Author Topic: 85mm or 70-200mm or both? (Read 31118 times)

pixel8 · « **on:** December 28, 2014, 00:44 »

So far as a stock photographer I have only done studio with objects. Now that I have that down pretty good I am planning on learning how to photograph people. My question to those of you who photograph people is would you choose a 85mm lens or a 70-200mm lens or would you use both? Also if you could only pick one lens would you choose 85mm or 70-200mm if those where your two choices?

Thanks

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2014, 00:50 »

I have two go-to lenses for people shots: 70-200mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/2.8. I use the 70-200 when I'm in a big enough space and don't need to use a small flash for fill (studio or outdoors). When I'm in a smaller space I like the 24-70. I try to keep to the middle or telephoto end of the range, but even at the wide end it's good for full length people shots. Either one produces fine results and they're both more flexible than a prime. Oh, and the 70-200 f/4 is half the weight and half the price of a f/2.8. I really like that.

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2014, 11:29 »

" if you could only pick one lens would you choose 85mm or 70-200mm"

Than I would go with the 70-200 since that lens can already do what the 85mm can do plus give you some zoom capabilities...

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2014, 12:12 »

Here is an article that sums up some pros and cons http://digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best/

They say prime lenses could produce sharper images, but the 70-200 is a really good lens producing really crisp photos. If I had to choose, I would go for the 70-200 as well.

Epsilonth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2014, 14:15 »

In studio situation you'll have to stop down anyways. The best option price wise would be Canon 85 1.8 or Sigma 85 1.4A. Sigma version is really good. I have 70-200 2.8 II IS. While fantastic, it is too heavy to handheld w/o monopod for long sessions.

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2014, 14:31 »

Quote from: pixel8 on December 28, 2014, 00:44

So far as a stock photographer I have only done studio with objects. Now that I have that down pretty good I am planning on learning how to photograph people. My question to those of you who photograph people is would you choose a 85mm lens or a 70-200mm lens or would you use both? Also if you could only pick one lens would you choose 85mm or 70-200mm if those where your two choices?

Thanks

Forgot to ask- Can your earnings exceed the cost of the lenses? If so, get both of them and write them off as a business expense. I was able to write off all my lenses - 50mm, 100mm, 17-50, 70-200 in just my 2nd year of the business. The 85mm Prime is a kick arse lens in the studio and the 70-200 is my favorite outdoor lens especially animal and people shots!

Kokkoros · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2014, 17:16 »

Hi, I highly recommend the Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 II rather than the Nikon 85mm 1.4 G.

I originally purchased the 85mm for my D800e but found, at 1.4, the depth to be so shallow I rarely nailed the focus. Additionally, at 1.4, there is a lot of chromatic aberration that must be manually removed, etc. Also, the 85mm does not have VR. This is a big deal for a lens like this. I've learned that the 85mm is a highly specialized lens best suited for wedding photographers going after beautiful portrait shots where conditions can be controlled. Let me be clear, the 85mm is a great lens, but I don't think it is very useful for stock.

So I sold my 85mm and bought the 70-200mm f2.8. Honestly, I have never encountered such an amazing piece of photographic gear. The focus is fast, the range is useful, and the VR effectively buys me another 2 stops, plus the clarity, bokeh, and picture quality is superb.

Just my two cents, I hope it helps.

Cheers,

Mark

samards · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2014, 05:14 »

I have Nikon 70-200 F4 and must say it's great lens (if you do not shoot sports on low light where 1/1000 sec exp time is needed), much lighter and have the same IQ as F2.8 model.

Only... I shoot sports on low light... So I really need 2.8...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2014, 12:07 »

prime lense are faster , lighter, and cleaner image . some ppl say the zoom does what the prime lens do anyway, but you are comparing apple with oranges.
why carry the extra weight and slower lens speed when most of the time you are already zooming in on 85mm, with a slower zoom ?
on hols when quality and clarity is not the issue, i use the zoom, for convenience.
but for work, i still switch to a prime when i want something that is meant for larger prints, and highest res work.
quality for quality, zoom will cost a lot more than say 3 prime lenses. but you will never get the lens speed of a prime in a zoom, or the compactness . it's like why carry a bunch of fruits when all you eat is an apple.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2014, 22:31 »

zooms are always a trade-off for obvious technical and design reasons but it must be said the 70-200 VRII is probably the best zoom ever made by nikon.

i've also a nikon 85 F1.8 and yes it's a little bit sharper than the 70-200 but only a photographer will notice the difference.

indeed the VR helps a lot when shooting at 85mm and up, there's no questions about that.

the 85mm is a specialist lens, specifically designed for portraits and i won't use it for anything else honestly, nobody is going to do street phography at 85mm nor it can expected to be a walkaround lens for other purposes., nor it's any good for macro photography.

so, yes apples vs oranges but if you ask me i would buy both because these lenses are so good they will be always worth their price even 10 yrs from now.

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** January 01, 2015, 09:46 »

I´ve currently got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 85 f1.4

If I had to pick one I´d certainly go with the 70-200. I love using that lens. It is great for stock as you can get two shots from one composition (a close up head shot and waist up shot). It is sharp and fast enough for stock and very versitile. Add a 24-70 and you have all the lenses you have lenses enough for anything.

Sure the primes are sharper and probably have slightly better contrast when you start pixel peeping, but the difference is very small.

Simply put, I think you´ll earn more from stock from owning a 70-200 than from owning an 85mm.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #11 on:** January 01, 2015, 10:44 »

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2015, 09:46

Simply put, I think you´ll earn more from stock from owning a 70-200 than from owning an 85mm.

agree 100%.

at the moment i'm waiting to buy the new Tamron 15-30 F2.8 VC as it's the first zoom in that range with VR.
this lens is going to become a must !

robhainer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 01, 2015, 13:13 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on January 01, 2015, 10:44

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2015, 09:46
Simply put, I think you´ll earn more from stock from owning a 70-200 than from owning an 85mm.

agree 100%.

at the moment i'm waiting to buy the new Tamron 15-30 F2.8 VC as it's the first zoom in that range with VR.
this lens is going to become a must !

I'm interested in that lens, too. Would be nice how much they're going to charge for it. I can't find pricing anywhere. I'm not sure about being an early adopter, though. I try to avoid that. Especially after the D600. Glad I didn't get one.

If I had to go with just one, the 70-200 is the choice. All the various 70-200 lenses are probably the best glass each company puts out aside from specialty lenses like macros.

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** January 01, 2015, 16:53 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on January 01, 2015, 10:44

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2015, 09:46
Simply put, I think you´ll earn more from stock from owning a 70-200 than from owning an 85mm.

agree 100%.

at the moment i'm waiting to buy the new Tamron 15-30 F2.8 VC as it's the first zoom in that range with VR.
this lens is going to become a must !

Yeah I wish Canon would put IS in more of their wide lenses. I often wish for IS on the 24-70 f/2.8 and I wouldn´t complain about it being on the 16-35 either

roede-orm · « **Reply #14 on:** January 01, 2015, 18:15 »

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2015, 09:46

If I had to pick one I´d certainly go with the 70-200. I love using that lens. It is great for stock as you can get two shots from one composition (a close up head shot and waist up shot). It is sharp and fast enough for stock and very versitile. Add a 24-70 and you have all the lenses you have lenses enough for anything.

I almost agree. but add a 105 f 2,8 lens, than you have really all lenses you need. The Nikkor 105 has the best bokeh of all Nikon objective in my opinion and gives you the additional option of Macro-photography. And, last but not least, it is comparatively cheap!

OM · « **Reply #15 on:** January 01, 2015, 19:12 »

If you're a Nikon shooter, the 85mm AF-S f1.8 is definitely worth the low price compared with the much more expensive and not much better f1.4. I was amazed by how sharp the lens is and the bokeh is also excellent. If you also don't need the VRII version of the 70-200m zoom, there a loads of VRI's used on offer used or you could get the f4 new. In fact the f4 zoom 70-200mm+ 85mm f1.8 AF-S together new, come out at about the same price as the 2.8 VRII 70-200mm new.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2015, 22:02 »

Quote from: robhainer on January 01, 2015, 13:13

Would be nice how much they're going to charge for it. I can't find pricing anywhere.

considering it weights more than 1 kg and it's F2.8 you can bet it will cost 1000$ at least.

nikon has the 16-35 VR but it's only F4 and despite this it's sold for a whopping 1300$ !

Hobostocker · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2015, 22:06 »

Quote from: OM on January 01, 2015, 19:12

If you're a Nikon shooter, the 85mm AF-S f1.8 is definitely worth the low price compared with the much more expensive and not much better f1.4. I was amazed by how sharp the lens is and the bokeh is also excellent.

i've the nikon 85 F1.8 and it's fantastic.

i also tried the F1.4 and also the sigma 85 f1.4 and the difference is minimal in terms of sharpness and colors/contrast but you will notice more pleasant bokeh, in any case they're specialist lenses and only worth the money if you absolutely need the typical F1.4 look.

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2015, 23:46 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 28, 2014, 00:50

I have two go-to lenses for people shots: 70-200mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/2.8. I use the 70-200 when I'm in a big enough space and don't need to use a small flash for fill (studio or outdoors). When I'm in a smaller space I like the 24-70. I try to keep to the middle or telephoto end of the range, but even at the wide end it's good for full length people shots. Either one produces fine results and they're both more flexible than a prime. Oh, and the 70-200 f/4 is half the weight and half the price of a f/2.8. I really like that.

Ditto. same setup. I also have the 85mm f1.8 and love it, but it's more of a luxury lens to me. Optional. It's not too pricey, which is good. The quality is there, and the bokeh f1.8 makes is great... but i still prefer my zooms for convenience. The 24-70 II with the IS sounds nice, but I'm happy enough with my original brick

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** January 03, 2015, 09:17 »

Quote from: RoosterHD on December 29, 2014, 17:16

Hi, I highly recommend the Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 II rather than the Nikon 85mm 1.4 G.

I originally purchased the 85mm for my D800e but found, at 1.4, the depth to be so shallow I rarely nailed the focus. Additionally, at 1.4, there is a lot of chromatic aberration that must be manually removed, etc. Also, the 85mm does not have VR. This is a big deal for a lens like this. I've learned that the 85mm is a highly specialized lens best suited for wedding photographers going after beautiful portrait shots where conditions can be controlled. Let me be clear, the 85mm is a great lens, but I don't think it is very useful for stock.

So I sold my 85mm and bought the 70-200mm f2.8. Honestly, I have never encountered such an amazing piece of photographic gear. The focus is fast, the range is useful, and the VR effectively buys me another 2 stops, plus the clarity, bokeh, and picture quality is superb.

Just my two cents, I hope it helps.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

What about sharpness at 100%? I had a Nikon 80-400 and it was plain sh!t. Worked only in a small range somewhere between 120-200 focal length. Even on a tripod it was crummy. I sold it in practically brand new condition for peanuts.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2015, 12:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 03, 2015, 09:17

What about sharpness at 100%? I had a Nikon 80-400 and it was plain sh!t.

what do you expect, it's a 5x zoom ... a consumer lens.
maybe it improves a bit if you only shoot in F8-F11 ?

Kokkoros · « **Reply #21 on:** January 03, 2015, 13:20 »

Mark,

What about sharpness at 100%? I had a Nikon 80-400 and it was plain sh!t. Worked only in a small range somewhere between 120-200 focal length. Even on a tripod it was crummy. I sold it in practically brand new condition for peanuts.
[/quote]

Hi Mantis, the 70-200mm F2.8 II is consistently sharp through the range.

I never owned the 80-400mm but I did own the 18-200mm f3.5-5 a while back. The range on this lens was very flexible but the images were soft even under the most ideal conditions.

I currently own the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm. These three lenses have their disadvantages, notably cost and weight, but the increase in quality is dramatic. I use the word 'dramatic' because I am a 3rd-degree pixel peeper. Most people will not notice however. That said, if you are a professional that flies to a country, then climbs a mountain at 3 AM, just to get the perfect sunrise, or you rent a specialized location and hire a complement of 8-10 actor / models to shoot a concept you quickly realized that it's crazy not to show up with the best glass.

Mark

Mantis · « **Reply #22 on:** January 03, 2015, 15:00 »

Quote from: RoosterHD on January 03, 2015, 13:20

Mark,

What about sharpness at 100%? I had a Nikon 80-400 and it was plain sh!t. Worked only in a small range somewhere between 120-200 focal length. Even on a tripod it was crummy. I sold it in practically brand new condition for peanuts.

Hi Mantis, the 70-200mm F2.8 II is consistently sharp through the range.

I never owned the 80-400mm but I did own the 18-200mm f3.5-5 a while back. The range on this lens was very flexible but the images were soft even under the most ideal conditions.

I currently own the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm. These three lenses have their disadvantages, notably cost and weight, but the increase in quality is dramatic. I use the word 'dramatic' because I am a 3rd-degree pixel peeper. Most people will not notice however. That said, if you are a professional that flies to a country, then climbs a mountain at 3 AM, just to get the perfect sunrise, or you rent a specialized location and hire a complement of 8-10 actor / models to shoot a concept you quickly realized that it's crazy not to show up with the best glass.

Mark
[/quote]

Thanks, Mark.

Agree on your assessment (in bold). For me, I am talking more about when those agencies who do zoom in to 100% reject due to focus. I've been eyeballing some long primes but might we'll be better off with something like the 70-200.

robhainer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 03, 2015, 17:05 »

The Nikon 70-200 F4 is also sharp wide open throughout its range, if that is an option. You could get that and the 85/1.8 together for the same price as the 70-200 2.8.

Kokkoros · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2015, 15:06 »

Although I don't own it, you may want to consider the Nikon 24-120mm f4.0. Friends love this lens.

Very useful range, sharp, not too big, and VR. Workhorse for event photographers.

Using VR on the wide side is especially nice for hand held narrative film shooting.

Here is the link:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 85mm or 70-200mm or both? (Read 31118 times)

pixel8

disorderly

No Free Lunch

Semmick Photo

Epsilonth

No Free Lunch

Kokkoros

samards

etudiante_rapide

Hobostocker

leaf

Hobostocker

robhainer

leaf

roede-orm

OM

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

ArenaCreative

Mantis

Hobostocker

Kokkoros

Mantis

robhainer

Kokkoros

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors