# Dilemma.. 70-200 f2.8 IS MK II vs. 70-200 f4 IS + 85mm 1.2 Thoughts?



## ryllz75 (Dec 10, 2013)

Hi All,

Hope to hear your thoughts, recommendation and expertise as it regards my dilemma..

Current Gear: 5d MKIII, Sigma 35 f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 16-35 f2.8 MK II, and 70-200 f2.8 IS MK II. I shoot both with Natural light as well as with a strobe using a Mola beauty dish on locations 80% of the time. We also do studio shoots about 20% of the time.

I normally shoot Portraits/Engagements and some Events. We hope to get in to weddings in 2014.

Dilemma:

I would love to own the 85 1.2 II without shelling for too much more money out of pocket. I am thinking of selling my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II and buying a used/refurbished 85mm f/1.2 and the 70-200 f/4 IS for the reach. With the high ISO capability of the 5D Mark III I should be able to counter the 1 stop loss of using the 70-200 f/4 instead of the f/2.8. 

What are your thoughts/opinions on this? im at a crossroad and would love to hear other feedback from fellow photogs who has been in the same position or have experience with these lenses...

Thanks in advance!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

ryllz75 said:


> We hope to get in to weddings in 2014.
> 
> I am thinking of selling my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II



Well, then…I guess if you do, you'll be buying another copy of the 70-200/2.8L IS II when you start shooting weddings in 2014…

The 85L II is a great lens for 'staged' portrait sessions, where you have control of the subject, and it's especially great when you _don't_ have control of the background, since shooting at f/1.6-2 usually gives you enough DoF for your subject (barely, and only one person) while effectively blurring out a busy/complex/distracting background. But in a fluid situation like an event or a wedding, the 85L is not optimal for two reasons - lack of flexibility and slow AF (the latter isn't as much of an issue on a 1-series body).

My 2¢, as an owner of both the 70-200 II and the 85L II.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 10, 2013)

Events and weddings can get quite dim, and I would hate losing a stop. It doesn't matter much when there is sufficient light, but going from ISO 6400 to 12800 is not pleasant. More noise, less DR, which means less flexibility for post-processing.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2013)

I'm with Neuro on this one - just be patient and save up for the 85 1.2 II. I've owned both 70-200s and you'll definitely regret it if you sell your 2.8.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2013)

+1
With the f2.8 you also get the full performance of the 5DIII's AF system. Bread and water, no beer for a month ...


----------



## ryllz75 (Dec 10, 2013)

All thanks so much for all of your feedback....! I truly appreciate and will end up keeping the 70-200 2.8 MK II.

another quick question.. since I have the Sigma35 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2.. Do you guys think that selling off the 50 1.2 and replacing it with the 85mm 1.2 is a worthwhile move? Again the sole purpose of wanting the 85mm 1.2 is for portraiture... im thinking that the 35mm and 50mm is so close FL wise that i can probably lose the 50mm and replace it with the 85mm. Again if you have experience on both would love to hear from you!

As for the sigma 35mm 1.4, i just got that a month ago and crazy in love with it. It actually has been my lens of choice for environmental portraiture..


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2013)

A far better option in my opinion.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2013)

ryllz75 said:


> All thanks so much for all of your feedback....! I truly appreciate and will end up keeping the 70-200 2.8 MK II.
> 
> another quick question.. since I have the Sigma35 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2.. Do you guys think that selling off the 50 1.2 and replacing it with the 85mm 1.2 is a worthwhile move? Again the sole purpose of wanting the 85mm 1.2 is for portraiture... im thinking that the 35mm and 50mm is so close FL wise that i can probably lose the 50mm and replace it with the 85mm. Again if you have experience on both would love to hear from you!
> 
> As for the sigma 35mm 1.4, i just got that a month ago and crazy in love with it. It actually has been my lens of choice for environmental portraiture..


The 50 and 85 are different beasts, but unless you're using the 50 for other purposes that the 35 isn't filling, it sounds like you'd be better off with the 85. I kept the 85 over the 50 when I sold off some primes recently. I think the 85 is all it's cracked up to be and you'll probably fall for it as hard as the rest of us!


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> A far better option in my opinion.


+1
I almost suggested that in my first reply. Only downside is the lack of coverage from 35-70, which is important to me at least.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I'm with Neuro on this one - just be patient and save up for the 85 1.2 II. I've owned both 70-200s and you'll definitely regret it if you sell your 2.8.



+1 with Neuro and mackguyver...save up the money for 85L II
The 70-200mm f2.8 IS II and 24-70 II stay on my 5D III(x2) most of the time. 1stop might not be a huge diff in low ISO, but it's huge when you at 6400ISO vs 12800ISO.

If I have to pick between 50L vs 85L II, I will take 85L II. I love close-up candid portrait and 85L II works well. 

I think Sigma 35mm + 85L II is one great combo. 135L is not a bad choice for outdoor - less creamy bokeh then 85L II.

Best wishes OP


----------



## lux (Dec 11, 2013)

Was at a wedding this weekend at photographer used 5diiix2 with 24-70 on one and 70-200 on the other. Only changed once to 85 1.2 for formal portrait of couple. Watching her I think just primes would have been very hard


----------



## skoobey (Dec 14, 2013)

85 1.2 only works as a portrait lens, it has a super-slow autofocus, and is a portrait length prime.

70-200 2.8 IS is an ideal event lens, so don't sell it, you will miss it.

Think of the 85 1.2 as an addition to your collection, when you're on a portrait assignment.

ADVICE: Download Lightroom or similar software, perhaps even as a trial, and go trough your metadata, to see how often you shoot 70-200 at 2.8. If it turns out that you only shoot wide open in portrait situations, only then would I consider the trade-off, as you'll get the lighter zoom, and an amazing prime.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 14, 2013)

skoobey said:


> 85 1.2 only works as a portrait lens, it has a super-slow autofocus, and is a portrait length prime.


This is an ever returning topic. Yes, the AF on the 85mm f1.2L II is not as fast as many other lenses and from minimum focus distance to infinity it´s slow. But from 2.5m to infinity on a 5DIII it is quite OK and I rarely miss shots. With the 1DX it is even better. But the reward in IQ is well worth the extra effort. I would never swap slow-but-accurate for fast-and-almost.
But I fully agree on the advice to keep your 70-200. The 85 is a great lens, but a supplement.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2013)

ryllz75 said:


> All thanks so much for all of your feedback....! I truly appreciate and will end up keeping the 70-200 2.8 MK II.
> 
> another quick question.. since I have the Sigma35 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2.. Do you guys think that selling off the 50 1.2 and replacing it with the 85mm 1.2 is a worthwhile move? Again the sole purpose of wanting the 85mm 1.2 is for portraiture... im thinking that the 35mm and 50mm is so close FL wise that i can probably lose the 50mm and replace it with the 85mm. Again if you have experience on both would love to hear from you!
> 
> As for the sigma 35mm 1.4, i just got that a month ago and crazy in love with it. It actually has been my lens of choice for environmental portraiture..



It depends. The 50L is a lens for 50mm freaks and the 85LII will suit better for portraits. I tend to find 85mm still to short for a tight portrait and too long for a wider portrait.


----------

