# 85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II



## rahkshi007 (Feb 9, 2012)

i own 5d m2 , 24-70mm f2.8L , and 50mm f1.4 USM. i do some portraits recently and my friend use nikon 85mm f1.4G. i was so amazed with the picture produced by the nikon lens. the bokeh is so creamy compare to my 50mm f1.4. so which one is better in term of bokeh and sharpness at wide open ? the 85mm f1.2 or the 70-200mm since both lens have similar price tag in my country.


----------



## Macadameane (Feb 9, 2012)

Seems like an apples to oranges comparison, but if you are looking for Bokeh quality only, you'd probably want the 85. If you need more versatility and quicker focus (and more sharpness too) or IS, go with the 70-200.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 9, 2012)

Macadameane said:


> *Seems like an apples to oranges comparison*, but if you are looking for Bokeh quality only, you'd probably want the 85. If you need more versatility and quicker focus (and more sharpness too) or IS, go with the 70-200.



I agreed with Macadameane - if I can only choose one lens, I will take 70-200


----------



## torger (Feb 9, 2012)

As said it is a bit of apple to oranges.

However, I'm very impressed by the versatility of 70-200 II for people photography - on full-frame where f/2.8 gives often is short enough dof and 70-200 gives a more suitable fov for people work than on APS-C. Overall the 70-200 is an incredibly well-performing lens, despite that it is a zoom it is nearly as sharp as a prime. The fast AF and IS makes it work well in non-optimal conditions.

So I'd say you should have a really strong case for the 85/1.2 if you choose that before you have the 70-200.


----------



## idea_hamster (Feb 9, 2012)

> so which one is better in term of bokeh and sharpness at wide open


AFAIK, the rule of thumb is generally that prime lenses will be sharper, simply because they're ground to a specific shape and don't need to accommodate shifting light patterns. The 85's bokeh is, of course, legendary.

That said, they are both stellar, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II may be able to deliver a similar depth of field at the long end, although some reviews suggest that this new version sacrificed some bokeh quality for increased sharpness.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Feb 9, 2012)

thank you for all of you that reply. i will have a look at the 70-200mm..


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 12, 2012)

Get the 70-200 first


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 12, 2012)

I also vote for the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II - it's my favourite lens. It does take great portraits with nice background bokeh, even wide open at 2.8 the pics are useable. Definitely more useable than those taken wide open with the 85 f1.2L USM II which is a great portrait lens stopped down to 2.0 or further but does not quite excel in other areas due to its slow AF. My main application of the 85mm is actually walk around shots at night since the big aperture gets me good shots even without tripod/monopod.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 12, 2012)

Well if it helps put it in perspective, @2.8 and 200mm the 70-200 should have similar bokeh as a shot cropped similarly to the 85 @1.2.

I personally sold the 70-200 2.8 IS mkI to pay for the 85, but the reality of it is I needed to buy the 135 to fill the gap left by 70-200. I just don't like using zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> Well if it helps put it in perspective, @2.8 and 200mm the 70-200 should have similar bokeh as a shot cropped similarly to the 85 @1.2.



No, it won't. First off, bokeh is quality of blur, not quantity. Now, I'm sure you meant quantity, but even then, if you frame the shots similarly with different focal lengths, only the aperture determines the DoF, and f/1.2 will beat f/2.8 by quite a bit.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 12, 2012)

Yeah I meant background difussion should be numerically similar but then the subject would appear flatter on the 200 shot due to compression. Sorry.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 12, 2012)

If you don't have 70-200II, i would recommend it. But if you purely want the best portrait lens? Get the 85LII

70-200 is a sharp lens but doesnt give the look anywhere near the 85L. However the 85 @1.2 is nerve breaking to shoot at. be extreme careful. Thus, i mostly shoot it at F1.6-2.2.. 

Bokeh wise, someone mentioned the 85 1.2 and 70-200 @200 2.8 would give the same look.. NO. it's not. n I took couple shots to see how much differences (for my own references at well)
all shot handheld, lowlight, straight out from camera, used 1d2 (FF would give a better look, isnt it?)
*85L @1.2*







*70-200 @ 85mm 2.8*






*70-200 @200 2.8*






*BONUS: 200mm F2.0 IS*


----------



## hoousi (Feb 12, 2012)

Unfortunately, if you have the funds, get both! I got the 85 2 weeks ago before the 70-200 because of the canon rebates, the salesman wrote me down the price he'll make me for the 70-200 on a business card, so I wasn't in a hurry an fetch it for my b-day in march. 

2 different horses: 

85 is just an uber portrait lens and marvelous for indoor candids (af mostly fast enough for kids running around if in the zone)
70-200 for the range, is and speed.

If I hadn't had the funds to get both in the same year I would have probably opted for the 70-200 for its versatility and waited to get the 85. The 85 blows a fifty 1.4 out of the water with ease, just yesterday I put the 50 (Sigma) back on again and just found it lacking in many ways.


----------



## cps_user (Feb 12, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> I also vote for the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II - it's my favourite lens. It does take great portraits with nice background bokeh, even wide open at 2.8 the pics are useable. Definitely more useable than those taken wide open with the 85 f1.2L USM II which is a great portrait lens stopped down to 2.0 or further but does not quite excel in other areas due to its slow AF. My main application of the 85mm is actually walk around shots at night since the big aperture gets me good shots even without tripod/monopod.



Well I agree with the fact that the 70-200 II is tremendous - I use it quite a lot. But I don't agree that the 85 doesn't excel in other areas: it's meant to be used at 1.4 or even 1.2 if you ask me . 

AF is more than fast enough for portrait shots (it is accurate) and the dreamy quality you get can in no way be replicated by the 70-200.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 12, 2012)

I own them both, and for sports or action, the 70-200 is epic greatness. But for those images of the kids and you want not to document, but creat, the 85 is WAY better. 

I had 70-200, sold to get the 85, sold the 85 to get the new 70-200, missed it too much, and sacrificed the 14 L II for the new 70-200 to have both. Different area of use, and one doesn in no way replace the other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> Yeah I meant background difussion should be numerically similar but then the subject would appear flatter on the 200 shot due to compression. Sorry.



Sorry, still not correct - the amount of OOF blur will never be as great with f/2.8 as with f/1.2 for the same framing, because in that case, aperture alone determines DoF. Yes, you can get numerically the same blur as at 85/1.2 by using the 70-200/2.8. In fact, 130mm f/2.8 gives the same DoF as 85mm f/1.2, and 200mm f/2.8 gives much thinner DoF. But...it's not the same shot. Three factors determine DoF: aperture, subject distance, and focal length. For the same framing, the last two factors cancel each other out. 

Consider an example - a headshot at 85/1.2 (granted - only one eyelash in focus). If you change to the 70-200, set to 135/2.8, you get the same DoF, but now you don't have a headshot - you've cut off the hair, chin, and ears. So...you back up to get the same framing, and there goes your thin DoF.


----------



## elflord (Feb 12, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> i own 5d m2 , 24-70mm f2.8L , and 50mm f1.4 USM. i do some portraits recently and my friend use nikon 85mm f1.4G. i was so amazed with the picture produced by the nikon lens. the bokeh is so creamy compare to my 50mm f1.4. so which one is better in term of bokeh and sharpness at wide open ? the 85mm f1.2 or the 70-200mm since both lens have similar price tag in my country.



On a similar budget, I picked up the 135mm f/2 and the sigma 85mm f/1.4.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 12, 2012)

I have the 70-200 f2.8L ISII and I recently got the sigma 85f1.4 which I was deciding between getting the canon 85f1.2L

The primary reason for the 85 for me was for wedding use
I decided to go with the sigma over the canon mainly due to focus speed
the canon 85f1.2 is slowwww to focus particularly if you change from a near object to a far object then back to a near object , if changing focus at similar distanced obbjects its not too bad. but the sigma is much snappier I would estimate maybe 3 times faster.
However I thought the canon f1.2 Was sharper at 1.2 than the sigma was at 1.4 the canon is no doubt a stunning lens, if you can live with the slow AF then it is the lens to have for IQ in my opinion it lives up to canons claim of the definitive portrait lens. The other thing I didnt like was the fly by wire manual focus rather than a mechanical manual focus. just not a fan of this setup 

I have tested the sigma against the 70-200 and I find the sigma at f2 significantly sharper than the 70-200 at f2.8 and for weddings moving my position i can cover everything the 70-200 can so I have found that the 85 has almost completely replaced my use of this lens for these events. Primarily because it is so much lighter and smaller, less likely to bang the lens into something and shooting for 10 hours the 70-200 weight really starts to take its toll (still a brilliant and all round awesome lens which i love so dont get me wrong here) I find the sigma 85 IQ to be about equal to the 70-200 wide open at f1.4 vs f2.8 but at f2 the sigma is gold. 
My copy is heavily front focusing and i had to dial in +13 AF microadjust so while i have a break in wedding shoots I have sent it in to be looked at to see if they can get it closer to neutral I dont have a problem with a little micro adjuct but +13 is significant and I was worried that a future body might not have the adjustment range to compensate.

I dont know if that helps your decision, just some information from my experiences to factor into your considerations the sigma is 2 and a half times cheaper than the canon 85L too


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 14, 2012)

— Bokeh — Portraits — 85/1.2L —

/thread


----------



## decltype (Feb 17, 2012)

+1 for the 85mm f/1.2 II

The 70-200 IS II is extremely versatile and a great performer, with a very usable focal length range on FF. However, I found it too large and unwieldy - and too much of an attention-grabber for everyday use. If you can live with below-average AF speed, you will love the razor-thin DOF and the beautiful rendering of out-of-focus elements the 85 can produce.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 17, 2012)

For versatility, can't beat the 70-200. If you were to shoot primarily portraits, then yes, the 85mm would be the way to go, but elsewise, the 70-200 would be something far better to fall back on.


----------



## birdman (Feb 17, 2012)

I would either go with: Sigma 85/1.4 or Canon 85/1.8--which is a WONDERFUL lens!! Razor freaking sharp and light on the budget and hand. 

Then, I would get the 70-200/4.0 IS. You would have portrait needs met and telephoto lens to boot. The Sigma is supposed to be excellent, and they hold their value quite well. The 85/1.2 is amazing, but a little overpriced in my opinion. Of course, the Nikon 85/1.4G is around the same price also. I guess the amount people pay always dictates price of goods. Economics 101


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobody can tell you what to do since only you know where your passion lies in terms of subject matter and how you render it (i.e., with paper thin DOF), but if this is your _*third*_ lens . . . ?

For my part, the novelty of f/1.2 can only last so long. I use my 70-200 every single day I take pictures, but can completely get my fill of the 85mm f/1.2 with one or two rentals per year. When I think extreme shallow DOF will enhance the look of a certain job, I rent a 1.2 and try to come up with a few other "self-assignments" to explore its possibilities in other ways. By the time it's due back to the dealer, I'm never really that sorry to see it go.


----------



## Robert Welch (Feb 17, 2012)

I have the first version of the 70-200/2.8IS and the 85/1.8. I would love to get the 85/1.2, but unless you use it at 1.2-1.4, you might as well save the money and get the 1.8 from what I can tell. I've seen some wonderful images from the 1.2, it's got a quality at that aperture that is unmatched by any other lens. As has been mentioned before, It's not just the amount of bokeh, but the quality is ethereal, almost dreamlike. I've heard the closest any other short tele lens comes to it might be the Leica 1.4, but even then the Canon is preferred by some. So if it's for portraits with a unique look you desire, that is the lens to get. If you require versatility, the 70-200 is the obvious choice, though I've heard the 2nd version has a harsher bokeh quality than the first version has, trading that for superior sharpness, IS effectiveness and maybe focus speed. I prefer the more creamy bokeh of the first version, and find it plenty sharp for my portrait work. If it's more for sports or other work, the 2nd version would probably be the better choice.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Feb 17, 2012)

vuilang said:


> If you don't have 70-200II, i would recommend it. But if you purely want the best portrait lens? Get the 85LII
> 
> 70-200 is a sharp lens but doesnt give the look anywhere near the 85L. However the 85 @1.2 is nerve breaking to shoot at. be extreme careful. Thus, i mostly shoot it at F1.6-2.2..
> 
> ...


Wow! i really like the shot of [email protected] compare to [email protected]


----------



## vuilang (Feb 17, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> Nobody can tell you what to do since only you know where your passion lies in terms of subject matter and how you render it (i.e., with paper thin DOF), but if this is your _*third*_ lens . . . ?
> 
> For my part, the novelty of f/1.2 can only last so long. I use my 70-200 every single day I take pictures, but can completely get my fill of the 85mm f/1.2 with one or two rentals per year. When I think extreme shallow DOF will enhance the look of a certain job, I rent a 1.2 and try to come up with a few other "self-assignments" to explore its possibilities in other ways. By the time it's due back to the dealer, I'm never really that sorry to see it go.


Strange... i have them both.. but my 70-200II sit home all day and my 85LII roll with me through-out battlefield


----------



## mkln (Feb 20, 2012)

save for both
they're currently the only two lenses I own for my 5d2. 
very happy with both. use 70-200 more often because it's more versatile. 
but 85L still blows me away when I look at the pics.

also I find the 70-200 without BG to be too front-heavy
the 85L with BG is very balanced. without it it's still ok.
85L, no BG = the highest quality/size ratio I get with the 5d2. fits a small dedicated bag. small volume, heavy weight tho (85L is almost 1kg alone :-[ )
with the 70-200 you need a dedicated backpack or large bag (but a shoulder bag will hurt. your neck will hurt anyway).


----------



## Pakman (Mar 27, 2012)

In a nutshell - The 85mm is more of a specialized lens with amazing IQ even wide-open and the ability to get to f/1.2. The 70-200 the versatile, practical choice for everyday use (that would I get before the 85L). Plus you have the new world of possibilities with the TC 1.4x and the 2x.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 27, 2012)

If one continues to shoot over the years, one will eventually want both. 70-200 II is indeed as good as a f/2.8 zoom can probably ever be, but shooting at 85mm focal length at f/1.2 and still getting sharp subject with induplicable bokeh is priceless, a feat still unmatched by any other company.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 31, 2012)

Get both - I intend to 

1.2 is going to let in a lot more light than 2.8.
Sure you can get "nice" bokeh with the 70-200 (I have one) but a prime lens it aint...

ET


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 31, 2012)

The 70-200 is more versatile, and one of my favorite wedding photography lenses of all time!


----------



## Tcapp (Mar 31, 2012)

Sigma 85 1.4 is amazing. I have it and love it. My go-to lens for portraits. Half the price of the canon too!


----------



## Northstar (Apr 2, 2012)

Need a little help...I'm new to canon and I just bought a canon 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8 ii. I've only had it a week, but I'm worried about the way the lens connects to the camera. It screws on just fine, but when the 70-200 is on the body and I'm walking around carrying it, it will slightly...very slightly...feel like it's a bit loosely connected to the body because it will "jiggle" ever so slightly with each step if I carry it in a verticle position(lens pointing down) and I'm holding onto the body in my right hand by the grip. And if i hold it the same way and just gently shake it up and down(repeat, gently) i can feel this slight "jiggle" sensation in the connection. I went back to the camera shop I bought it at and tried their demo lens on their demo 5d3 and i could feel the same sensation, so that made me feel better but the problem is that a i've never felt any of my other lenses do this...the guy at the camera shop says its normal for long heavy lenses to do this versus smaller lighter lenses


Help please..any thoughts


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 2, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Help please..any thoughts



Yes, start a new thread. 


To the OP, the 85/1.8 is 85.3%'ish of the 1.2L for less money.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 2, 2012)

This might be relevant to the discussion - http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Has anyone experienced this problem in the field?


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 2, 2012)

I have this lens on a 5DII, and haven't noticed it. I also have a 300 f4L is, and a 4005.6L.

These are all long heavy lenses with a lot of torque on the mount. You should be supporting the lens and not really only holding the body.

If the camera guy says it is fine, it likely is.



Northstar said:


> Need a little help...I'm new to canon and I just bought a canon 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8 ii. I've only had it a week, but I'm worried about the way the lens connects to the camera. It screws on just fine, but when the 70-200 is on the body and I'm walking around carrying it, it will slightly...very slightly...feel like it's a bit loosely connected to the body because it will "jiggle" ever so slightly with each step if I carry it in a verticle position(lens pointing down) and I'm holding onto the body in my right hand by the grip. And if i hold it the same way and just gently shake it up and down(repeat, gently) i can feel this slight "jiggle" sensation in the connection. I went back to the camera shop I bought it at and tried their demo lens on their demo 5d3 and i could feel the same sensation, so that made me feel better but the problem is that a i've never felt any of my other lenses do this...the guy at the camera shop says its normal for long heavy lenses to do this versus smaller lighter lenses
> 
> 
> Help please..any thoughts


----------



## drjlo (Apr 5, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Need a little help...I'm new to canon and I just bought a canon 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8 ii. I've only had it a week, but I'm worried about the way the lens connects to the camera. It screws on just fine, but when the 70-200 is on the body and I'm walking around carrying it, it will slightly...very slightly...feel like it's a bit loosely connected to the body because it will "jiggle" ever so slightly



I have the 5d3 and 70-200 II also, and I really haven't noticed any significant jiggle. But as others have mentioned, it's a good idea to support heavy lenses like this with something more than the lens mount, and I usually have my left hand holding the lens. 

I say don't worry about it and go out and enjoy this amazing combo. It's just a silly good combo with crazy contrast, color, detail, and AF speed.


----------



## keithinmelbourne (Apr 8, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> i own 5d m2 , 24-70mm f2.8L , and 50mm f1.4 USM. i do some portraits recently and my friend use nikon 85mm f1.4G. i was so amazed with the picture produced by the nikon lens. the bokeh is so creamy compare to my 50mm f1.4. so which one is better in term of bokeh and sharpness at wide open ? the 85mm f1.2 or the 70-200mm since both lens have similar price tag in my country.



I have the 85LII and, I must say, when you nail the shot with it the 85 does deliver beautiful results. I use the lens a great deal, but my hit rate is still 50-50, and that's using a 1Ds3. With my 5D2, the 85L does not focus as well or as fast, so my hit rate is much lower. If it is bokeh you're after, you may want to consider the 135L which gives gorgeous results, has fast AF and is half the price. I have alway resisted the 70-200 2.8 because of its size. I couldn't imagine doing long shoots with it. 

Here's a shot I recently took in the market with the 135. It was pretty dark, but I was able to snap this off pretty quickly:


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 8, 2012)

70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II.

No Contest. Fantastic Lens! You will NOT be disappointed. This is my all time favorite wedding photography lens (next to the 16-35)


----------



## TylerV85 (Apr 9, 2012)

I've had the pleasure of having both of these lenses. I think the 85 f/1.2L II is the highest quality lens I've ever owned. And it's not just the bokeh-It's the amazing color and contrast at ultra wide apertures. Nothing else is like it. With all that being said, I think just the size and color of the lens makes the biggest difference in how you shoot. It's a heavy lens, but still WAY lighter than the 70-200 and it handles very easy. Also, it is shorter and dark in color so those around you don't notice you as quickly, making candids easier for event photography.

Tyler


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

I have both lens and for portrait, i would pick the 85 hands down. The bokeh is the best of all canon lens i feel and it is razor sharp even wide open. The 70-200 is indeed more versatile, but every time i pick my 85 and shoot some portrait, i am always amazed how good it is and the when i look at all the portraits i take, i can always pick the one taken with the 85...

Both amazing lens, but for bokeh and sharpness i would pick the 85.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Apr 18, 2012)

Thank you for all the reply.. i finally pull the trigger and get the 85mm 1.2 markii... when first time holding it, i feel that it is extremely heavy, even worst than my 24-70L. feel unbalance on the 5dm2. The picture produce at 1.2 really stunning and unforgettable. and i can't believe it is extremely sharp even at wide open 1.2.. usually my 50mm f1.4 need to tweak down to f1.8 to get better sharpness... THANK YOU all of your reply !! another reason i did not choose the 70-200mm is because of its size, which make me cannot carry it all the time..


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 18, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II.
> 
> No Contest. Fantastic Lens! You will NOT be disappointed. This is my all time favorite wedding photography lens (next to the 16-35)



+1


----------



## JR (Apr 18, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> Thank you for all the reply.. i finally pull the trigger and get the 85mm 1.2 markii... when first time holding it, i feel that it is extremely heavy, even worst than my 24-70L. feel unbalance on the 5dm2. The picture produce at 1.2 really stunning and unforgettable. and i can't believe it is extremely sharp even at wide open 1.2.. usually my 50mm f1.4 need to tweak down to f1.8 to get better sharpness... THANK YOU all of your reply !! another reason i did not choose the 70-200mm is because of its size, which make me cannot carry it all the time..



Congrats! You just got a great lens. You will love it. And you will get use to its weight!

8)


----------



## keithinmelbourne (Apr 19, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> Thank you for all the reply.. i finally pull the trigger and get the 85mm 1.2 markii... when first time holding it, i feel that it is extremely heavy, even worst than my 24-70L. feel unbalance on the 5dm2. The picture produce at 1.2 really stunning and unforgettable. and i can't believe it is extremely sharp even at wide open 1.2.. usually my 50mm f1.4 need to tweak down to f1.8 to get better sharpness... THANK YOU all of your reply !! another reason i did not choose the 70-200mm is because of its size, which make me cannot carry it all the time..



Congratulations. It's a fantastic lens.


----------

