DSLRUsers.com

morning all,

In the next couple of months ill be purchasing a longer tele. (currently: 24-70 f/2.8 + EF-s Macro 60 f/2.8 on a 30d body - 1.6x)

Im trying to decide between the canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and the canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lenses.

Application will be for wedding photography, portraiture and low-light performance photography...

In favour of the 85...
* lighter - 1/2 kg
* closer focusing - 50cms
* faster aperture
* less intimidating
* apparently sharper, better colour + contrast
* inside the 580ex's 24-105mm flash zoom positions

in favour of the 70-200...
* more versatile range
* IS
* faster focusing
* TC addition

... maybe ill have to get my hands on one for a play-off.

Thanks!

Jonathan

Regarding the 80mm/1.2, jdear wrote:* closer focusing - 50cms

Is the 1.4m MFD of the 70-200 going to be a problem for your work?

* inside the 580ex's 24-105mm flash zoom positions

Actually, no it's not. With the 30D's 1.6x crop, the zoom range of the 580EX covers lenses from 15-66mm. The 580EX does translate for you, but as you zoom you'll notice that past 66mm the flash zoom doesn't actually move. So strictly speaking it's beyond the maximum zoom, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Although the whole range of the 70-200 will be on the 580EX's max zoom.

in favour of the 70-200...
* more versatile range

For me this would be a major issue, but we have our own photographic style.

Is f1.2 really a very useful aperature other than for light gathering purposes?

First post! Heh, I can't believe how long it's taken me to join

I have both the 85/1.2L (Mk1) and the 70-200L IS. You cannot compare the two lenses, they are for completely different applications.

For general photography, the 70-200L IS is much more versatile. You can do nearly anything with it, and it makes a really decent portrait lens too.

The 85/1.2L is a really awkward focal length if you are shooting with a 30D. It's about 135mm equiv which is not quite long enough and not quite short enough. 135mm is the classic focal length for headshots. I use this lens for one purpose only - for portraiture. It produces an unmistakable feel and a look that can only come from an 85mm F/1.2. It is really a specialist lens and I do not recommend you get one unless you really need it.

Why not get the 70-200L (non-IS) and pick up an 85/1.8 for the same money that ONE of these lenses will cost you?

OT, but good to see you here Amfibius!

MCWB wrote:OT, but good to see you here Amfibius!

He must be sick of the attention that the Canon P&S fanboys give to him at OCAU.

Firstly I cannot believe I had not stumbled across DLSRUsers.net before. Great forum.

Jonathan, are you still in the market for lens or did you get what you were looking for?

Amfibius wrote:I have both the 85/1.2L (Mk1) and the 70-200L IS. You cannot compare the two lenses, they are for completely different applications.

I cannot agree more with Amfibius.
I use both the 85/1.2L (MkII) and the 70-200/2.8L IS on a full frame camera and good match for 24-70/2.8L. I would suggest the 70-200/2.8L IS over the 85mm as second lens for wedding. Faster focus, more versatile range will provide more opportunity for candids etc. The 85mm becomes a very specialised lens, however can get some beautiful images with shallow DOF, eg



I guess it depends on how much portraiture (studio and environmental) vs wedding.
As Amfibius stated, maybe opt for the 85mm/1.8 (with faster AF) and the 70-200/2.8 (non IS) but stretch a little more for the IS if you can.
cheers
Matt

Yes, as being said above, the 85mm is bit hard to work with focal length. Bokeh from such lens is absolutely amazing thats said apart from the shocking DOF.


It comes down into whether you can move yourself around or not. With a 85/1.2, you are restricted to 'foot-zooming' and this can be very hard in a crowded and narrow area. But if you work in studio, outdoors, or indoor with plenty of moving room, then this lens is really a shining gem for portraits.

The 70-200 can be used in many many many other different situations, such as some sports or outdoor tele down to indoor portraits or event for a bit of reach. The IS will help you out for some low light shots (im not sure how well this performs tho).

Summing up, get the 85/1.2L if you solely want a beautiful portrait/studio lens. If you dont have enough room and do some more general photography around, the 70-200 will be your choice.

Yi-P wrote:It comes down into whether you can move yourself around or not. With a 85/1.2, you are restricted to 'foot-zooming' and this can be very hard in a crowded and narrow area.

Aah yes. In this same wedding I was shooting a small group (tightly framed) using the 85mm while on small step ladder. Of course they wanted one more person, and I was already up against a hedge. Switch to other body with the 24-70 did the trick. Sometimes if < f2.8 is not required (eg small groups) then the 70-200 can give you a better range to work with and have the 24-70 on other body.

MattD wrote:snip

Forget lenses, post some more images of that quality, regardless of the glass.

I'm not a particular fan of wedding shots, but that shot is wonderful - DOF is exquisite

I ended up buying the 70-200 IS and the 17-55 IS lenses.

I think ill add a 50mm f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 down the track If i go FF.

Matt - love the image you posted!

Jonathan

jdear wrote:I ended up buying the 70-200 IS and the 17-55 IS lenses.

I think ill add a 50mm f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 down the track If i go FF.

Matt - love the image you posted!

Jonathan

Got some samples from the 17-55 (the EF-S I assume?). Have heard so much about it