85mm 1.4 if I already have 70-200 2.8?

The Sigma 85mm 1.4 art is SO tempting, but I am trying to decide if it's worth getting if I already have a 70-200 2.8. I love how shallow the depth of field is on 85mm prime lenses around 1.6 is, but i'm not sure if the difference will be worth it. What do you guys think? Is the 85mm 1.4 a good addition to having a 70-200 2.8, or does it kind of become a little redundant?

JeremyKPhoto wrote in post #18157265
The Sigma 85mm 1.4 art is SO tempting, but I am trying to decide if it's worth getting if I already have a 70-200 2.8. I love how shallow the depth of field is on 85mm prime lenses around 1.6 is, but i'm not sure if the difference will be worth it. What do you guys think? Is the 85mm 1.4 a good addition to having a 70-200 2.8, or does it kind of become a little redundant?

if you have the funds and shoot a lot of portraits, then i definitely don't think it is redundant, the lens is still going to give you a different look compared to the 70-200 also you may not always have the space to work at 200mm if you're wanting to maximise the shallow DOF

I got an 85mm/1.4 even though I already had the big 2.8 zoom. What happened. I very rarely used the zoom again. The 85mm was lighter, faster and very versatile. Better in low light. Fast to focus. Great images. Easy to get rid of busy backgrounds and distractions when taking candid images at events.

After I got the 85, I only brought the zoom if I knew I needed images at a greater distance, such as events where mobility is restricted. Otherwise, my bag was lighter .

So for me, the answer is an easy "yes." For you it depends on what you photograph and how you work.

A fast 85mm prime is definitely worth it, they are totally different and create very different images.

2 stops I find is a good difference. I have 2 stops between my 17/50 and 30/1.4 and my 70-200/4 and 135/2. Although if I upgraded to a 70-200/2.8, I am not so sure how much I would use the 135/2.

I have and use both. The f/2.8 zoom for close ups. The f/1.4 prime for wider shots.

FEChariot wrote in post #18157417
2 stops I find is a good difference. I have 2 stops between my 17/50 and 30/1.4 and my 70-200/4 and 135/2. Although if I upgraded to a 70-200/2.8, I am not so sure how much I would use the 135/2.

Yeah, I basically agree with that. I sold off a 135/2 because the one stop difference from the 70-200/2.8 wasn't enough to make it worthwhile. I do still have an 85L which is 2 and 1/3 stops faster.

If funds were at all tight though.....I'd keep the the 70-200/2.8 IS II and probably not have the 85L. The occasional shot at the very fast apertures is nice to have, but realistically the zoom can pretty much cover most needs.

Thanks for the input everyone! You definitely helped me feel better about getting the 85 1.4 . I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be something that would collect dust if it wee close to the same images produced from the 70-200. Now I just have to wait for the dang thing to release lol.

Two stops!

Yes for me it's worth it, but you didn't say what body? I used the 135/2 almost exclusively on crop (and liked the resulting focal length). I bought my 70-200/2.8 around the same time as I switched full-time to FF. Now, I don't use the 135 so much, because 200 gives me roughly the same result.

An additional consideration is the body (+grip) with the lens - how does it feel? I love the 1Dx/70-200 combo, it feels nicely balanced. The 135 is OK on the 1Dx, but still feels a bit small. On the other hand, I don't really care for the 85/1.2 with the 1Dx, so will probably leave this mated to the 6D (without grip).

Get the 1.4, see how you go, and maybe consider trading down to the 70-200/4L?

Good luck, and post some images!

Once i got the 85 1.4 I never really used the zoom again. Even to this date with still owning a couple 70-200s I don't use them much. That 85 1.4 just gives you a look you cannot find elsewhere. The 50 1.4 doesn't really come close and you really need a 135 F2 or 200 2.8 to get to that look but then the overall feel is a compressed telephoto look where the 85 keeps a more normal perspective with lots of separation.

Talley, I'm very glad to hear that. My Canon 70-200 II was on my camera most of the time. This make the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art a much better purchase to use as my regular walk around lens for portrait, low light, and bokeh machine

Go for it. I used to use the 100 macro as a portrait lens, then got the 135L and the macro went back to, well, being a macro. That one stop difference was very noticable! A 2 stop difference even more!

I'm in the same boat - have the 70-200 2.8 II (and 90mm 2.8), but want to get the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art for the faster shutter potential. From everything I can find comparing similar lenses, the images both are capable of creating are not likely to be dramatically different, but will be subtly different. But I shoot a fair amount of indoor performance stuff and usually end up at 2.8 ISO 3200 to keep the shutter around 1/200 on 6D/MKIII. Having the extra stopping power would be useful - but is it really worth an another $1200 (add to that I just received the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (after my 12-24mm AF died and Sigma discounted the new lens for me)).

...I just want it

Agree with Talley

I rarely use my 70-200

zooms cant do F/1.2-2.0

I would get the 85 in a heartbeat

As an update, I've recently purchased the Canon 85/1.4L - absolutely no regrets.