I'm hoping to find the 85 1.2 can take the place of my 70-200 2.8 IS. I rarely use that lens and when I do it's for portrait work and rarely at the long end. It is mostly when I find my 27-70 just isn't long enough.
I'm hoping to find the 85 1.2 can take the place of my 70-200 2.8 IS. I rarely use that lens and when I do it's for portrait work and rarely at the long end. It is mostly when I find my 27-70 just isn't long enough.
Sadly, I don't think the 85L can take the place of a 70-200/2.8IS. I only leave the 70-200 behind if I'm space-limited, such as when I use her Slingshot 200 camera bag. If nothing else, there are times when f/2.8 is necessary for DoF, and 85mm can rapidly go from hand-holdable (at f/1.2) to shaky (at f/2.8).
Even with unlimited funds, I'd still have 85L and 70-200/2.8IS (and the 200/2), though probably nothing else in that range.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Originally Posted by peety3
<div>
My goal is to have the 200/2 or 300 2.8 in a year or so. I haven't decided which yet.
The 70-200 2.8 IS is the second time I've owned a lens in this range (I also had the f/4 version) and I've found just don't use this range. I don't plan on selling it right away. I'm going to give it a few months and see if the 85 can take it's place. I figure when I need a little more reach I'll use it on the 7D. Rarely what I shoot needs IS. Just recently I shot and awards ceremony and just subtle hand and head movements blurred the shots so the IS didn't help and clearly 2.8 wasn't fast enough. That's what makes me lean toward the 200/2 over the 300/2.8.
</div>
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote