EF 85mm f/1.8 vs EF 70-200 f/2.8L is usm ii: I love my 85mm prime but if I’m able to sell it and finally buy the 70-200 would I really miss the f/1 difference between the two? My 85 mm...

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

I love my 85mm prime but if I’m able to sell it and finally buy the 70-200 would I really miss the f/1 difference between the two? My 85 mm isn’t an L lens and of course the 70-200 is. I love the smooth blurry backgrounds I can do with the 85mm and would hope I can still do them with the 70-200. I need to decide pretty quick as Canon has the 70-200 on sale on the refurb site. Thanks as always guys!

Haydon

I have both lenses and I'm not sure you would not miss your 85mm other than the weight factor. The 70-200 2.8 is sharp wide open at 2.8. The 85 requires F2.2 or higher otherwise it's soft. Also the 85 mm suffers from CA whereas the 70-200 2.8L does not. The 70-200 also has a considerable amount of compression at 200 mm. Personally I think the 70-200 is a more versatile lens but it comes at a cost and weight.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Haydon wrote:

I have both lenses and I'm not sure you would not miss your 85mm other than the weight factor. The 70-200 2.8 is sharp wide open at 2.8. The 85 requires F2.2 or higher otherwise it's soft. Also the 85 mm suffers from CA whereas the 70-200 2.8L does not. The 70-200 also has a considerable amount of compression at 200 mm. Personally I think the 70-200 is a more versatile lens but it comes at a cost and weight.

Agree completely. I have both as well. If I had to keep just one lens, it would be the 70-200L, but the 85 1.8 has its place in low light situations and it is substantially lighter. Also the 70-200 has IS, whereas the 85 does not, which in some situations can compensate for the slower speed. Unless you shoot lots of indoors low light and/or the weight concerns you, the 70-200 is a better and more versatile lens. At a recent seminar for photographers hosted by our local paper (who has half a dozen pros on staff), every single presenter (including the sports and portrait photographers) had a 70-200L in their kit. It's a great lens.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't have the EF 85 f/1.8 but I do have its big brother, the EF 85 f/1.2L and I would not get rid of that lens, it is awesome for portraiture and low light applications. But, if you need to sell your 85 1.8 to afford a 70-200 2.8 then you probably want to let it go, the 70-200 is pretty much a must have, the 85 is not, although new it's only worth $400 so used, maybe $325.

gmango85

I own both, I no longer use the 85mm. The quality of today's zooms are excellent. In the past I shot many weddings using the 85mm, at the time it was the FD model, a truly great lens! I upgraded years ago to the newer Canon Lens (EF) and have used it with less frequency opting for the L zooms. Just keep in mind the weight and size difference. The 70-200 L 2.8 is an outstanding lens. I know the tough decision you are making, I would go for the zoom if you can afford it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I just sold my 85 f/1.8 and have the 70-200 II. I have too many lenses already so keeping one or the other isn't a discussion I can contribute to ... But the comment about size & weight is one to consider if don't already own the zoom model. The zoom is a dream in the results, but one of the largest and heaviest lenses I own. It's a lens I take for a purpose and never as a "walkaround" and see what I find. The 85 fit that need although it frustrated me as it can't focus in close unless adding an extension tube. But for dreamy background, the zoom will be great but not the same as the 85 results, such as below.

The minimum focus is 2.79' (85 cm). At nearly 3-feet this was my biggest gripe on this lens ...

An idea: watch the results of the pending release of a new EF 85 f/1.4L IS that will probably be released by Canon before the end of this calendar year (Canon Rumors). If I think I "need" to restore an 85mm prime to my kit, this will likely be my choice.

(Download)

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Wow thanks CHG and thanks to the other guys also for the great info. I do have the 24-105 f/4 L that came with my 6D and its my walk around lens but I’m really wanting the 70-200 for the speed and reach.

gmango85

You may want to consider Canon's 200mm 2.8L ll, an unbelievable lens, not a zoom, but it will match the 70-200 @ 200 setting.
Good Luck

ronf78155 Loc: Seguin Texas

I got rid of my 70-200 f2.8 for a 70-200 f4 IS!
Just as sharp, the IS is fantastic, 1/2 the cost, and it weighs 1/2 of the 2.8 which is a beast to carry around and wears you out

Haydon

Here's one shot with the 70-200 2.8L II at F4 at 182 mm ISO 100 at 1/200 second. It continues to be a favorite lens despite the weight.

ronf78155 wrote:

I got rid of my 70-200 f2.8 for a 70-200 f4 IS!Just as sharp, the IS is fantastic, 1/2 the cost, and it weighs 1/2 of the 2.8 which is a beast to carry around and wears you out

Valid point but the 2.8 takes the cake in event work when low light is an issue. The F4 version is a great value. There are many that own both lenses for their individual strengths.

(Download)

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I like my 85/1.8 but I would have no second thoughts sacrificing it for the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. That said, my first choice would be to sacrifice my 70-200/4 non IS and my 85/1.8 for a 70-200/4 IS. If I had to buy another 85 later on, I would consider the Sigma 85/1.4 first ahead of the Canon.

gmango85

I agree on the Canon 200mm L, it is a beautiful lens. Not as versatile as the 70-200 zoom, but light and great to use. Good luck with your decision.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Resqu2 wrote:

Wow thanks CHG and thanks to the other guys also for the great info. I do have the 24-105 f/4 L that came with my 6D and its my walk around lens but I’m really wanting the 70-200 for the speed and reach.

I have the 85 f1.8, the 70-200 f2.8 L II, and the 100-400 f4/5.6 L II. For portraits or indoors where I can use a tripod, I prefer the 85. For almost everything else it's the 100-400. Except for indoor sporting events I rarely use my 70-200 since buying the 100-400. This overlooks the other lenses I use, but is only a comparison of those 3.

gmango85

How sharp is the Canon 100-400 L II? I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 extender, is the 100-400 worth the investment? I appreciate your responses. Thank you.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

gmango85 wrote:

How sharp is the Canon 100-400 L II? I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 extender, is the 100-400 worth the investment? I appreciate your responses. Thank you.

The question for the f/2.8 is: do you need it?

Where "need" is defined by lowlight. The 100-400L II is roughly the same size and weight. They share the same case to give a sense of size. Which is sharpest is a question for people who take pictures of little lines in labs.

They're both amazing in real-life. If you're putting the extender on the 70-200 to gain length, the 100-400 is a much better choice where it too can be extended with negligible impact. You just can't take the 100-400 indoors / lowlight and get anything like the results of the 70-200 f/2.8L (IS or non IS).