85L owners, how good is the 70-200 2.8L IS II for portrait?

I am thinking of delaying my purchase of the 85L and use the 70-200 2.8L IS II and 100 2.8L Macro IS, for the meantime, for portraits and whatnots the 85L is capable of (except, of course, bokeh/subject separation). Instead, I will buy the 2X II and 1.4X II extenders for HS sports this spring. Will the 70-200 2.8L IS II + 100 2.8L Macro IS suffice for portaits for now?

Or should I delay the 24-70 2.8L and get the 85L + extenders? But then I will not have a great lens at this focal range.

Or should I just go with the original plan of 24-70L + 85L? But then again, the 200mm is not long enough for field sports like baseball and would mean heavy cropping.

If you were me, what would you do?

If portrait is you main then i dont think nothing can beat the 85L except 200 f2L! Delay the 24-70 and get the 85L! Why is stock pending for 70-200 Mark II? BH, adorama and JR got them in stock!

An 85L will take some beating when you use it on your 5D MK2, the detail, resolution, and sharpness is amazing.
I have not used a 100 macro IS for portraits Perhaps I should try it more.

I think you can only answer this question yourself, how much do you need the range for sports over how much portrait you do.

If you are shooting sports in good light, get a 100-400, it is great on a 5D MK2, and you have more cash for the better studio lenses

faster shutter speed for low light usage.

Well, I love the 70-200 f2.8 IS (MK I) on my 5D II for portraits, so I would think the new MK II would be even better if that is even possible. The 100 L is also a great portrait lens, especially on FF.

They're both awesome lenses. For pure portraits, I'd still choose the 85L. For versatility, 70-200.

MinhThien wrote in post #9885303
If portrait is you main then i dont think nothing can beat the 85L except 200 f2L! Delay the 24-70 and get the 85L! Why is stock pending for 70-200 Mark II? BH, adorama and JR got them in stock!

Long story short, ordered at Amazon directly (not through third parties and it's not currently in stock. I am hoping that they will have it soon. Otherwise, get it somewhere.

bulayog wrote in post #9885210
Will the 70-200 2.8L IS II + 100 2.8L Macro IS suffice for portaits for now?

I think so.

bulayog wrote in post #9885210
If you were me, what would you do?

I'd be happy with my new 70-200, use it a lot, enjoy, and only then I'll know what I am really missing.
Don't rush.

MaDProFF wrote in post #9885417
An 85L will take some beating when you use it on your 5D MK2, the detail, resolution, and sharpness is amazing.
I have not used a 100 macro IS for portraits Perhaps I should try it more.

This is what driving me crazy. I am drooling for it.

MaDProFF wrote in post #9885417
I think you can only answer this question yourself, how much do you need the range for sports over how much portrait you do.

This spring, I am anticipating to be shooting more HS Sports. But also expecting some portraits from these athletes.

MaDProFF wrote in post #9885417
If you are shooting sports in good light, get a 100-400, it is great on a 5D MK2, and you have more cash for the better studio lenses

Most of these are in the afternoon/early evening and the 100-400 is not of consideration currently. Upon seeing some sample photos of the 70-200MII + extenders, I might not need it. I'll be using my 7D for shooting sports.

Ljung wrote in post #9885437
faster shutter speed for low light usage.

TaDa wrote in post #9885655
They're both awesome lenses. For pure portraits, I'd still choose the 85L. For versatility, 70-200.

Agree.

jrscls wrote in post #9885647
Well, I love the 70-200 f2.8 IS (MK I) on my 5D II for portraits, so I would think the new MK II would be even better if that is even possible. The 100 L is also a great portrait lens, especially on FF.

CheshireCat wrote in post #9886129
I think so.

I'd be happy with my new 70-200, use it a lot, enjoy, and only then I'll know what I am really missing.
Don't rush.

These are some of the reasons why I would like to postpone buying the 85L.

I had the 85L, twice! Great lens. If you do more portraits on the go than "controlled", the new 70-200 MKII will no doubt be the better lens because of its versatility, sharp at 2.8 and AF speed. Let me remind you, the 85L AF is slooww, it does better in a controlled setup or when you have to use 1.2

Now, if it was the the original 70-200 MKI, no doubt, I would say the 85L as I was very disappointed in mine (maybe bad copy) at 2.8

I now have the MKII and do enjoy the versatility, I am waiting for the sigma 85 1.4 and see its result.

The 70-200 2.8 IS version 1 that I had was wonderful as a portrait lens on my classic 5D when shooting wide open and the bokeh was also beautiful even stopped down to 2.8 through 3.5 when shooting at focal lenghts between 135 and 170mm, I loved that lens for portraits on my FF. But I had the 85L during that time as well and really didn't like using it, I personally don't like to go shorter than about 100mm equivalent when doing head shots but what really bothered me about the 85L on my 5D classic was that the focus was so slow and bad in the outer focus points which I always used when shooting head shots. I almost sold the lens as I had stopped using it because of too many missed focus shots. I love to use that lens wide open at f 1.2 through f2.

Then I got a MKIII and the 85L 1.2 skyrocketed to #1 favorite for portraits, the focus is fantasctic with that camera, the additional focal lenght equivalnt on the 1.3 crop is really a favorite and I passed off my 70-200 2.8 and replaced it with a 100-400 for more outdoor shooting since I didn't appreciate it as much for portraits. Yes it did turn out beautiful images but I prefer the 85L and also use it a lot for other shooting. I tend to carry the 85L and 24-70 with me most of the time now, with the 85L installed on the camera ready to go. I also use both exclusively now for table top and still life work.

But and this is a big BUT, if you are working with a FF camera, it would definitely be my choice and preference to use the 70-200 2.8 for portrait work, I think it's more versatile. The 85L would be wonderful for head and shoulders, it'll do it, I think it was made for that so many will disagree with me but the focus situation really caused a lot of missed shots and I probably used that lens on my FF for at least 5,000 frames because I really wanted it to be the one. Now on my 1.3 it is #1.

I have a 70-200 II, and currently borrowing an 85L II for another day. Follow the second page of this thread for some results in the next few days:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=843566

Sunray wrote in post #9886468
I had the 85L, twice! Great lens. If you do more portraits on the go than "controlled", the new 70-200 MKII will no doubt be the better lens because of its versatility, sharp at 2.8 and AF speed. Let me remind you, the 85L AF is slooww, it does better in a controlled setup or when you have to use 1.2

Now, if it was the the original 70-200 MKI, no doubt, I would say the 85L as I was very disappointed in mine (maybe bad copy) at 2.8

I now have the MKII and do enjoy the versatility, I am waiting for the sigma 85 1.4 and see its result.

I have tried the 85L with my 5D2 at a pro store and it seems fast for me. I don't know, maybe they have an enhanced demo unit.

xDeLiRiOuSx wrote in post #9886791
I have a 70-200 II, and currently borrowing an 85L II for another day. Follow the second page of this thread for some results in the next few days:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=843566

Can't wait for it! C'mon now, post some SOOC photos.