# Is the 70-200 2.8 IS II One of the "Best" 85mm Lenses?



## Cory (Dec 11, 2017)

With sports, stage performances and portraits might one do well by swapping out their 135 2.0 with the big zoom? I wonder if that might be the move with a full kit being a 16-35 4.0 IS, 40mm pancake lens and 70-200 2.8. 
This may look suspicious, but I'm actually trying to reduce/eliminate GAS.
Thank you.


----------



## PCM-madison (Dec 11, 2017)

At my location, sports and performance venues restrict camera + lens sizes for attendees. A body + 135 F2 (or 85 F1.4) is allowed, but a body + 70-200mm F2.8 would only be permitted for official event photographers.


----------



## slclick (Dec 11, 2017)

I've had all of those at once and I totally get where you are coming from however the look of your images at 135 with both lenses will most likely have very different rendering. Unless you need to fund the 70-200 with the 135 I suggest keeping them both especially since the pancake and 135 are a great 2 lens pair. I used them at WDW exclusively and was very pleased.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2017)

I standardized on a 70-200, but my 135mm L produced wonderful results, so I chose the flexibility of a zoom against changing lenses from 85 to 135 and back and losing some shots. Its a tough choice. With the new 85 f/1.4 and a new 135 rumored, I'd likely not have gone for the zoom.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2017)

Cory said:


> With sports, stage performances and portraits might one do well by swapping out their 135 2.0 with the big zoom? I wonder if that might be the move with a full kit being a 16-35 4.0 IS, 40mm pancake lens and 70-200 2.8.
> This may look suspicious, but I'm actually trying to reduce/eliminate GAS.
> Thank you.



If you're not bothered about size, weight and camera balance then you'd have a case. But those physical factors are unavoidable. Now you may like that; after all, the bigger and heavier the kit the better the pictures :-X


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2017)

Cory said:


> With sports, stage performances and portraits might one do well by swapping out their 135 2.0 with the big zoom? I wonder if that might be the move with a full kit being a 16-35 4.0 IS, 40mm pancake lens and 70-200 2.8.



Sports and stage performances often benefit strongly from the flexibility of a zoom lens – players and performers move around, sometimes you want to isolate an individual, sometimes you want to frame a moment of action with multiple participants. For portraits, you generally have much more time and more control over the situation, so the flexibility is not as important. However, that very same control (e.g. placing your subjects where you want them, being able to move them relative to the background) means the extra stop of aperture at f/2 vs. f/2.8 is less important. 

For a while, I had the 85/1.2L II, the 135/2L, and the 70-200/2.8L IS II. I found myself using the 70-200/2.8 routinely, and the only time I really 'needed' the 135/2 was for a set of individual headshots where I was traveling to Europe with all the required gear (flashes, light stands, backdrop, etc.). But, since I was shooting at f/11, the 70-300L would have done the job just fine. 

When headed to a local event, it was hard to justify taking both lenses, and I'd invariably choose the 70-200/2.8. I've since sold the 135L.

The combination of the 16-35/4 IS, 40/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 would be a very versatile and functional kit (alhtough I generally prefer a standard zoom, e.g. 24-70). The 40/2.8 pancake is a great companion to the 70-200/2.8, it's so tiny I generally just tuck it in a pocket of the bag (even if that bag is just a toploader that is designed for camera+70-200) in case I need a standard FoV.


----------



## Cory (Dec 11, 2017)

I'm calling for a Sigma 50-100 2.8 for full-frame.

:-*


----------



## pwp (Dec 11, 2017)

_Is the 70-200 2.8 IS II One of the "Best" 85mm Lenses?_

It's the best one I've got. Like Neuro, I've had both 85 f/1.2 and 135 f/2. Fantastic lenses in their own right, but for sheer practicality and flexibility, I just can't go past my stellar copy of the 70-200 f/2.8IIis. The primes just tended to get left in the bag, then left in the studio for months on end until both were sold. 

I don't miss them in the slightest. 

-pw


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

An observation, the 135 and 85 focal lengths have been compared, contrasted,tied together, bandied together whathaveyou in many recent threads. I just don't see how a 50mm difference in short tele glass can be compared so much. Such different birds.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 12, 2017)

Cory said:


> With sports, stage performances and portraits might one do well by swapping out their 135 2.0 with the big zoom? I wonder if that might be the move with a full kit being a 16-35 4.0 IS, 40mm pancake lens and 70-200 2.8.
> This may look suspicious, but I'm actually trying to reduce/eliminate GAS.
> Thank you.



Your kit looks nice to me. You can't go wrong with any of those lenses. You know what you need better than anyone. I don't think I could do without the 24-70.

I know exactly what you mean about eliminating gas. My initial plan after going FF and dumping all my EF-S gear was to have just three lenses (11-24, 24-70 f/2.8L II, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) because Canon's zooms are just so good right now. GAS was never eliminated or curbed. Still might spring for the 11-24 and if the optics are as good on the upcoming 135 IS and rumoured 24-70 IS as what I have now, I'll be looking at those too. :'(


----------



## Besisika (Dec 12, 2017)

I am not convinced owning the 85 F1.2, 135 F2 and 70-200 F2.8 at the same time means a GAS.
They are for different purposes. It is up to what you are shooting.
It would be a GAS if you are not sure what you need them for and yet you still buy them.
I have burnt so many times by listening to what people say; they simply have different needs. 
As a result, it may sound repetitive, but the best way for you to find out is to rent one and assess it for yourself. 
I have heard someone saying "I cannot rent one". To me that is like a portrait photographer who complains that he cannot find a model to shoot. If you really want it; you are going to find a way.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 12, 2017)

I know the solution to your problems...


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 12, 2017)

PCM-madison said:


> At my location, sports and performance venues restrict camera + lens sizes for attendees. A body + 135 F2 (or 85 F1.4) is allowed, but a body + 70-200mm F2.8 would only be permitted for official event photographers.


How is that enforced? Do they measure every camera and lens as you enter the event or is it just done on the basis of who looks professional and who does not?
I have experienced similar discrimination at many events where cameras are not allowed but everyone is taking pictures with their phones. Why is one type of camera allowed but the other not?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 12, 2017)

For this particular application I think the 70-200 F2.8L ii is a good choice, but that does not mean you do not need an 85mm or 135mm lens. I only use my 85mm in the studio for subjects that do not move very much. It gives the pictures a special quality that I could not achieve with any other lens. However for sports, stage performances etc the zoom lens gives you more flexibility whilst still delivering high quality images.


----------



## hne (Dec 12, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> PCM-madison said:
> 
> 
> > At my location, sports and performance venues restrict camera + lens sizes for attendees. A body + 135 F2 (or 85 F1.4) is allowed, but a body + 70-200mm F2.8 would only be permitted for official event photographers.
> ...



Yes, there are instances where cameras are being measured. A size restriction is not necessarily limited to cameras but could cover all large/hard/heavy objects such as umbrellas, suitcases, tripods and other things that could hinder emergency evacuation.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 12, 2017)

PCM-madison said:


> At my location, sports and performance venues restrict camera + lens sizes for attendees. A body + 135 F2 (or 85 F1.4) is allowed, but a body + 70-200mm F2.8 would only be permitted for official event photographers.



This really sounds like something I'd tell my life to justify a purchase. (But I never fib to her anymore because I can never get away with it. After all these years, she just KNOWS.)


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 12, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> PCM-madison said:
> 
> 
> > At my location, sports and performance venues restrict camera + lens sizes for attendees. A body + 135 F2 (or 85 F1.4) is allowed, but a body + 70-200mm F2.8 would only be permitted for official event photographers.
> ...



Once you have enough lenses, the (n+1)th blends right in. I know I've reached that critical mass.... ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> Once you have enough lenses, the (n+1)th blends right in. I know I've reached that critical mass.... ;D



So have I, except that the 600/4 kinda stands out, y'know?


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Once you have enough lenses, the (n+1)th blends right in. I know I've reached that critical mass.... ;D
> ...



Well, that can be fixed. You just need 1-2 MORE big whites. ;D

When trying to hide stuff, camouflage is key. You need a forest to hide a tree!


----------



## ethanz (Dec 12, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Or camo lens cover.


----------



## midluk (Dec 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Once you have enough lenses, the (n+1)th blends right in. I know I've reached that critical mass.... ;D
> ...


Awwww. Cute little lens collection.

You need a 200-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

midluk said:


> Awwww. Cute little lens collection.
> 
> You need a 200-400.



Meh. 400/560mm is too short for birds, mostly. The majority of the time, I use the 600/4 with the 1.4xIII.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Dec 12, 2017)

hne said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > PCM-madison said:
> ...



Typically the information is easy to find for venues. For example, the NFL has a lens length limit of 6 inches at all stadiums. The 135 is perfect for this and can be combined with a 1.4x if you are further from the field.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Typically the information is easy to find for venues. For example, the NFL has a lens length limit of 6 inches at all stadiums. The 135 is perfect for this and can be combined with a 1.4x if you are further from the field.



Wouldn't the 200/2.8 be even better?


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bluenoser1993 said:
> 
> 
> > Typically the information is easy to find for venues. For example, the NFL has a lens length limit of 6 inches at all stadiums. The 135 is perfect for this and can be combined with a 1.4x if you are further from the field.
> ...



Yes, it is one of the most underrated lenses in the Canon lineup and the longest FL black lens. (while being quite compact still) It's also a pretty good performer on the M5 with the 1.6 added. 

5D3, 200 2.8L Antelope Island, The Great Salt Lake


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Once you have enough lenses, the (n+1)th blends right in. I know I've reached that critical mass.... ;D
> ...



You are my hero.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2017)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bluenoser1993 said:
> ...



Makes a great portrait lens, too...if you have enough room. 

T1i, 200/2.8L II @ f/2.8


----------

