85 f/1.2 or 70-200 f/2.8 IS

[jman08]

Right now I've got a Canon 7D, 16-35 f/2.8, and a 50 f/1.4. I want to get a telephoto lens. I can't decide between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 85 f/1.2. I really like the fast glass, but I'm thinking the versatility of the zoom lens wins over the f/1.2. What do you guys think?

 

[pbelarge]

I have the 85 f 1.8, which I really like. The 85L is very expensive.
So is the 70-200IS ii, but I have heard nothing but great reviews about this lens, and it is not too much more expensive than the 85L.

What are you photographing?

 

[Destin]

I would personally go with the 70-200. It's a much more versatile lens, and one that every photographer should have in his bag (unless your shoot strictly landscapes of course). On a 7d, it would be equivalent to a 112-320 2.8. You checked into the price of a 300 2.8 lately?

 

[cfusionpm]

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is a wonderful lens and pairs nicely with the 7D. What do you plan on shooting? I would think the the 70-200 would be more useful in all situations other than shooting faster than f/2.8.

 

[Newcastle Shooter]

I have an 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 - the 85mm never really gets used but the 70-200mm never leaves one of my bodies. Sometimes when shooting with it I fell like I'm cheeting it's that good. Kind of depends what you're shooting - I do weddings and pr events. I also love my 50mm 1.4 / way more than the 85mm. The 70-200 will stand out amoungst your existing collection of lenses.

 

[WTF?]

id choose the 70-200. way more versatile and a fantastic lens, and it includes the 85mm mark in it anyway. 2.8 is still quite a wide aperture to be working with too, so yeah. 70-200 gets my vote.

 

[Neil S.]

I am likely the best person here to answer this for you, because I own both lenses.

If you want to know more about the 85mm 1.2L II, check out this thread that I created shortly after getting mine.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products-news-reviews/211685-canon-85mm-1-2l-ii-impressions-questions.html

My advice is that you DO NOT get the 85 1.2L II over the 70-200 2.8L IS II.

Here are some reasons not to get the 85 1.2:

#1 The 85 1.2 has a tendency to show terrible CA in certain situations. This is mostly a problem when shooting reflective surfaces like metal or high gloss plastics, and/or when shooting into direct light. (My impressions thread shows examples of this)

#2 The AF system on the lens is simply terrible. It is extremely slow, and very inaccurate. It hunts a lot even in very good light, and is not suited to any type of action/sports shooting. It is by far the worst AF that I have ever experienced on a lens so far.

#3 Shooting at 1.2 creates such a shallow depth of field that almost the entire shot will be out of focus. It isnt really practical in most cases to shoot this wide because of this, and you would find yourself stopping down to at least 1.4-1.8.

#4 The focus system is an electronic fly-by-wire type, and not mechanical like most other lenses. You cannot focus the lens when it is not on the camera (with the power on), and I just plain dont care for the system very much.

Here are some reasons to get the 70-200 2.8 mk II:

#1 It is basically better than the 85 1.2 in every way except maximum aperture. Better CA control, color, contrast, sharpness (yes even this), etc.

#2 It has a focal range because its a zoom, this makes it much more practical and useful for different types of shots.

#3 It has IS, and this is good for the obvious benefits that it brings. The IS on the mk II is the new 4 stop version too, and it works extremely well.

#4 The AF system on the 70-200 mk II is far superior in every way, and is extremely fast and accurate. It is by far the best AF I have ever experienced on any lens so far.

I am actually considering selling my 85 1.2 right now because of the reasons listed above.

That being said it is an outstanding lens in many ways, and the extremely large aperture is really fun to play around with. It will help your understanding of depth of field, and this will make you a better photographer.

The 70-200 2.8 mk II is just a better lens overall by a long shot, and there is zero question which one gets my recommendation.

Hope this helps.

- Neil

 

[bigtwinky]

70-200 hands down.

I consider it somewhat of a staple of photography, a lens that pretty much all pros, semi pros and serious amateurs should have. This goes for the newer model or the older one.

The 85 is a great lens, but its a more specific usage to me. The image quality is great with the 70-200, so as the 85 falls in the range of the 70-200, you arent gaining much. What you are gaining is better low light, but you have a 50 1.4 for that and with the 7d, you should be able to shoot in pretty low light even at 2.8 with the higher iso settings.

So yeah, 70-200 hands down

 

[Neil S.]

I want to add that the 70-200 mk II uses both UD and Fluorite elements, while the 85 1.2 uses neither.

Fluorite is Canon's fancy new artificial glass that works wonders to improve image quality and reduce CA. It is used mostly in the big telephotos, and is very expensive and time consuming to produce.

This is in my opinion a major factor to consider, and one of the biggest reasons the 70-200 mk II has better optical performance.

Buy the 85 1.2 only if you really want to play around with DOF, and that is the biggest factor involved. Just consider the numerous disadvantages that it has before you pull the trigger.

I am still undecided if I am going to sell mine…

- Neil

 

[mar1u5]

What to get really depends on what you're going to use it for. If you're looking for the ultimate portrait lens, get the 85 f1.2. It's simply magic. If you want something with a bit of reach to shoot whatever, then the 70-200 wins. And the 70-200 is sharp as a prime all the way from 70mm to 200mm, even at f2.8. But take into concideration the weight of the 70-200. If you want to walk around with the camera ready in your hand or hanging from your neck, the 70-200 is not for you. You'll want a bag or something to put it in pretty quick.

Canon Norway loaned me a preproduction 5D MKII and the 85mm f1.2 + 70-200 f2.8 IS II for a week to test out. Here's some samples:

70-200 at 200mm f2.8:

70-200 at 200mm f5.6:

85mm f1.2 at f1.2:

85mm f1.2 at f1.4:

Whatever you get, both lenses are fantastic and some of the best glass you can buy.

 

[table1349]

Right now I've got a Canon 7D, 16-35 f/2.8, and a 50 f/1.4. I want to get a telephoto lens. I can't decide between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 85 f/1.2. I really like the fast glass, but I'm thinking the versatility of the zoom lens wins over the f/1.2. What do you guys think?

There is a very simple answer to this question. What do you need the new lens for? Buying glass isn't all that hard. Figure out what you need for what you want to shoot and buy the best glass you can afford to meet that need. Problem solved.


I also own the 85 f1.2, along with the 50 f1.2 and the faster versions of both for sports, as well as the trifecta of Canon zooms in f2.8 and a host of long L glass. Every one has it's own purpose. My 85L and my 135L are a couple of my favorite portrait lenses. My 70-200 f2.8 is used mostly for sports, action and when I need speed and reach because I can't move around.

 

[rCOSIO]

Both glasses are great ... but IMO, the 70-200 will get used way more ... depending on what your doing of course. But 70-200 is a must have, before the 85 IMO

 

[Neil S.]

I also own the 85 f1.2, along with the 50 f1.2 and the faster versions of both for sports, as well as the trifecta of Canon zooms in f2.8 and a host of long L glass. Every one has it's own purpose. My 85L and my 135L are a couple of my favorite portrait lenses. My 70-200 f2.8 is used mostly for sports, action and when I need speed and reach because I can't move around.

Do you experience bad CA with your 85 1.2 sometimes when shooting wide open?

Just asking out of curiosity because mine does. This question goes for anyone else that owns the lens as well...

- Neil

 

[table1349]

I also own the 85 f1.2, along with the 50 f1.2 and the faster versions of both for sports, as well as the trifecta of Canon zooms in f2.8 and a host of long L glass. Every one has it's own purpose. My 85L and my 135L are a couple of my favorite portrait lenses. My 70-200 f2.8 is used mostly for sports, action and when I need speed and reach because I can't move around.

Do you experience bad CA with your 85 1.2 sometimes when shooting wide open?

Just asking out of curiosity because mine does. This question goes for anyone else that owns the lens as well...

- Neil

Not that I have noticed. I rarely shoot at 1.2, Usually at 1.4-1.8 range on up. Depends on the shoot and the number of subjects in the shot. The bokeh however is killer. The perfect 85mm for me would be the sharpness of the two combined with the bokeh of the 1.2 and the focus speed of the 1.8.

 

[Neil S.]

Not that I have noticed. I rarely shoot at 1.2, Usually at 1.4-1.8 range on up. Depends on the shoot and the number of subjects in the shot. The bokeh however is killer. The perfect 85mm for me would be the sharpness of the two combined with the bokeh of the 1.2 and the focus speed of the 1.8.

I totally agree with you.

It could have been such an amazing lens overall, but sadly they fell short on many aspects of it, and especially the AF system.

Its really a love/hate thing for me.

It is such a unique lens though, and incredible in many ways.