Returning 85L for 70-200ii...

Bit of background, I do wedding photography and my bread and butter lens is a 35mm sigma prime (on a full frame). It's perfect. Picking out a medium telephoto lens for portraits and reach has been much more difficult however.

I recently purchased the 85L thinking that as I do for wider focal lengths, i'd prefer a fast prime. However, after a couple of weeks with it I just am not gelling with it.

Sure, I've gotten a few pretty decent photos but to be honest, I guess I'm not a big fan of >50mm focal lengths as I don't like that huge compression effect. I don't like it when the background has been completely reduced to nothingness. I've used the 135L and 85L now and both have the same problem for me. Even when I get a good image out of them, I look at them and think "i'd rather have gotten closer and taken that with a fast 35mm/50mm".

Is that weird?

The reason why I got the 85L over the 70-200mm is not liking the bokeh as much on the 70-200 (it can look messy at times). So it would simply come down to having the 70-200mm on a second body just for reach when I can't use my fast wide prime or if I want to do a headshot.

I thought I'd ask before returning the 85L... am I crazy?

I feel the zoom is more useful, but I also prefer longer lens portraits, each to their own. I love the S35 too, but reach for a longer lens when filling the frame with the subject

While the 70-200 is wider at 70 than the 85, for me it feels more compressed to shoot with a 70-200.

Maybe you should stick with everything below the 50mm if you don't like the compression. Safe your money for a nice 24 and 50 or 24-70LII!

But I have to say: The 85LII is my favorite wedding lens.. I prefer it well above the 70-200

I'd say that you might be crazy...

I mean, if you are shooting weddings, the 85 will produce WOW images for clients. That melted background is pure gold to many people, and it will be the reason your images seem professional in comparison to what grandpa with a rebel and a kit lens gets.

I'm not pro by any means, but my experience working with the few clients I have is that they will pick a melted background photo over a defined one almost all the time. You could always stop down to increase DoF.

I know your images are your statement as well, but I think client desires trumps a shooters desires.

85L is great for posed portraits, but for weddings, you will want the zoom instead.

I understand everyone's position on this - but I see it purely as personal choice - if you don't want it, then you don't want it.
At the end of the day we are all individuals and as such we make individual choices based on our own unique decision criteria.

SamFrench wrote in post #16451777
I understand everyone's position on this - but I see it purely as personal choice - if you don't want it, then you don't want it.
At the end of the day we are all individuals and as such we make individual choices based on our own unique decision criteria.

yeah, this is a great point. if you don't like it, you wont want to use it, so move it.

the 70-200 ii seems amazing from everything I've seen about it, and it give you great images and flexibility of a zoom.

I think the 85 L II compliments the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II very nicely. I don't use the 85 L for weddings all that much, but it is my favorite portrait lens. The 70-200 is great for versatility and for tighter head shots. The OP is using a 7D, consider a full frame body as I found the 70-200 a bit awkward on crop and the 85 a bit long during portrait sessions.

jrscls wrote in post #16451967
I think the 85 L II compliments the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II very nicely. I don't use the 85 L for weddings all that much, but it is my favorite portrait lens. The 70-200 is great for versatility and for tighter head shots. The OP is using a 7D, consider a full frame body as I found the 70-200 a bit awkward on crop and the 85 a bit long during portrait sessions.

he says his main setup is sigma 35 on fullframe, but his sig says 7d, not sure what he has.

Jerobean wrote in post #16451761
I'd say that you might be crazy...

I mean, if you are shooting weddings, the 85 will produce WOW images for clients. That melted background is pure gold to many people, and it will be the reason your images seem professional in comparison to what grandpa with a rebel and a kit lens gets.

I'm not pro by any means, but my experience working with the few clients I have is that they will pick a melted background photo over a defined one almost all the time. You could always stop down to increase DoF.

I know your images are your statement as well, but I think client desires trumps a shooters desires.

That's one of the biggest reasons for getting it in the first place. I do have plans on getting a 24L/50L combination on top of my 35 however, so the 50L will probably get me the DOF I want and be closer to a lens that fits my style a bit more. Getting the 70-200 will allow me to spend my money on those two lenses rather than having to get more lenses with reach!

Jerobean wrote in post #16452015
he says his main setup is sigma 35 on fullframe, but his sig says 7d, not sure what he has.

Was a VERY old signature haha, updated.

Bonbridge wrote in post #16451077
While the 70-200 is wider at 70 than the 85, for me it feels more compressed to shoot with a 70-200.

Maybe you should stick with everything below the 50mm if you don't like the compression. Safe your money for a nice 24 and 50 or 24-70LII!

But I have to say: The 85LII is my favorite wedding lens.. I prefer it well above the 70-200

I'm thinking my kit will end up being two 6D's (maybe a 5D3 instead but the advantages seem to be slim for me), Sigma 35 and 70-200ii and then either the 24L+50L or the 24-70ii as 35mm alternatives.

SamFrench wrote in post #16451777
I understand everyone's position on this - but I see it purely as personal choice - if you don't want it, then you don't want it.
At the end of the day we are all individuals and as such we make individual choices based on our own unique decision criteria.

This ^^^

Reading your post answers your question.... Personally I can't imagine shooting a wedding without both and at least 3 cameras (personal opinion)....

How on earth do you do it? Mostly video I guess?

Right now I am picturing you running around scared with 1 6D+35mm...

jerbear00 wrote in post #16452631
This ^^^

Reading your post answers your question.... Personally I can't imagine shooting a wedding without both and at least 3 cameras (personal opinion)....

How on earth do you do it? Mostly video I guess?

Right now I am picturing you running around scared with 1 6D+35mm...

I'll clarify. I've been a photography hobbyist for years and sometimes do fashion jobs. I do wedding video professionally with a team using multiple C100's. I'm very comfortable in wedding environments - love it in fact. I'm just starting up my photography operation and since I run a film company I've had the opportunity of testing the waters at some weddings after bringing some extra video operators (with the blessing of the couple and official photographer). Perks of already being in the industry and being a charmer I suppose

I don't want to photograph too many weddings per year. However, I love doing it and people have always loved my photographs and so often ask us to do photography not just film. It wasn't until I had some trial runs and figured out what I needed that I feel like I can ramp things up!

So yes, multiple bodies are in order (I was thinking two rather than three though, but we'll see) and I've just been figuring out what lenses would be best. I had trouble in key moments with the 6D+35+85 but luckily I wasn't officially there to photograph.

I would never ever ever take on a wedding as the official photographer with just one 6D and 35mm lens!!!!!

I just swapped out the 85L for the 70-200ii today in any case. I'll feel a lot more comfortable with that permanently strapped to a second body. Now just time to decide between a 24-70ii and a 24L+50L and also if I should get a 6D or a 5D3!

Not crazy,it sounds like you might be happier with a 24-70 II