70-200f/4L not cutting it?

Austin Greene · Apr 8, 2014

I really appreciate all the insight from so many knowledgeable faces, I don't think I've seen so many meaningful comments in quite some time!

Good news! Rather than just biting the bullet and picking up the 85, a local is letting me borrow his copy (I swapped him my 17-40 f/4L for a few days). I'll hopefully be doing an impromptu shoot with it later today to see if it's what I'm looking for. I will say that at least with test shots, having the added aperture flexibility is quite useful!

Austin Greene · Apr 10, 2014

Well it happened today folks, I bit the bullet and bought an 85mm. It should be here tomorrow, just in time for a marathon of portraiture during Picnic Day this Saturday here at UCD.

During my time borrowing a local's copy, I thought I'd make some shots demonstrating the bokeh at various apertures. The last shot is one of the reasons why I bought the lens. Some people aren't into vignette, but I love the look of a little natural lens vignette, and this lens does a beautiful job of it. It also seems to handle highlights fairly well in blurred background areas. Ultimately, while it is not a huge difference from my 70-200, there were enough small (and quite handy) differences to justify the purchase. I'm excited to see the images I'll be pulling out of it six months from now!

1.

2.

3.

4.

Robin Usagani · Apr 10, 2014

you bought the 1.8?

table1349 · Apr 10, 2014

Robin Usagani said:
you bought the 1.8?

I think he meant the 85 f1.8 not the 50 f1.8.

Austin Greene · Apr 10, 2014

Robin Usagani said:
you bought the 1.8?

I did. I did quite a few comparison shots between the 70-200, the 50mm f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.8 and ultimately felt it was bringing enough to the game to be a worthwhile investment given I'm moving more into portraiture.

Reasons I bought it:

Overall small size, and lighter weight makes it easier to pack around and access than the 70-200. I also found it less intimidating to folks than the 70-200 with it's hood on when it comes to asking random folks for their photo.
Minimum focusing distance is 2.8ft, versus 3.9ft on the 70-200. I can work in smaller spaces than with the 70-200, even if it were at 70mm.
Overall build quality is decent. It's not L quality, but it's up there.
F/2 and F/2.8 seemed perfectly useable for outdoor portraits (just enough DOF), and the resulting bokeh:working distance was great. The wider apertures will also come in handy shooting some of the events I do where I can get close, but flash is frowned upon. Between f/2 or f/2.8, and the high ISO performance of the 6D, I don't see low-light ever being an issue again.
Personally, I liked the vignetting, and the way the lens handled background highlights. I can see myself getting more into ambient-light portraits. I liked how it represented people's faces, and how it handled colors.
I can't insure my 70-200 since I bought it used (I use SquareTrade), but I can insure this lens, meaning I will take it out far more often and worry less about it. I can easily see it becoming my go-to impromptu/walk around portrait lens, leaving the 70-200 for when I'm doing shoots or for when zoom would be advantageous.

tl;dr: It's quite the little powerhouse of a lens, and would fill the role of a light, portable portrait alternative to my 70-200 for when I don't have space or am feeling lazy.

Derrel · Apr 10, 2014

Good for you man!!! You'll enjoy it! it's a greta lens to have in your kit! Light, small,sharp,reliable, and it balances WELL...it's not a coffee-can sized hunk of glass that makes the camera nose-dive. Smart buy. There's a reason that Canon,Nikon,Pentax,Sony,and Zeiss ALL make 85mm prime lenses...

Lumens · Apr 11, 2014

I just picked up the 85 f1.8 recently as well. It is an incredible lens. I am enjoying the images it can produce.

Gavjenks · Apr 11, 2014

Are you really comparing 50 with 200? You really think I suggested to shoot wide and crop to make it 200mm equivalent?

Um yes, because that is precisely what shooting wide and cropping DOES. A 50mm lens, cropped 4x simply IS a lower-resolution 200mm lens, for every practical intent and purpose.

There is therefore never really any good reason to shoot wide and crop versus using a longer lens, unless the other lens is just too physically inconvenient to carry or to get into position quickly enough to get the shot off, etc. (or if you don't own one, or so on).

A fast paced wedding environment might be an example of such a situation, and that's all well and good, but the fact remains that if, somehow, you could get a 200mm onto the camera in time, it would provide better results, since the image would look exactly the same + more resolution to work with.

Cropping a modern full frame is nothing new and used a lot. It is basically shooting a crop sensor.

Yes, and that's why we say that a 50mm is the equivalent of an 85mm in crop frame, since you're cropping 1.6x. And if you crop more than 1.6x, it becomes the equivalent of 150mm(3x)... and then 200mm (4x)...
I.e. exactly what I said.

Unlike the 50 1.8, The 85 1.8, shot AT 1.8, is indeed capable of doing a decent amount more background blur than the 70-200 f/4, as the OP discovered with his borrowed copy.