchased the 85 f1.8 first but hated it's plastic look, poor focus damping and tactile feel. <br>

I also own the 80-200 f2.8AFD and have use of a 70-200 f2.8 AFS MK1..... They are very versatile and produce excellent images..... But do not have the special character of the 85.</p>

[george_irwin]

<p>Thanks Anthony - never too late! Thanks for the tip - I am definitely going to get the 70-200 and am definitely going to get the 85 f1.4 at some stage.... Both great lenses, but as you say, the 85 does have a certain something!</p>

 

[scott_champion2]

<p>not my money, but swing for both. The 70-200 is a must have, and that 1.4 @ 85mm "Cream Machine" has that name for a reason! Amazing photos w/ it. It has a unique look. You would totally dig both, each in their own way.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>Ask yourself this question:<br /> Would I rather choose a fixed focal length and have to physically move my body and the camera on an x,y, and z axis to accommodate the subject, or would I rather not have to worry so much about the z axis (distance to subject) and simply "get the shot", at the expense of having to live with a variable focal length perspective.<br /> There isn't a right or wrong answer here.<br /> I love shooting my 105DC lens; it makes gorgeous pictures and I like the discipline and craft of choosing a focal length ahead of time and forcing myself to compose shots that work for this given lens. I know that with this lens mounted I need to be within 5-7 feet from the subject to get a head and shoulders shot or tighter. <br /> I also like putting my 70-200mm VRII on my D700 and saying, OK, I'm going to shoot head to waist or tighter portraits, and I can zoom in or out to achieve either composition without having to back up or move forward as my subject moves around according to their whimsy (VRI vs. VRII debate put aside for the moment).<br /> If you have time, patience, and the ability to keep shooting until you get the desired comp in your viewfinder AND expression from your subject, a prime is a delight to use. If you need the shot ASAP and won't necessarily have another chance to get the image, a zoom is going to be more useful.<br /> I wouldn't worry too much about bokeh or other aesthetic differences between portrait primes and either the 70-200VRI or II. They all make very pretty pictures and the bokeh characteristics are all aesthetically pleasing. I'd think more about the day to day needs you have with your shooting and choose a zoom or prime based upon that and the physical differences associated with shooting a compact fast prime or a pro f/2.8 zoom.<br /> After owning the 105DC (still have it and love it) and owning two 70-200VRIs and currently a 70-200VRII, I'll say that the VRII is great for portraits and the Nano coat doesn't introduce too much contrast for portraiture. I'm not seeing any problems with my candids being unflattering due to too much contrast.<br /> 70-200VRII at f/2.8 and minimum focus distance:</p>

<p>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4296909741_c3c484120b_b.jpg</p>

<p>105DC at f/2.8, near minimum focus distance:</p>

<p>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/4241953962_83007088dc_b.jpg</p>

[hayward]

<p>I have the original 70-200mm VR and had the 85mm f/1.4 at the same time. While the f/1.4 will do things the zoom can't, I almost never used the 85mm and when I bought a 105mm f/2 DC and started using it regularly, I sold the 85mm.<br>

It's really a question of resources and the kind of work you like to do. The 70-200mm is an indespensible tool for me. The 85mm is just a nice to have. If I was a full time wedding photographer, however, I might find it a neccessity. Most wedding pros seem to.</p>

 

[george_irwin]

<p>Yet more great advice - thank you all! Particularly Brooks for those two shots - helps enormously! <br>

I think (after much dithering and some excellent advice from everyone here), I am going to go for the 70-200 VRII and leave it at that for the moment. <br>

I would love to have the 85mm f1.4 as well, but considering the kind of photography I do most, I don't think I can justify the expense at this stage. Maybe next year! <br>

Really looking forward to getting my hands on the 70-200..... Also toying with the idea of a Lensbaby, but that's another discussion for another time!! </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Yesterday, I was made aware of an issue with the VR II lens that might cause a problem. Photo.net won't let me link to the site that shows a photo of what appear to be thread shavings on an interior thread surface, but you can google search "Nikon 70-200mm VR II problem" and you'll find it. We looked at the VR II lens in our store, and it has this ... thread shaving(?) ... thing going on, but not to the extent of the photo shown on the web site. </p>