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

[faysal]

<p>My wife is allowing me to upgrade my kit finally. Right now I'm shooting mostly with a 28-135mm is usm and the 50mm 1.8.<br>

On my lists of lenses to get:<br>

EF 70-200mm F/4 USM (non-is)<br>

EF 85mm F/1.8 (not the 85mm L)<br>

Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8<br>

Let me go ahead and say the Tokina is pretty much a done deal, I want a wider angle lens to cover that range. It's something I want to do. I want to get the 70-200mm and use it for both portraits and use its telephoto abilities. The question I was having was, will I need the 85mm in the end, if I want it solely for a dedicated portrait lens? I know I can get a very narrow DoF, but could I not compensate by just standing further away with the 70-200mm? <br>

The 360 dollars or so, I am willing to spend, its just a question if its worth spending it on this lens. Would I be missing out if I didn't get it? (Remember, I'd only use it for portraits if I got it anyways)</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Faysal,</p>

<p>Get the zoom first, see if it does what you want it to, if not get the 85 as well.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>The 85/1.8 at 1.8 is amazing, sharp and great bokeh. </p><div></div>

[daniel flather]

<p>Damn PNET compression...and color cast, wtf?</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>A wide angle lens is nice too.</p><div></div>

[daniel flather]

<p>I've used the 70-200 f4 and it's a GREAT lens, but I bought the 85/1.8; I'll admit I love shallow DOF. What you really want is the 200/2 and the 70-200 f4 IS.</p>

[faysal]

<p>I've seen the shots of the 85mm and the 70-200mm, and well, the more shots I see from the 85mm, the more I want it, but again, I'm not sure if I will need it with will have still.<br>

As for the 11-16mm I did my research, and I feel fully comfortable getting it over the 10-22 for my needs. If that's your kids room, very nice sir. </p>

[faysal]

<p>Daniel, what stopped you from using the 70-200 as a portrait lens?<br>

As for the IS, I feel I'll be using the lens on a tripod/monopod half the time, so the double cost won't be worth it for me, nor will the weight in my kit. Although under different circumstances, yeah, I'd love to have it!<br>

As for the 200mm f/2, I won't be able to afford that for several years, as I'm going back to school soon. Its kit upgrade time while I still have steady income!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Faysal,</p>

<p>Save the 85mm money and get the IS. You'll wish you had too often if you don't.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I've got both of those lenses and both are very capable. The 70-200/4 is an L and gives the results you would expect. The 85/1.8 is a really excellent lens, I've used it for portraits and also as a short telephoto in low light conditions, it's well worth getting if you have the money for it. I'll be using mine for a commercial portrait shoot today.<br>

I can't comment on the Tokina, I don't know that lens.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>It's nice to be frugal, but don't be cheap. Going for the 70-200 in f/4 configuration is already a compromise (and reasonable from my point of view) between weight vs the value of f/2.8, but to eliminate the IS option on the f/4 lens is just crazy to me. You may justify cashing in your camera savings six months early to buy the cheaper non-IS lens by thinking that a tripod or a monopod will replace the wonderful 4 stop functionality of that amazing device, but sadly, it isn't the case at all. Not even close. The f/4 lens can never match the f/2.8 lens for shallow DOF, but it it is an otherwise superb lens, and it's IS system is nearly magic in it's ability to compensate for most everything other than the DOF issue. That's just my point of view, but as difficult as saving money for a new lens can be, once you buy that lens, the cost quickly fades from your memory, while the lens remains with you for a lifetime.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 is a pretty reasonable performer as ultrawide lenses go. It's main claim to fame is it's constant f/2.8 aperture. Here are a few things to consider about the choice though. Being f/2.8, and relatively cheap, it appeals to the budget on a "bang for the buck" basis. Think carefully before you jump though. Unlike normal to telephoto lenses, ultrawide lenses, by their nature, are not selected for their ability to deliver shallow DOF. In fact, that is counter to their nature in general. Ultrawides are made to deliver the greatest field of view to a sensor, and to keep as much of it as possible in reasonably sharp focus. There isn't any real DOF bonus in a fast ultrawide lens. That being the case, the raw speed advantage of having an f/2.8 ultrawide zoom can be better handled by the faster speed of modern camera sensor if the faster lens comes at the cost of overall optical performance, or other design compromise.</p>

<p>Having f/2.8 in the Tokina 11-16 does come at a price. First, it's optical performance is rated pretty good, but not as good overall as the Canon 10-22 lens. It is reported to beat the Canon lens in one or two areas by a bit, but from what I have seen, it finishes behind the Canon offering overall. Still, it's a good lens. More important for me is that the Tokina is limited to a range of 11-16 mm. Unlike the telephoto end of the range where several mm of difference mean relatively little in terms of the image captured, even a single mm at the ultrawide end of the range makes a huge difference. That one mm difference at the widest setting of the Canon vs the Tokina lenses is remarkable in "back against the wall" situations from near focus to infinity. It is a big deal in reality. Also, the difference between 16 mm and 22 mm at the longest setting is HUGE in an ultrawide zoom. Many people, including myself can ignore gaps in focal length coverage between lenses at telephoto ranges, or at least not notice any inconvenience using lenses with little or no overlap at telephoto ranges. At the ultrawide end of the spectrum though, gaps in coverage are intollerable, and overlap is a blessing. My two favorite ultrawide to mid tele zooms for APS-C cameras are the 10-22, and the 17-55. Without that overlap, I would be forced to wear out my lens mount swapping lenses, or choose to compromise on framing a shot as a matter of course.</p>

<p>Every mm counts at the ultra wide end, and significant overlap in coverage between lenses is far more important at the wide end of your lens kit than anywhere else. Make sure that having f/2.8 in an ultrawide zoom is really worth the heavy loss of range at both ends. Keep value in mind, and not just price, and maybe a single standout feature that might not really matter too much in the end. If it takes eight more months of resisting the urge to justify going cheap before I can afford the best value, it is worth it to me. Once the deed is done, that lens will likely be with me for decades.</p>

<p>It takes plenty of time and patience, but I have found that all of the cheap choices I made over the years ended up as a waste of money, as they were discarded and replaced with better lenses over time. The high value choices proved to be the real cheap choices in the end, as they are still in my kit, and need no excuses when I use them. Here is a quick shot of some lenses I had within arms reach for several different cameras and formats that range in age from four years, to over twenty five years old. They are still peak performers in all respects, and there isn't one choice among them that I regret. I am not picking on third party lenses here, as every manufacturer offers teaser priced lenses that are built upon a foundation of compromise. Some of my favorite lenses and optical accessories are third party brands, and I wouldn't consider replacing them for a moment. Even in this shot, there is an old Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5 FD zoom that has wonderful optical performance, and is still as smooth as silk in operation after decades of use to this day. I like it better than any of the similar Canon offerings at any price. It offered great value without giving up quality, comparative features, or performance to make it happen.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4692858842_7b12c976f9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br>

Lenses are not like camera bodies. Lenses are the game, and camera bodies are just a means of connecting you with your lenses. Cameras get better every year, and often become so irresistible you just have to buy a new one, but it is still just a means of connecting you and your lenses. If I lost my entire Canon kit of 40 years in the making to a disaster today, I would buy a used 30D, or a used late model Rebel, and live with it until I was able to at least replace my EF-s 10-22, EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and EF 70-300 IS DO lenses. Then, I'd budget for another 7D, or whatever the latest body offering might be at the time, and build from there.</p>

<p>You will rarely if ever buy a new camera because the the last one went belly up. You will buy a new camera while your old camera is still working perfectly, even if it was the best camera money could buy when it was new, as the new model is simply a better camera. That happens every couple of years or so... If you buy the best lenses, or at least the best value lenses from the start, you will likely never feel the need to replace them unless you beat them to death first. Even then, you might replace it with the exact same model lens, as it may still be the best value available.</p>

<p>Just another POV to consider while you ponder the list of choices, and build your bankroll...</p>

 

[peter_j2]

<p>Faysal Akbik,</p>

<p>I have the 70-200/4 IS. Two years later, I bought the 85/1.2 because I needed better bokeh where the 70-200 could not satisfy. Now, the 70-200 sits idle in my bag.</p>

<p>In my opinion, get the 85/1.8 first from the used market. There are lots of them because people buy, sell and get a zoom or whatever. A used 85/1.8 is cheaper than a used 70-200/4 non IS. But, if you really need the zoom, get the IS version. I got rid of the non-IS for the IS version and my photos immediately improved.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Faysal,</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 F4 non-IS and while some here would recommend that you spend the money for the IS, I have rarely found that I miss it. It all depends on your shooting style. For me, when I'm using the 70-200 I am probably shooting outdoor sports. For sports, IS really doesn't matter due to the fact that you need a faster shutter speed to stop the action (I do understand that for some panning shots, IS can be very helpful).</p>

<p>If I did more portraits I might consider the 85 1.8 but, the 70-200 covers all of my needs.</p>

<p>Good luck in your decision. Remember that these lenses need to match with YOUR shooting style. And personally, I don't mind using a tripod at all.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I think the decision will depend on your body. I have the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS and on a FULL frame, my 70-200 2.8 IS is very useful indoors so a IS version is a must to me. If you can get the 2.8 version without the IS, the Bokeh on the 2.8 on a full frame is very close to the 85 1.8. With my 70-200 2.8 IS on my full frame, my 85 1.8 is sitting here collecting dust. The 70-200 2.8 is that good. Make no mistake, the 85 1.8 is a great lens but the 70-200 2.8 IS can go toe to toe with it. Sell that 28-135 IS and the 50 1.8 and use the extra money to get the 2.8 version of the 70-200 and don't look back. v/r Buffdr</p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have both of these fine lenses, but I'm not sure I can give you <em>the</em> answer to your question. I might have missed it, but I don't think you noted whether you have a crop or a full frame body. I'm going to assume crop for now. If so, 85mm might be a bit on the long side for portraits, though some like it in this situation. (85mm is more typically a portrait focal length on full frame.)</p>

<p>Let's say that you do like the 85mm FL for portrait work on your camera. You are correct that you can use the f/4 70-200 for this also. In perhaps most cases f/4 is a large enough aperture for portrait work and the zoom at f/4 not only gives you a bit more depth of field to work with but also good bokeh, especially if you can put a bit of distance between the subject and the background.</p>

<p>Perhaps what you want to do is hang onto the extra cash for now. Shoot the zoom and see how it works out - perhaps after you use it you'll still feel that you need the prime, or perhaps you'll want a different prime, or perhaps you'll decide that the zoom does what you need.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>I am agreed with G Dan Mitchell (as usual)<br>

Just came back after having a shoot of baby boy of my friend (19 days old), you are asking about the f4 lens + f1.8 lens, but some hours ago I was stuggeling even with the f2.8 (tamron 17-50) in low light (interiour) when my plastic fantacy - 50mm f/1.8 saved me. I was nice to have fast lenses in low light. As you said you already have 50mm f/1.8 so I will say that just wait for some time, shoot with 70-200 f/4 and 50mm 1.8, and if you think that 50mm is shorter for your purpose, go for 85mm f1.8<br>

happy shooting<br>

prasad </p>

[daniel flather]

<p> </p>

<p ><em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6095207">Faysal Akbik</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 12, 2010; 01:06 a.m.</p>

</em></p>

<p> </p>

<em> </em>

<p ><em>Daniel, what stopped you from using the 70-200 as a portrait lens? </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Can't buy both, had to make a choice.</p>

 

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have the 85 f1.8 and the 70-200 F4 IS (plus the 70-200 f2.8). Unless you want to shoot a lot of portriats get the 70-200 F4 and if possible save and get the IS version. I find that the IS is much more useful on slow long lenses than on wider fast lenses. The 70-200 f4L IS is a great lens and opticall as good as my F2.8 version but much lighter and smaller. You will not get the shallow DOF of the 85 F1.8 with the 70-200 but it is a much more versatile lens. With the 50 f1.8 on an APS-C body (this is what i assume you have) you have a good portrait solution already for a shallow DOF. While the 85 F1.8 is a good lens and a bargain i think that the zooom plus the 50 f1.8 have you mainly covered. <br>

In order to get a shallow DOF (other than fast lenses and full frame sensors) the secret is to have a short camera to subject distance and a long subject to background distance. Standing further away from the subject usually has the opposite effect. What happens is that the lens has an in focus area - for example a 50mm lens at F2 on a Canon APS-C body will perform as follows</p>

<p>Camera to subject distance = 2M In focus is 1.94 to 2.07M<br>

Camera to subject distance = 4M In focus is 3.76 to 4.28M<br>

Camera to subject distance = 10M In focus is 8.59 to 11.96M</p>

<p>As you can see what happens is that the increase in camera to subject distance increase the in focus area. The other effect is that the background increasingly becomes less de-focused. Thus using a wide aperture with a short(ish) subject to camera distance and a long subject to background distance gives the shallow DOF effect best. The other considerations are the Bokeh which tends to be better on the more expensive lenses althought the 8 circular blades on the 70-200 f4 IS give very pleasing Bokeh.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>for portraits only, I'd get the 85mm. You can zoom with your feet. But I would definitely get the 70-200mm sometime down the line, its a must have in everyone's kit.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You can zoom with your feet.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nathan, with all respect, you have to be careful with that expression here. I've used it once a couple months ago and was berated and ridiculed by the photo.net 'expert' contributors.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That is because, as we all know, zooming with your feet, and using a longer, or shorter, focal length from the same place give you two different images.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>After returning to this thread a bit... unless your needs are somewhat unusual I suspect that you might get more value out of investing the additional funds in the IS version of the 70-200, as opposed to the non-IS 70-100 plus the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>(Ironically, I have the non-IS 70-200 and the 85mm f/1.8 - but just because that's what I have it does not necessarily follow that my lens choices are right for everyone else. When I got my 70-200 there was no IS version of the f/4 lens. If I were purchasing today I would get the IS version myself.)</p>

<p>Dank</p>

<p>(And, yes, "zoom with your feet" is one of those throw away bits of advice that is worth, well, not that much. If all you are concerned with is filling the frame with the primary subject <em>and</em> you don't shoot in situations in which "foot zooming" might lead to, oh, death, then sure. But if you don't feel that walking over the edge of cliffs or wading into the middle of large lakes or standing in the middle of a roadway is always a swell idea, or if you are concerned about controlling foreground/background relationships to your subject, zooms are very powerful tools, too.)</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>It is completely different from the 70-200. I have the 85 and an 80-200 f/2.8 and use them for totally different reasons - they are both very good, but just because they have an overlapping focal length does not necessarily mean they are equivalent.</p>

<p>I personally would not give up either.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>+ what to Robert S and Dan. I have the 2.8 version ( non IS ) and the 85 1.8 and they are very different lenses. When I use one, I almost never even carry the other and I use both pretty equally. </p>

[ukhov]

<p>get the 85mm and do not do face image with telefoto,should have a rule to get a prime first....</p><div></div>