85 1.8 / 70-200 4L IS portrait battle wide open

Today I went out with the family and took some portraits with the 85 1.8. Having the 70-200 4L IS with me I thought to replicate some shots at 200mm few minutes later.
Obviously its not a serious test but can give an idea what to expect in real life.
The photos were taken with a 6D in jpeg and are straight out of the camera. No PP except a slight increase of WB in LR for the 85 1.8 which evidenced much cooler tones.

I am curious to know what you see from the two.

For each set first is with 85 @f/1.8 and second with 70-200@200 f/4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zns3​NT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yH5C​hT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zns5​7V

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yGVR​43

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zERo​Fc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/znkA​H9

Not sure what type of response you are looking for ?

I see comparable examples of Bokeh of a 70-100 and an 85mm 1.8...you are showing what telephoto compression is and how you can get it reasonably close to a faster prime.......All good if you have enough room to work at 200MM........Try it at 20FT and see what happens

Also at the different stops you will have to exposure compensate or add some flash compensation in for the difference in the apertures to get similar lighting results. Everything with the zoom at F/4 looks darker

IMO, 85mm f1.8 is more versatile and more appropriate for environmental full body portraiture. I tried both lenses and definatey prefer 85mm. 70-200mm at the shorter does not have sufficient DoF control capability and the longer end not only requires significant space but it will cut a lot of background due to compression. There is better color and smoother color gradation from the L lens - no doubt and evident even when viewing on small iphone screen.
I am very much into all kinds of portraits and currently evaluating 85mm f1.8 vs 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2. Surprisingly, inexpensive 85mm still holds its own in regards to versatility and its sharness at f1.8 compares very well to the gold standard of lenses - 135mm at f/2.

I don't think the OP is trying to elicit any certain response, he just performed an experiment on his own and is showing us the results. Most of us know the way compression and bokeh work, but I found his posting interesting.

Thanks OP!

I have a similar set up myself and have thought about doing the same experiment.

That's correct, I am not after any particular response. Just did this test and thought to share as it could be interesting for some of you. I ve always preferred real life tests over scientific charts.

artsf wrote in post #17741310
IMO, 85mm f1.8 is more versatile and more appropriate for environmental full body portraiture. I tried both lenses and definatey prefer 85mm. 70-200mm at the shorter does not have sufficient DoF control capability and the longer end not only requires significant space but it will cut a lot of background due to compression. There is better color and smoother color gradation from the L lens - no doubt and evident even when viewing on small iphone screen.
I am very much into all kinds of portraits and currently evaluating 85mm f1.8 vs 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2. Surprisingly, inexpensive 85mm still holds its own in regards to versatility and its sharness at f1.8 compares very well to the gold standard of lenses - 135mm at f/2.

If your 85 1.8 is comparable to your 135L you might want to MFA your 135L. The 85 is a nice lens, but not that close to the 135.

artsf wrote in post #17741310
IMO, 85mm f1.8 is more versatile and more appropriate for environmental full body portraiture. I tried both lenses and definatey prefer 85mm. 70-200mm at the shorter does not have sufficient DoF control capability and the longer end not only requires significant space but it will cut a lot of background due to compression. There is better color and smoother color gradation from the L lens - no doubt and evident even when viewing on small iphone screen.
I am very much into all kinds of portraits and currently evaluating 85mm f1.8 vs 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2. Surprisingly, inexpensive 85mm still holds its own in regards to versatility and its sharness at f1.8 compares very well to the gold standard of lenses - 135mm at f/2.

Fully agree. I prefer a FL of 85mm for portraits but feel 1.8 not fully satisfactory for full body where a longer FL or wider aperture would imo better suit the subject.
In fact I am considering either to upgrade to a 85 1.2 or to complement the 85 1.8 with a 135 2L. If released a Sigma 85 Art would solve any budget concern.
The 70-200 would stay as it gets used as a killer lens for landscapes.

Regarding the set above the cheap 85 1.8 is super sharp wide open and doesn't seem to fall too much behind; the L shows more creamy bokeh, better color rendition and contrast though