85mm f/1.8 vs 70-200mm f/4 L

mkkaczy wrote in post #16380013
I own both lenses. From my experience AF is much better on 70-200, both are sharp. 85mm has a big CA, which disappears around f/2.5, but much nicer bokeh which is important in portrait work. It is a great lens for small money and if focal length suits you, buy it. But if I had to keep only one that would be 70-200/4.

Totally forgot to mention the CA on the 85...its pretty bad (red fringes everywhere). But its easily correctable. I find myself thinking I'd rather have something in the 100-135mm range though.

Mrslinger85 wrote in post #16380301
Totally forgot to mention the CA on the 85...its pretty bad (red fringes everywhere). But its easily correctable. I find myself thinking I'd rather have something in the 100-135mm range though.

I have it on APS-C sensor, but for FF I also would rather 100-135mm.
Although 70-200 covers 85mm, they different lenses. I use 85mm for portrait if model cooperates with me and 70-200 for anything else.

I'de take the 85 1.8 over the 70-200 anyday. If you're going to stop it down to F4, dont buy it, your zoom is sufficient in sharpness.

I have both and I'm not certain how you would compare them. Unless its for a given job. The prime has the advantage of being small, fast, and gives you shallow DOF at its given length. The zoom is sharp for a zoom, more versatile, and give you more options for perspective control.

BTW, the 70-200 has a really annoying long minimum focusing distance. The 85 f/1.8 has a slightly less annoying MFD. With the 70-200 it wasn't unusual for me to set manual focus to minimum and then move until I get focus confirm and shoot.

FYI: with DPP 3.13.45 the 85/1.8 lens profile has finally been available.

kin2son wrote in post #16379957
The 85 @ f2.8 destroys the zoom @ f4 in terms of sharpness, contrast etc.

There's no contest.

Even with the prime at f4 the 70-200 is sharper than the 85/1.8, not to mention having better colours, less CA etc...
So yes, you're right, there's no contest. The 70-200 is better hands down in terms of IQ. The 85 is better if you want small, light, fast, and cheap.

Sirrith wrote in post #16382029
Even with the prime at f4 the 70-200 is sharper than the 85/1.8, not to mention having better colours, less CA etc...
So yes, you're right, there's no contest. The 70-200 is better hands down in terms of IQ. The 85 is better if you want small, light, fast, and cheap.

Looking at the digital picture, I'm not so sure...

f2.8 vs f4 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Centre frame looks pretty much identical, and tbh who cares about mid to corner when you are taking a portrait shot @ large aperture.

They are pretty much neck to neck by f4.

Luckily I own the Sigma 85, it's as sharp as the 70-200 f4 @ f2.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Just another case of you get what you pay for.

kin2son wrote in post #16382093
Looking at the digital picture, I'm not so sure...

f2.8 vs f4 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Centre frame looks pretty much identical, and tbh who cares about mid to corner when you are taking a portrait shot @ large aperture.

They are pretty much neck to neck by f4.

Centre frame, yes, they're extremely close. But we're talking IQ overall. And not just sharpness either, but colours (granted, this is subjective), CA etc... and the 70-200 trumps the 85/1.8 when it comes to all of these in addition to the edges.

Sirrith wrote in post #16382160
and the 70-200 trumps the 85/1.8 when it comes to all of these in addition to the edges.

I wouldn't use the word trumps (thou I used destroy)

Like most mid range consumer prime, you sacrifice a lil sharpness and such for speed.

I still think the zoom is good only because it's slow....I mean most lens is sharp @ f4 and smaller...70-300L is the perfect example.

Different horses for different courses, I'd pick the prime over a slow zoom for portrait any given day.

Sibil wrote in post #16379955
My 70-200 f/4 non-IS has better IQ than my 85/1.8 at any f-stop.

Any? like f2 on a f4 lens is pretty amazing fwiw

and DOF Is not the end all be all, but its hard to say it has better IQ @ 1.8

I was blown away by how sharp my 85 f1.8 is...I got one via refurb just a while ago and damn..It's a keeper for sure...sharper than my 50 f1.4 at 1.8 buy quite a bit...I've shot it a bunch at 1.8 and it nails focus, nice and sharp

I sold my 135L and 200 2.8L when I got a 70-200 2.8. I still have the 85 1.8, but it has not been mounted since I bought the 70-200 2.8.

davidfarina wrote in post #16379934
Well i bought the 50 1.2 and used it once at 2.8

In Illinois you could be fined for doing that!

Sirrith wrote in post #16382029
Even with the prime at f4 the 70-200 is sharper than the 85/1.8, not to mention having better colours, less CA etc...
So yes, you're right, there's no contest. The 70-200 is better hands down in terms of IQ. The 85 is better if you want small, light, fast, and cheap.

The f/4 non-IS? No, absolutely not. The IS is much better.

Unless you get a really bad copy of the 85mm. I'm the first to admit that it has some issues with variance, but I had no difficulty finding one with low CA and good AF. The 70-200 seems to be more consistent.