# 70-200 2.8 II vs. 85mm 1.2 II - general opinion



## LuCoOc (Jul 26, 2012)

Hello all,

I want to buy one of these two lenses within the next weeks. Having read all the articels about IQ, autofocus, weight, I don't need any advice like "my lens is sharper" or "the 85mm has a lot more/pleasing bokeh".
These are questions to those who own both lenses: Which one is you favourite for portraits and why? Do you prefer the 85 or the 70-200 when it comes to low light shooting (e.g. portraits in the woods at late afternoon)? What else do you use the two for and which one do you use more often? What makes one of the two lenses more remarkable than the other?

I currently own a 7D with the 15-85, 100L and 70-200 4.0 non IS. I usually use the 100L because of the background blur but find it slightly to long for my purpose. My 70-200 has the obvious zoom range advantage.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 27, 2012)

I own both. I've taken shots with the 85L that I could have used a zoom and I've also taken shots at 85mm with the 70-200L zoom. Both are great. If I want great shots, I'll shoot with the 70-200L for versatility. If I want magical shots, I'll put on the 85L. If you need flexibility and don't need to go below f/2.8, get the 70-200L zoom lens. If you need below f/2.8 and you don't need flexibility, the 85L is magical, especially on a good body. For consumers, both are great and at the consumer level, are equal.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 27, 2012)

since i got the sigma 85 i have almost stopped using my 70-200 i'll probably sell it and get a 200 f2L since i really only use the 70-200 if i want 200mm these days

in your situation i would just go with the 85 it blows the doors off the 70-200 for image quality and is 2.5 stops faster


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the 85 ... blows the doors off the 70-200 for image quality



I disagree... I think the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wins in the 'general' IQ department - similar sharpness in the center and sharper away from the center even with both at f/2.8 (the zoom wide open, the prime stopped down which should give it the advantage, but it's not enough), less vignetting, similar lateral CA and less axial CA. The 85L certainly doesn't 'blow the doors off' the 70-200 II, IMO. But this discussion isn't really about 'general' IQ.



LuCoOc said:


> I don't need any advice like "my lens is sharper" or "the 85mm has a lot more/pleasing bokeh"



But...the 85L II _does_ deliver more pleasing bokeh! 

I also own both, and have used both on APS-C and FF - and my recommendation is different depending on sensor format. On APS-C, the 85mm focal length is great for tight portraits indoors and works great outdoors as well. The f/1.2 delivers excellent subject isolation. Honestly, on my 7D I found the 70-200mm focal length to be a bit awkward - too long indoors, and the f/2.8 on APS-C often didn't deliver sufficient background blur for subject-popping portraits (and also, not long enough when I needed reach outdoors - but, I have the 100-400 for that). For your 7D, I definitely recommend the 85L II. For outdoor use, get yourself a 72mm 3-stop ND filter so you can shoot wide open.

On FF, I think it's a different story. An f/1.2 on APS-C is like f/2 on FF - f/1.2 on FF often gives too shallow a DoF, so the 85L is often in the f/1.6-f/2 range anyway. The 85L still delivers magical shots, but the 70-200mm range on FF is a lot more versatile indoors and out, and f/2.8 delivers a nice, shallow DoF. If you were shooting FF, I'd likely recommend the 70-200 II _unless_ your main (only?) use for the lens was portraits...in that case, it's hard to beat the 85L II.

Here are a couple of examples of the 85L II on the 7D:




EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100




EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/1250 s, f/1.4, ISO 100


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 27, 2012)

ok i should clarify then 
I tested the 85L and sigma side by side and felt the canon 85L was sharper at f1.2 than the sigma was at 1.4
however soon discounted it on a 5D body due to slow AF relative to the sigma

I have shot the sigma side by side with the 70-200 II since i own both
dont get me wrong the 70-200 is very very sharp and an awesome lens

and at f2 the sigma is considerably sharper than the 70-200 is at f2.8

however i think the AF speed on the 70-200 is pretty hard to touch but i dont really shoot much sport etc

stopped down theres not much difference but so far i have not shot any lens that is sharper than the sigma 85 at f2

i would love to have a go with the 200 f2L and i think i really want this lens since i think it looks like the pinnacle of top shelf IQ


----------



## drjlo (Jul 27, 2012)

LuCoOc said:


> Which one is you favourite for portraits and why?



IMO 85L II is THE definitive portrait lens. There is nothing else like it in the world, a combination of stunning sharpness and f/1.2 bokeh. 

Having said that, I probably use the 70-200 f/2.8 II more often, as it's extremely versatile without giving up any sharpness or contrast to primes. It's great for sports, wedding, birds (with 2x TC MkIII), events, portraits (especially stopped down in studio), and the 70 mm end does get you wider than 85mm. 

So the typical outing may be 70-200 on the camera, with 85L making appearances for that magic portrait.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 27, 2012)

Agree with Neuro that the 85L has a special advantage on crop sensors because of its much shallower DOF. On FF, the DOF is very thin and much care has to be taken when shooting wide open. That said, there is nothing like the 85L wide open. First time I tried it and looked at the pics on the monitor, I was amazed even though I'd taken thousands of pics of the kids. The shallow DOF is magical when done right.

If all you want out of it is a portrait lens, then the 85L is hard to beat. If you want a good portrait lens with more versatility that can be used for sports, etc. then the 70-200 is a good choice. Given that you already have a 70-200 f/4, the 70-200 f/2.8 does not give you as much as an advantage. If you're happy using your 70-200 for sports, etc. then go for the 85L -- it will give you a unique capability.


----------



## Ricku (Jul 27, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> If I want great shots, I'll shoot with the 70-200L for versatility. If I want magical shots, I'll put on the 85L.


Perfect answer.


----------



## robbymack (Jul 27, 2012)

i too have a 70-200 f4 granted the IS not the OP's non IS version. I have debated the 135L and/or 85L with myself until I have been blue in the face, I think I am going to go 135L myself mostly because I can't stomach the price of the 85L. That being said I agree with the previous poster, if you already have the f4 zoom, then the f2.8 zoom only provides a 1 stop advantage, I think you may be better off with the 85L. Keep the zoom for flexibility, and the 85L for its truly remarkable portrature capabilities.


----------



## expo01 (Jul 27, 2012)

Ricku said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > If I want great shots, I'll shoot with the 70-200L for versatility. If I want magical shots, I'll put on the 85L.
> ...



Yes, as long as you put the 85L on a FF Body I agree with you. 

But back to the topic. When you say the 100 is too long for you, I do not see any benefit of buying the 70-200. On a 7D the 85 looks almost like a 135 on FF, which is a pretty sweet portrait focal length. The main advantage of the 85 of course is versatility (I know you're looking funny now). I'm talking about the ability to shoot in low-light and more importantly at small DoF. F 2.8 only takes you that far (especially if you don't like the longer focal lengths). So why use a 2.8 at 70-85mm instead of a 1.2?

In my opinion, this should answer your question.


----------



## SteenerMe (Jul 27, 2012)

Curious as to what makes the 85 more magical than any other prime used at lg aperatures?


----------



## acoll123 (Jul 27, 2012)

I had both lenses. Recently sold the 85L to help fund the purchase of the TS-E17 I needed for a paying job. I HATED to sell the 85 because of the unique look it gives but I needed the versatility of the 70-200 more for sports that I also shoot. 
I think it comes down to what you will primarily be shooting. If it's portraits only, then no question get the 85L. If it is a variety, even including portraits, get the newer version of the 70-200 with IS and the faster aperture. The 70-200 is my "if you only had one lens" lens.


----------



## acoll123 (Jul 27, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> Curious as to what makes the 85 more magical than any other prime used at lg aperatures?



First I think 85 is a good focal length for portraiture - allows you to be a comfortable distance away from your subject (IMO). Second, the large aperture allows you to obliterate almost any background so you can work in more locations outside a studio. Personally, if you have a studio, I don't think you would need the 85 1.2 since you can control the background anyway. The 85 1.8 would be more than adequate IMO.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 27, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> Curious as to what makes the 85 more magical than any other prime used at lg aperatures?



It has higher IQ than most other primes. My best photographs that I have ever taken are with the 85L.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 28, 2012)

I sold my 70-200 AGAIN, because it's simply a truly boring lens to me. If you want shots that pop like crazy the 85 L is just out of this world. Get a used one and get the 135 along with it for action shots...


----------



## Richard Lane (Jul 28, 2012)

LuCoOc said:


> ...These are questions to those who own both lenses:
> -Which one is you favourite for portraits and why?
> -Do you prefer the 85 or the 70-200 when it comes to low light shooting (e.g. portraits in the woods at late afternoon)?
> -What else do you use the two for and which one do you use more often?
> -What makes one of the two lenses more remarkable than the other?



I own both lenses. I'll try to answer some of your questions:

For portraits I prefer the 85mm f/1.2L II, because it has that special magical quality about it, and some of my best pictures have been taken with that lens, due to its thin DOF and beautiful bokeh. The subject appears to jump off of the background with that 3D-like effect.

For planned portraits in low lighting and/or indoor portraits, I would definitely choose the 85mm due to the larger aperture and better low-light performance. The IS of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II won't help in low light unless the subject remains fairly still. For shots in low light in the woods, I would choose the 85mm due to it's better bokeh and closer focal range, which would allow me to stay better connected with my subject. For "candid" portraits at an outdoor party, I would choose the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II due to it's longer focal range which would allow me to be far enough away from the subject without them seeing me.

I use the 70-200mm mainly for sports and action photography. The 70-200mm also produces a very pleasing bokeh. The 70-200mm is also weather resistant and the 85mm is not. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is very large, heavy and white, which causes it to stand out in a crowd (although you could buy a black lens coat for it). The 70-200mm is much more versatile for me, and I use it way more often than the 85mm. The 85mm is slower focusing, so if your subject is modeling, or walking down the catwalk or aisle then you may miss some shots because of this.

Rich


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 28, 2012)

If you are replacing the 70-200, it recommend ou look at the 135 f2 before making a decision

I recently replaced my 70-200 f2.8L IS with the 135 and have been very impressed with the IQ and bokeh. It is very light compared with the zoom and much more stealthy.


----------



## jmanley (Jul 29, 2012)

I own the 70-200 2.8 IS (version I) as well as the 85 1.2 II. I shoot with both the 7D and 5DmkIII and i find myself using the 85 much more. I really enjoy shooting the 70-200 but I find that i'm forced to be more creative with the fixed lens. 

I really enjoy using the 85 with both bodies but I prefer the FF.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 29, 2012)

On a ff the 200 f/2 is the lens to beat


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> On a ff the 200 f/2 is the lens to beat


Yeah I know and lens rentals won't ship that one they are selling to me in australia


----------



## BlueBox (Jul 30, 2012)

I use the 70-200 for all my group portraits (when possible) and my 85 for my Bride and Groom Portraits. The 70-200 is great with the IS to capture images at that focal length in low light. Best images come from the 85, but the 70-200 has its special place at a wedding too.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> On a ff the 200 f/2 is the lens to beat



And the one that CANNOT be beaten


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> since i got the sigma 85 i have almost stopped using my 70-200 i'll probably sell it and get a 200 f2L since i really only use the 70-200 if i want 200mm these days
> 
> in your situation i would just go with the 85 it blows the doors off the 70-200 for image quality  and is 2.5 stops faster



I'm NOT sure if I agree with this. 85L Maybe has sightly advanatge with the BOKEH, but not sharpness and IQ. I would take 70-200 f2.8 IS II over 85L anytime.


----------



## dafrank (Jul 30, 2012)

Your question is really hard to answer. I own the 85mm f/1.2 Version II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Version II as well. I use them for a variety of purposes, none of which might coincide with your uses. Things are comnplicated by you owning a 7D as your camera of choice. I, and probably the majority of those using the 85 and 70-200 have a full frame camera on which to use them. It is not necessary to have full frame to love using either lens; it's just that the difference in angle of view between the two formats makes my uses potentially different from yours.

One use I make of the 85 is the obvious - for very narrow depth of field portraits. I shoot mostly at f/1.6 to f/2.8 because shooting at f/1.2 and getting all the parts of my subjects' faces in focus is usually too hard to do quickly and consistantly, and viewing wide open at f/1.2 gives me a better chance for an f/1.6 exposure to be spot-on focused. Occasionally I'll get the odd shot to look great wide open, but I can't count on it. This is not a "fault" of the lens, but a result of my shooting style and the laws of optical physics. Usually, careful manual focus is more reliable than autofocus for this purpose. I also use this lens very successfully for - amazingly enough - very narrow depth of field product shots. The focusing routine here is about the same, but I am more likely to shoot at f/1.2 or 1.4 because it's easier to use the narrow focus on products and small objects (i.e., easier than people's faces - which have a certain fixed distance between eyes, nose tips, and ears). This lens is amazing for both purposes, and its bokeh is deservedly famous for its great dreamy and smooth character.

The 70-200 f/2.8 ver. It is another animal entirely. I use this lens much more. Hey, it's a zoom, for goodness sake, meaning that it can replace many fixed focal length lenses - and it does. This lens is so sharp, that, aside from the 85 with its amazing maximum aperture performance and sharpness, I need no other lenses in its focal length range, with the exception of special purpose TSE and macro lenses. This makes the zoom much more versatile - what it's meant to be. And, you can confidantly shoot this lens wide open if you wish; it's that sharp and good, and only gets a little better by f/5.6 at any focal length. When I have a large or medium size product, groups of people to be shot quickly, people shots that work best at focal lengths different from 85mm, environments that need a longer lens, any situations where fast changes from one focal length to another are helpful, action (sports), or just anything that I'm trying to capture that moves or has the potential to move, this lens is the one to go to. The biggest negative is that this lens is heavy and somehwhat large, so that if that is a controlling factor, beware; of course, the 85 is quite heavy itself, but is still quite a bit lighter and smaller than the zoom. The bokeh is a little more "nervous" than that of the 85, but it's excellent for a complex zoom wide open or one stop down. In any case, the bokeh of _all_ other lenses in its focal length range is nervous compared to that of the 85.

There you have it - my use of the two lenses in question laid out for you. What you do, especially as your camera would render the two lenses' "effective" focal lengths to become equal to 135mm for the 85mm, and 112-320 for the 70-200, on a full frame camera, makes my uses not as indicative of what you might best use them for. You really need to think this one through for yourself. 

Regards,
David


----------



## Bosman (Aug 3, 2012)

If you want to nail the shot the 70-200 II will practically do it without flaw. If you have time to pose and set things up and do multiple shots, the 85L may give you one that worked but it will really blow your socks off. 
The magic of the 85 is the bokeh.
The magic of the 70-200 is sharpness, contrast with very little CA, fast locked on focus.
I just convinced myself again why i don't need the 85LII. 
Edit...
Somehow I did convince myself to own the 85LII.  I gave up my 50L for it and it seems to be a better focal length mix than the 24 on the 1dm3 at around 31mm and the 85 on the 5DM3 with the 85LII. I will still use the 70-200 but more for when i need 200mm and stopping motion in a wedding scenario. The focus speed of the 70-200 can't be beat.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

The 85mm is for melting the background away when you don't have the working room for the 70-200mm.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 4, 2012)

I also own both lenses and have to say they behave completely different.

The 85L offers that beautifull dreamy bokeh, but forget if you want to use it wide open, you better make sure your subject is not moving an inch (very narrow DoF and slow AF). Keeper rate is not so high (but since I only acquired this lense recently, I may need to pratice more). For headshots I stop the lens slightly down to get the whole face in focus (1.6-2.8). For torso shots wide open works well, because due to the longer working distance you have sufficient DoF to het the whole face in focus.

The 70-200 is really fast focussing and my preferred option for subjects that don't like to stand really still (such as kids). I love the clarity and the bokeh when used at the longer end. It works very well for action, and also for headshots. I use it almost always wide open. It's certainly more easy to work with.


----------

