# Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II / F4, VS. 85mm 1.4 - Portrait,filming and weddings. 5D3



## gybra (Nov 6, 2013)

I own a 5D mark III am thinking of purchasing the Canons 70-200mm IS II 2.8. Has anyone used it? What are you thoughts? Is it up to par for portraits? Or is the 85mm 1.4 better? The lens would also be used for filming and weddings and was thinking that the 70-200mm would be better for both. Is there anything I should be aware of considering the camera is full frame? vignetting, moire, etc?
Another topic that I've been researching is that the 70 - 200 mm F4 is a pretty good candidate as well considering that the 70 – 200 mm Is II 2.8 is $2000. What do you professionals think? I've been getting a lot of mixed reviews some say that the F4 is perfect for filming but not great for wedding or portrait photography. So would it make more sense just to splurge and buy the 70 – 200 mm F2 .8 to cover all the bases that I'm trying to do?

What are people's thoughts on the 85 mm 1.4? Is that good for weddings? I must apologize for such noob questions but I just want to make sure that we are making the proper purchase considering money is unfortunately not unlimited.

Again thank you guys so much for all your help it really means alot!


----------



## wayno (Nov 6, 2013)

In my experience the 85 1.4 typically renders more unique portraits than the 70-200 2.8ii.

35L and 85 1.4 is an excellent wedding combo IMO. Shot one recently with those two on my 5D2 and 5D3 and no issues.

The 2.8 zoom is great too (one of my real faves) but to capture still shots in the dark, the Sigma has an edge, I think.


----------



## gwflauto (Nov 6, 2013)

Which 85/1,4 do you have in mind?
For portait I would generally prefer the 85 mm lens with the largest aperture, but only if it is a really good lens.


----------



## gybra (Nov 6, 2013)

I was thinking the canon L series 85mm prime. But the canon L 70-200 2.8 IS II seems like it could do the job and more cause its IS and that could help with film. Plus it covers the 85mm range and 2.8 is pretty good.. I mean not as good as 1.4 but still


----------



## chauncey (Nov 6, 2013)

We have a rather nice local park that is quite popular with the local Pros, weddings/portraits,...I've never seen any of them not have a 70-200 mounted on their body.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2013)

chauncey said:


> We have a rather nice local park that is quite popular with the local Pros, weddings/portraits,...I've never seen any of them not have a 70-200 mounted on their body.



When you _have_ to get the picture convenience and flexibility count for a lot.


----------

