85L - why did you sell yours?

malla1962 wrote in post #13419088
After using mine in a studio stopped down to F8 I was finding my 24-70L was doing just as good a job and ouside wide open in bright lite the CA was bad when shooting wide open so it had to go.

My old 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 P.O.S. was great at f/8.

That's hardly why one buys an 85L.

edge100 wrote in post #13419214
My old 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 P.O.S. was great at f/8.

That's hardly why one buys an 85L.

And thats why I sold it and that was what the OP was asking.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13418909
no, no no.... I own both and the 70-200 is an AWSOME STELLAR lens!

You keep making this turn into a 70-200 vs. 85L topic.

It's clear your trying to convince yourself you don't need the 85L, but there's this little bug on your shoulder telling you that your wrong... that the 85L is the better portait lens, and you know what Alex - I think by now you know it.

Your trying to make an event/sports lens "better" then a pure prime magic 85mm PORTRAIT lens.

Its not. They are completely different beast.

Agree with this statement here. ^

The 70-200 is a great overall lens. No one is saying it's not. I own one. I love it. But I also own the 85L and the 85L is the better portrait lens. It really is that simple. Its awesome. You don't need 3 threads to find this out. The people that own both are telling you this.

s2kennyc wrote in post #13419300
Agree with this statement here. ^

The 70-200 is a great overall lens. No one is saying it's not. I own one. I love it. But I also own the 85L and the 85L is the better portrait lens. It really is that simple. Its awesome. You don't need 3 threads to find this out. The people that own both are telling you this.

Exactly! You and Shalaby have nailed it on the head!

s2kennyc wrote in post #13419300
Agree with this statement here. ^

The 70-200 is a great overall lens. No one is saying it's not. I own one. I love it. But I also own the 85L and the 85L is the better portrait lens. It really is that simple. Its awesome. You don't need 3 threads to find this out. The people that own both are telling you this.

Check this link out. Portraits with longer lenses look a lot different. For me, the 70-200 is a better portrait lens than the 85L because it goes to 200mm.

http://perkesphotograp​hy.blogspot.com/2010/1​2/50mm-vs-200mm.html

There is enough difference in his framing and position relative to his subject (he seems to shoot down with the 50 and eye level with the longer lens) giving it a different perspective that is not related to the differences between the lenses. In some, the subjects are not the same size either.

I get a bit annoyed when someone makes an effort to show a point and doesn't do it right.

Personally I prefer 85, even 135 to 200 for those types of shots but, each to their own.

I find the compressed "look" too clinical and sterile or, rather, more clinical and sterile. I would even use the word, more boring. Then again, I don't like 50mm, either.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13422719
Check this link out. Portraits with longer lenses look a lot different. For me, the 70-200 is a better portrait lens than the 85L because it goes to 200mm.

http://perkesphotograp​hy.blogspot.com/2010/1​2/50mm-vs-200mm.html

I actually dislike the compressed look you get on portraits shot with @ 200mm.

And, of course, the difference in perspective is caused by the photographer being further away from the subject with the 200mm vs the 50mm. It has nothing at all to do with focal length.

s2kennyc wrote in post #13419300
Agree with this statement here. ^

The 70-200 is a great overall lens. No one is saying it's not. I own one. I love it. But I also own the 85L and the 85L is the better portrait lens. It really is that simple. Its awesome. You don't need 3 threads to find this out. The people that own both are telling you this.

Own both, and as others that do, share the sentiment above.

Horses for courses, doesn't mean either can't run both races though.

Sold my 85L? No way. No reason for that.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13422719
Check this link out. Portraits with longer lenses look a lot different. For me, the 70-200 is a better portrait lens than the 85L because it goes to 200mm.

http://perkesphotograp​hy.blogspot.com/2010/1​2/50mm-vs-200mm.html

I took a look at the site you linked. I've seen similar comparisons regarding focal length and compression that longer forcal length offers. But the samples that he provided had different composition altogether. Especially the first few sets.

I think the site confirms my reasoning for selling my 50mm awhile ago.

Both the 70-200 and 85L serve their purposes. I just prefer the 85L. And you prefer the 200mm which is perfectly great as well. If we all liked the same thing, then photography would be pretty boring.

s2kennyc wrote in post #13427992
I took a look at the site you linked. I've seen similar comparisons regarding focal length and compression that longer forcal length offers. But the samples that he provided had different composition altogether. Especially the first few sets.

I think the site confirms my reasoning for selling my 50mm awhile ago.

Both the 70-200 and 85L serve their purposes. I just prefer the 85L. And you prefer the 200mm which is perfectly great as well. If we all liked the same thing, then photography would be pretty boring.

Trudat!

Here's heresy: I got sucked in by the hype and bought one at the same time as my 70-200 2.8 IS. Used it a few times at weddings and for portraiture, but found I was rarely using it at the USP aperture. On analysis, it was going on the body as default, but I was quickly switching to the 70-200 which stayed on for the rest of the day. So I sold it, dropping a minimal amount in the process. Now, with the 100mm macro as my prime portraiture lens, I don't miss it at all.

But, oh boy, it did LOOK GOOD bolted on the front of a 5D . . .

I know it might be a heresy, but did actually anybody tried how Zeiss 100 MP compares to 85L?

Not heresy. But you gotta be willing to manually focus, and in my brief experience trying, a split focus screen or tethered shooting is almost a must.

However, the real reason I returned to this thread is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

I suck, and that's probably why I sold both my 85L's. That lens will mercilessly show how bad one sucks. And it showed me in spades.

Amen. A steep learning curve - it took me three months' intensive to get on top of it. Even at 2-3 metres, DOF was razor-thin wide open, and keeper rate was abysmal. In high pressure situations it was blooming hard work and not very satisfying. The lens was probably beyond my capabilities