Canon 85 1.8 much better than 70-200 2.8 IS II ? @ f/2.8 85mm

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>I shoot more than 1000 images with Canon 85 1.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II at a wedding and I noticed even on the display that the prime have more pleasing pictrure at f 2.8 , 85mm ( the shutter speed was generally 1/80-1/160). Both on 5d II body, the ISO generally was 3200. On the computer display the 85mm was clear winner.</p>

<p>Today I do a test with tripod and cable realise, Manual mode, custom WB (and turned off stabilization on 70-200). The 85 1.8 was again clearly better at 85mm f/ 2.8 - the pictures look visibly more SHARPER, BRIGHTER, have better micro contrast.</p>

<p>I bought the both lenses new. 70-200 is visibly sharper than my 24-105 at identical focal lenghts. What may be wrong with my copy of 70-200 2.8 IS II, $300 lens to be so visibly better than $2300 lens? </p>

<p>I'll be very thankful for your comments! :)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The digital picture.com suggests that, indeed, the 70-200mm 2.8 II should be better than the 85mm at f2.8. Your poorer results may be due to increased camera shake with the zoom (it's pretty heavy) compared to the 85mm. IS is good but not fail proof. Might be a focussing issue. You could check the AF microadjust on the 5DII for the zoom. The zoom at f2.8 has slightly more vignetting than the 85mm - might make you think it is "darker".</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I have the 70-200 f2.8L (Mk I) and the 85mm f1.8. I would have to agree with your findings - the 85mm at f2.8 has the better IQ. I can't speak to the relative IQ of the Mk II version.</p>

<p>This isn't really surprising though. Primes are designed with much fewer compromises and less elements, also the zoom is wide open at f2.8 and the 85mm is stopped down just over 1 stop.</p>

<p>This isn't an indictment on the zoom necessarily, just confirmation about what good value the 85mm f1.8 lens is.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>85mm f1.8 V 70-200mm f2.8 ll - I thought the fair comparison is between the similar and not dissimilar!</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Ignoring the price/value comparison, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II should be very close in IQ to the 85 f/1.8 when both are shot at f/2.8.</p>

<p>My guess is focusing error or a need for focus calibration. Try another tripod mounted comparison, but this time use live view at 10x magnification with manual focus. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I can't answer the question because I don't have both lenses to compare side by side.</p>

<p>I will say though that it certainly would not surprise me at all if the 85/1.8 at f2.8 was sharper than the 70-200/2.8L IS II at f2.8. The 85/1.8 is a very good lens indeed, and even sharper at f2.8 than at f1.8.</p>

<p>Even though the 70-200/2.8L MkII is better than the MkI, I still wouldn't be surprised if the 85/1.8 (and 100/2 and 135/2L) could beat it when shot at f2.8</p>

[zml]

<p>Assuming that your results are true, i.e. there are no intervening factors such as focusing errors, lens alignment, etc., many single focal length lenses optically perform better than comparable zooms. Until you try to zoom a single focal length lens that is.</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Thank you for your comments! I made a new test and when I overexpose with 1/3 stop the 70-200, the picture exposures are identical in the center. In the corners 85 1.8 has a less vignetting at 2.8 ( the differece probably is 1/2 stop here).</p>

<p>I read some reviews comparing Canon 85 1.2L and Sigma 85 1.4. In them as a conclusion was stated that generally the Sigma needs 1/3 stop slower shutter speed than the 85L in the same lighting conditions at f/ 1.4 (in order both exposures to be identical) ...</p>

<p>I like more the general IQ of 85 1.8 on the tripod shots. They are as I wrote sharper and visibly brighter - I chekced them on another monitor also. Next tests I'll use live view with 10x magnification for even more precise results, as Sheldon wrote.</p>

<p> </p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Isn't it STRANGE 85 1.8 to be BRIGHTER with clear 1/3 stop at the image center and about 1/2 stop at the corners in comparison with 70-200 2.8 IS II ? (at 85mm , f .2.8, shutter speeds 1/100sec for the prime against 1/80 sec for the zoom, Canon 5d II). I have in mind that 70-200 has more vignetting wide open.</p>

<p>What do you think may be the reason for the difference in exposures? :)</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I just compared my 85 f/1.2 L II (sharper than the 85 1.8) against my 70-200 f/2.8 II with a quick test at f/2.8. The 85L has a slight edge in sharpness, but you almost have to layer the two images over the top of each other and toggle them on and off to see the difference. Both produce images at f/2.8 that I would call quite sharp with pleasing color, and honestly the difference wouldn't matter for real world shooting.</p>

<p>Here's a 100% comparison crop between the two lenses. 1D X, 1/250 f/2.8 ISO 100, ETTL flash bounced exposure (no ambient light contribution), tripod, live view. As you note regarding exposure, the 70-200 is a little darker. For my comparison I gave it 1/3 stop more Flash Exposure Compensation. Pardon the subject matter, I just grabbed some of my kids toys off the floor.</p>

<p>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison.jpg</p>

[philip_wilson]

I have the old 70-200 F2.8 non IS. In image quality this is better than the MkI IS and worse than the MKII. I find that the

85 produces slightly more pleasing images. I am not sure they are better as the resolution of bothe lenses is almost

identical (I suspect the mkII IS may have slightly higher resolution at the edges than the 85) vignetting is about the same -

the 85 may be slightly less but it is stopped down whereas the 70-200 is wide open. I think I like the drawing on the 85

more than the 70-200 and I assume this is due to the Simpler construction of the 85. I also find it tends to give a more

three dimensional look to the image - not up with rangefinder lenses but one of the better Canon lenses. In terms of price

I have always though this was one of the best bargains Canon offers.

[nathangardner]

<p>That's not surprising. The 85mm is a prime that is designed to one job and do it well; and that is take pictures at 85mm. The 70-200mm is a lens with convenience in mind that does many jobs. It has to perform at all focal lengths from 70mm to 200mm. With such a range, quality must be compromised somewhere, even if it is a small compromise. While the zoom is new and amazing, and more expensive, it doesn't surprise me that it is outperformed by a prime..especially a prime that is stopped down against a zoom that is wide open. With all this being said, the 70-200mm II is an incredible lens and is probably the one zoom that performs closer to prime quality IQ than any other.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Like Sheldon Nalos, I also tripod tested my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM against my Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM at f/2.8 on a newspaper taped to an interior wall illuminated by a ceiling light fixture. The latter was sharper (crisper) at 100%.<br>

<br /> I also compared the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM at f/2.8 against the zoom lens. They appeared to be equal when both lenses were set at f/2.8 and 100mm.<br>

<br /> My Canon EOS 5D Mark III was set to Manual mode and a Canon Remote Switch RS-80N3 was used to trigger the shutter.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>While Sheldon's test images clearly show that the 85/1.2 is (not at all surprisingly) superior to the 70-200/2.8 II at f/2.8, I'm impressed at how good the zoom is, given that it's being shot wide open. It would be interesting to see side-by-side comparisons between these two lenses at f/4 and f/5.6.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>With all this being said, the 70-200mm II is an incredible lens and is probably the one zoom that performs closer to prime quality IQ than any other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS performs very close to prime quality as well, Nathan, as (reportedly) does the 24-70/2.8 L II.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>If you are a pixel peeper maybe the 85/1.8 is "better" at some specific aperture, but for the rest of us who use these lenses for work they are not really worth comparing like this. They are both great for the price, but the zoom is incredible. I use the 1.2 version of the 85mm much more than the 1.8.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>It is important to remember that zooms can be made to prime quality - Erwin Puts has a discourse on it - as far as got to the moving aspherical elements of a top zoom can allow the designer things capabilities that are not available to a prime designer. Thus a top quality modest specification zoom such as the R system 35-17 F4 can... (according to Erwin)</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>The LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4 is the first choice for a versatile standard lens for the Leica R system. In addition it covers three important focal lengths, the 35 mm, the 50 mm and the 70 mm. Its performance is as good, if not better than that of the comparable lenses with fixed focal length at the same apertures, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 35 mm f/2, the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 35 mm f/1.4, the LEICA SUM- MICRON-R 50 mm f/2 and the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 80 mm f/1.4. <br>

<br>

Of course the primes are faster and smaller - I suspect that the legendary 35 -70 F2.8 R zoom beats even most Leica zooms. Of course they only made about 300 (it may be more as up to 1800 numbers were assigned) and if you can find one for sale used it will cost over $10,000. The lens was so difficult to manufacture to the necessary tolerances that Leica only made it for 3 years in any numbers before giving up (not due to lack of demand). The fact that with 2010 technology Canon can build a fairly modest specification zoom that matches a 1992 designed prime for sharpness - when the prime costs 1/7 of the price is not that much of a surprise. Of course there is more to a lens than sharpness. I was a great fan of the old FD 85 F1.2 (still own 2 copies) but have not found the new lens to be as good (although technically it is better). For me there is a lot to be said about the character of the lens (transitions from IF to OOF, Bokeh, skin colour rendition etc...). This is why despite having the Leica Sumicron 50 I take portraits on my M8 with the ZM 50 F1.5 Sonnar - a lens with lots of optical imperfections - but in my experience capable of creating "better" portraits. Similarly while I like my 100 F2.8 LIS Macro it is not a lens that works well for lots of portraits as it is too sharp for anyone over about the age of 19! </p>

 

 

 

 

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>Here is a shot from the zoom at f/2.8 and 100mm on 5D2. These are actual 100% pixels with default Lightroom sharpening. Focused on text on the top.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.elsners.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/EF70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-2.jpg" alt="" width="516" height="393" /><br>

As far as resolution goes, I do not see much difference between this lens, 135L, 85L or 100mm Zeiss Makro-Planar and I think the limit here is the AA filter and the sensor. I dont have 85/1.8 and can't comment on that, but I would be surprised if it was resolving notably more details than the zoom or had better general image quality. The prime may have better bokeh, the zoom most likely has less CA. <br>

Possible reasons for the unsharpness might be miscalibration or taking the shot before the IS fully stabilized the image. Did you try to compare them on a tripod and focused with live view to rule out user error? </p>

 

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't it STRANGE 85 1.8 to be BRIGHTER with clear 1/3 stop at the image center and about 1/2 stop at the corners in comparison with 70-200 2.8 IS II ? (at 85mm , f .2.8, shutter speeds 1/100sec for the prime against 1/80 sec for the zoom, Canon 5d II). I have in mind that 70-200 has more vignetting wide open.<br>

What do you think may be the reason for the difference in exposures? :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The number f/2.8 is not corrected for the light loss in the lens. I believe the differences between f-stop and t-stop are most apparent when the lens is wide open. In your comparison the zoom was wide open and the prime stopped down. So the prime was brighter.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The 70-200 f2.8 II has 23 elements in 19 groups while the 85mm f1.8 has 9 elements in 7 groups. Each surface has to be ground, polished an, in the case of the air / glass surfaces, coated to very high tolerances. I find it surprising the complex zooms of today work as well as they do. In the past no one would have thought of comparing a zoom with a prime as there would have been no contest. The zoom would have been easily outclassed. It is a tribute to the improvement of zoom technology that the best zooms can now compete with primes.</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Thank you for the great responses! :) <br /> <br /> As <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1008200">Sheldon Nalos</a> suggested I tested the both lenses with ETTL flash bounced exposure (no ambient light contribution), tripod, live view( 5d2, ISO 200, 1/160sec).In term of sharpness when using artificial light the difference is not so much (85 1.8 is better)<br /> <br /> Thank you <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3945206">Peter J</a> for the tests. I have to borrow the 100mm macro to see weather they seem to be equal.<br /> <br /> @ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3882389">Mark Pierlot</a> I made the tests also at f/4 and the 85 1.8 pictures were again brighter. A little more pleasant pictures by the prime.<br /> <br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=439610">Mirek Elsner</a> Yes, I used tripod, your shot have excellent details. Very insightful comment! <br /> I'm starting to think that 85 1.8 photos looks me better mainly because they are brighter. As I mentioned I shoot over 1000 images at ISO 3200 with both lenses on 5d2. In the highlights there is less noise than in the shadows ,which give more pleasing results after postproduction.(my exposures in identical lighting conditions look darker with the zoom).<br /> <br /> <em>"The number f/2.8 is not corrected for the light loss in the lens. I believe the differences between f-stop and t-stop are most apparent when the lens is wide open." This is very good reasoning. </em></p>

<p>Is it possible to there are<em> another reasons the 85mm 1.8 to looks visibly brighter </em>- I have to use +2/3 Flash Exposure Compensation on the 70-200 in order to match both exposures at f 2.8? And the zoom pictures are "darker" not only in the image corners?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I seriously doubt the t value of the zoom is as much as -1/3 of a stop difference compared to the 85. I suspect that it is negligible in real life terms. It's probably a vignetting difference that you see, which can have a subtle but profound influence on the perception of an image. I have to say, I usually prefer a shot <em>with</em> subtle vignetting.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>I seriously doubt the t value of the zoom is as much as -1/3 of a stop difference compared to the 85. I suspect that it is negligible in real life terms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After reading your post, I did a Google search. I found that DxO measures T-stop in their lens tests. I found they tested the lens in question and their measurement indicates <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM/(camera)/436">T-stop of 3.3+, a difference of more than 0.5 EV</a>.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it possible to there are<em> another reasons the 85mm 1.8 to looks visibly brighter </em>- I have to use +2/3 Flash Exposure Compensation on the 70-200 in order to match both exposures at f 2.8? And the zoom pictures are "darker" not only in the image corners?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The t-stop is important only if you use manual exposure and compare lenses with the same manual exposure. If you shoot on automatic, the exposure is measured through the lens and there should be no differences in brightness. Did you use AE or manual?<br>

If I look at thumbnails my catalog in Lightroom with shots from different lenses displayed side by side, those from 70-200 do not look any darker than others. I never had the 85/1.8 though, so I can't compare them directly. </p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Thank you, Mirek! :) Yes, I use manual exposure. Very curious about 70-200 T-stop of 3.3+ :)</p>

<p>Finally I decide to use Live view with 10x magnification, ETTL flash bounced exposure and MANUAL FOCUS (on tripod with remote control). I put a wallpaper on the wall and in term of sharpness now it's OK. Both picture are shot at f/ 2.8 1/160 sec ISO 400, Custom WB =5400K, RAW.</p>

<p>Do you think that 85 1.8 visibly more brighter ? I agree that subtle vignetting may be a plus, but i don't like the whole photo to be "darker". On LEFT is the 85, on the RIGHT is 70-200:<br /> http://i1306.photobucket.com/albums/s580/NatGeller/85mmhd.jpg</p>