Lens dilemma

[benjaminm]

<p>I have the two ring+tripod collar version of 80-200/2.8 Nikkor. Sometimes I need VR. I made some tests in my local photo store and I like the new 70-200 VRII very much (IQ+VR). I planned to sell my current lens (I could sell it for 600 EUR). The 70-200 costs about 2100 EUR.<br>

I also have the an old AF 85/1.8 non-D lens. I'm not satisfied with its IQ, but I use it quite often. I also have the AIS 105/2.5 but it isn't very convenient for children portraits.<br>

My dilemma is: to buy a new 85/1.4 (and maybe a used AIS 16/2.8) or 70-200 VRII lens. I'm not interested in 70-200 VR I. At the moment I can't afford both lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Benjamin</p>

[mab]

<p>Duplicate</p>

[mab]

<p>Duplicate</p>

[mab]

<p>What kind of shooting do you do? And do you shoot film/fx or dx format?</p>

<p>Both are terrific lenses, but personally I find myself using the 85/1.4 a lot more than the zoom.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 is a bit soft wide open, which is fine for portraits if that's what you do. Mine got new life in the evenings with the D3s; being able to crank up the sensor gain and shoot at 1.4 makes possible shots that simply couldn't have been captured before at any reasonable image quality.</p>

<p>The zoom, on the other hand, has VR, which is very nice if you don't like tripods. But remember that VR is only useful to control *your* movement, not the subject's. If the children you shoot are moving targets, being able to open up 2 stops and shoot at 4x the shutter speed may make a lot more difference than the steadying effect of VR.</p>

<p>Here's a moving freight train, shot at midnight in last night's epic snowstorm, 85mm/1.4, 1/160 @ f/1.4 (D3s @ ISO 5000):</p>

<div></div>

[walterh]

<p>Get the new 70-200 zoom!</p>

<p>It is so much fun to make other peoples decision :-)</p>

<p>Seriously - why do you think others can make a better decision than you?<br>

What exactly is the 85mm f1.8 lacking in IQ? Can you show an example where the 85 is not good enough?</p>

<p>If you need VR the 85mm f1.4 will not solve your problem. This is why I said go for the VR zoom.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you're working with kids, my gut reaction is to go with the 70-200. You can react to changing compositional/position issues far more easily than with a fixed focal length.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>Walter,<br>

I need VR for 200mm, when I want to shoot unnoticed portraits on parties and other low light events.<br>

I would use the 85/1.4 lens as a general purpose portrait lens. The 85/1.8 has not so good color rendition and contrast. I have to correct pics every time. Here is an example @ f/2.8 without any corrections, shot in RAW and converted to JPEG with CS3.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>I've got an error by uploading the photo. Here it is:</p><div></div>

[walterh]

<p>Benjamin but then the decision is straight forward to go for the 70-200mm zoom :-)<br>

Actually it is quite a nice lens for portrait including 85mm. You do know that at head shot distance it will not go to fully 200mm ? (Different from the older VR-I version)</p>

<p>BTW: for portraits one rarely cares about the very outer edges of the frame so the older version might be "OK" for you at the lower price? Not everybody does pixel peeping in the extreme corners of a portrait shot :-)</p>

<p>Of course then there is the problem that at 2.8 the DOF is not as shallow as it would be at f1.4 or 1.8 - decisions - decisions.<br>

On the other hand you cannot do anything wrong with the 70-200 (except for the money).</p>