This note addresses the age-old dilemma in choosing a lens for portraiture.
85 or 70-200. Shown in pictures Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L II USM и Nikon 85mm 1: 1.4GN AF-S Nikkor SWM IF Nano Crystal Coat и Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1: 2.8E FL ED N VR Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF и Canon Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm 1: 2.8 L IS II USM
Many photographers who are engaged in or plan to take photographs of people have the time to choose the first more or less serious portrait lens. Often the question rests on the choice between an 85-mm fix with a relative aperture of 1: 1.8 / 1.4 / 1.2 and a telephoto 70-200 / 80-200 / 70-210 mm and a relative aperture of 1: 2.8.
At one time, I had the same choice. With experience, it has come to understand that these types of lenses cannot replace each other, but can only complement... Therefore, I do not have a specific answer to this question, but still, if I wake up at night and ask the question '85 or 70-200? ', Most likely I will answer '70 -200'.
The choice between 85 and 70-200 is really difficult. Share your views on this in the comments, I'm sure almost everyone once thought about this.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Nikon 70-200 is almost one and a half times more expensive than kenon. For an amateur, these lenses are unreasonably expensive, here 85 \ 1.8 is almost 5 times cheaper and looks like a panacea in spite of its shortcomings. Another thing is commercial shooting or reporting
I decided not to worry about it and took 100mm f / 2.0 USM. And the portrait is excellent, and it works quite well with the telephoto, and let the athletes carry dumbbells of type 70-200))
... skeptics say size doesn't matter !!!! But ... I get it out of ... .70-200 ... and everyone ... they say ... Citizen !!!
I pull out my Nikon D4 in conjunction with 70-200 vr2 and SB-910 really say a citizen)))
For a full frame, definitely 70-200. On a crop with disgusting lighting, most likely 85 because of aperture. Engaged in shooting billiard competitions. The lighting is acceptable above the table; dusk immediately at the table.
Dima, please leave your number. The fact is that I actively play Russian billiards and also take pictures. It is interesting to see and hear your experience in billiard photography. Different nuances of this sphere, camera angles, flash application, settings.
Find me on Dmitry Janson Facebook
Dear both :(
I took 70-300 f3.5-5.6 to crop with.
There was Sigmovskaya 85 / 1,4 nevertheless sold it, left Nikkor 70-200 / 2.8 VRII, and I do not even regret it. 85 is a narrowly specialized lens, it can not be used everywhere, and you need to drag other fixes with you just in case, but this is not always convenient. 70-200 is primarily versatile, and it blurs no worse than 200 mm background in the trash.
Likewise 70-200. Sometimes, except for everyone (even the notorious studio guys) have to shoot in nature. And here with a fix it is sometimes very difficult. Either a puddle, or a driftwood underfoot, and the 70-200 makes it possible to take at least 1-2 steps for comfortable shooting. With a fix, there is no such chance - where you want the angle, stay there.
For me, the answer is obvious: not “or” but “and” if or then 70-200.
For a crop, 70-200 is hardly a smart choice ...
on the crop like a glove, and makes it even more versatile. This is a telephoto, and the “longer” it became for free because of the crop, the better. the only thing to remember is the rule - one and a half to three steps back / compared to ff, if you want to feel 70 mm
But what is 85 less than 70?
For commercial shooting, of course, telephoto zoom 70-200 is more convenient. And if for a leisurely shoot for the soul, then 85 is more interesting. The plastic plus or minus is the same, and the bokeh for the portrait is like a cherry on a cake.
Have you forgotten about 105 f1,4? As an alternative for both. In general, of course, 70-200.
except 105 / 1,4 there are 105 2.0, 135 2.0. Typically, a particular question costs 85 or 70 (80) -200
af-s micro 105 2.8 vr h Fine glass both as a makrushnik and as a portrait)
Under Nikon, I have everything af in the range of 85-200 https://radojuva.com/2013/07/nikon-portrait-lens-enigma/
take for more than 2000 narrowly specialized glass, either clients run after you and idolize and in turn as if they are going to Lenin's mausoleum, or you are a major and recently broke a bugatti)))
I have nikkor af-s 85mm 1.8g (good glass, with ringing sharpness, good drawing, light weight and compactness, good picture) and also have nikkor af-s 70-200g VR2 (excellent glass, with good drawing, good sharpness, good detail, shortcomings - weight, flimsy native hood, autofocus mode switch, but these shortcomings are completely covered by its versatility and reliability). I'm thinking about selling 85ki. I see no reason to jump back and forth. yes not 1,4 hole, but even 1,4 would not take. the total is 70-200 vr2, as soon as its resource is fulfilled, I will immediately update to 70-200 vr3. you can throw stones, armature or something else at me, yell that fu is a dark heavy zoom, the zoom will never give sharpness / detail and a picture, like a fix. Well try replacing the top three lenses set - 14-24 / 2,8 (16-35 / 4), 24-70 / 2,8 and 70-200 fixes. yes, you will carry a whole bag of them and another cart and it will come out more expensive and there will be no efficiency and versatility)))
Yakshko pyd portrait 85 yakshko report 70-200
Please advise a fix telephoto for a landscape. There is always so much talk about portraits, and so little information about which glasses are suitable for the landscape. I consider glass manual. At the moment I use Jupiter 11 135mm, there is not enough multi-enlightenment, and the longish focal point for crop, the native 18-105 is not happy with the picture quality. I look closely at 105 Nikkor Ais or Kaleinar 5n
105 a very good lens, much better than both Jupiter and Kakalenar. But he is still a portrait painter, suitable for the landscape conditionally. Macrick 105 is even better at infinity, sharper, no chromates at all. I think that for a landscape it is better to look for something else, all of the above will not work, IMHO. Had, have all these lenses, judgment from experience using
There are always a lot of controversial issues, which is better. In order not to suffer, both are better. I had 85 1.8D and 70-200. I haven’t thought about how much I need it yet. I sold it and immediately felt it — weight, aperture, picture. on the other hand, the 85-70 is universal in focal length, it gives an excellent picture on the street. But in the room I want to stretch out already 200 and better 85.
I would also take 70-200. So what, what is dark? The flash has not been canceled. But the efficiency and length of the focus - behind the eyes! I'm a long focus fan
The 85 is certainly a cool lens (sharp and all that, the price of 1,8 from Nikon is quite democratic). But when it comes to a portrait, then sharpness is not always in the first place. I use 70-210 / f4, 85 can be a great addition to it. But by 70-200 / 2,8 - hardly ...
So I think: if for an amateur it is better to fix, since there will be different angles inevitably, you need to trick all the time in order to just get a frame and in low light there is a huge gain in aperture. But personally, I don't have a native 85? - something is expensive, but there are 80-200 2.8 µ2, if I'm not mistaken, I really like the picture from it, but I can't turn around with it at home, so I rarely get it. There are fixes on 5 fotik and only on the D700 zoom, but your hands just itch to remove it
I have both of these lenses of the nikon system. And yes ... When I take pictures leisurely and for the sake of my soul, I often use the 85. And weight plays a big role ... Carrying 70-200 half a day is still stressful ... If Arkady wants to, I can give both glasses for a head-to-head comparative test (maybe there have already been reviews of these glasses).
I support the idea of comparing face-to-face with Arkady) so that the photos are right next to one lens and the other
I really wanted, of course, both, and you can go without bread! :) Both are expensive for amateur photography. And so I decided to look for a compromise for myself. And I found: film Nikkor 28-200 f / 3.5-5.6D. Yes, it's a bit dark, but at such a focal length, even at f / 8, it will blur the background in portrait photography. And the price is quite amateurish, I found it for 8tr. This lens is described here, on Radozhiv, and the author praises the older D-version more than the G with ED-glass. And another thought on this topic. Previously, there was no ED or other bells and whistles, but somehow they filmed and took gorgeous pictures. But the oldest lens in my collection is the Meyer Optik Girlitz Primoplan 58mm f / 1.9. But this is for the soul ... :)
For a portrait, definitely 85ka! 70-200 is a reporter. And heavy enough. 85ka can partially replace it. For it is of better quality.
There are both. I agree with one of the previous speakers that the 85mm is a highly specialized lens. Portrait is his specialization, and not only portrait. At 70-200 I also like to shoot portraits, but 70-200 only because of the portrait, most often the hand does not rise with me because of the size and weight. If you only want a bigger focal length and stabilizer.
More recently, I’m shooting a DSLR (for the soul), but it’s real: how can I compare portraiture and telephoto?
The fix, of course, is very limiting, you need to constantly select the distance, but its aperture and image quality are better than that of a telephoto lens. The TV is good because it can bring objects closer, but at the same time the picture is darker, and there are more chances to get blur with it. Canon EF 70-200mm f / 2.8L USM is good, no words, but its price too ...
And weight
The choice of lens depends on the shooting. If you take pictures in the studio, 85mm is much more convenient. It is small, lightweight and does not need a large gun as you are in a controlled environment.
If you are outdoors or in nature where it is difficult to approach the model, the 70-200 will perform the task in difficult situations. In those places in nature where you can easily move, I prefer 135mm, but 85mm is also possible so as not to carry heavy weight.
When shooting in low-light situations where you want to balance the flash with ambient light, 85mm gives you more options because of its light power.
Different situations require different tools. Not all problems are solved with a hammer.
For crop sigma 50-150 is the most!
50-150OS also :)
I had a Nikon 85 / 1.4g, sold it and bought a Sigma 85 / 1.4 ATR. The difference is heaven and earth)) The most interesting thing is that the focus on Sigma is more accurate than on the native one ((I don’t know what the engineers of this company ate, but the result is stunning! Out of 100 photographs there is an error either on one, or there is none at all. Compared to the forehead with 70-200 / 2.8, damn it, but not that compote. All the same, whatever one may say, 70-200 is sharpened for reportage. If anyone likes a long focus in a portrait it makes sense take a chic and light 180 / 2.8 in addition to 85 / 1.4. But if the choice in ONE glass is unambiguous for a portrait 85 / 1.4)) Plus aperture with a lack of light saves you from raising ISO
Nikon’s position is interesting in this whole situation: for the last 5 years, there’s been almost nothing new, including something that would be breathtaking. And Sigma fellows. Masterpieces spawn one after another
Actually 105 / 1,4; 8-15; DF, d5, d500, etc.
Yes, I'm talking about lenses ...
105 1.4 breathtaking. From the price tag