It looks like the two images are mixed up at 4:41. the 100mm looks more like the 200mm should look. The Canon 100mm L macro is super too, probably a lot sharper than the 70 - 200.
Hugh Sweeney I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the 2 focal lengths were flopped! I bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II last fall and it is amazingly sharper compared to my previous three 2.8 versions. Is it prime sharp? Maybe not, but it's so damn close! Not sure if this link will post: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154291309640405&set=pb.184563975404.-2207520000.1404711099.&type=1&theater
Yes, I own both and I do shoot a lot of portrait. You may combat the camera/lens shake with IS/VR/VC or whatever but you can't combat motion blur if you are shooting at 1/60 or slower. Also, like what was covered here, you can create something special with 1.2/1.4. Trust me, you will be shocked to see the difference in background rendering. I use 70-200 mostly but for a dedicated portrait session, 85 wins all the time.
Just for portraiture the 85 mm (1.2, 1.4 or 1.8) is a step up in quality that you can achieve. The isolation and contrast is superb, but 70-200 is also a very good lens, also did some portrait work with it. It's great allrounder, much more you can do than with 85 mm. However just for portrait 85mm is a great lens (on FF and on crop).
Hi Matt. At about 4:40 on this video you're comparing 100mm and 200mm shots, but it looks like the shots are swapped. The 100mm shot has the more compressed background like a 200mm would be.
Pretty sure you're getting mixed up with depth of field. With the same framing at 100mm vs 200mm you will have more depth of field at 200mm because the subject is further away. You also had the examples around the wrong way. This is why telephoto lenses can be better for portrait photography because you get more of your subject in sharp focus and less background for better separation.
So I looked it up and actually the depth of field on the subject is the same if the apertures are the same with the same subject framing. What I was trying to explain is that the 200mm effectively magnifies the background bringing it closer and making it look more blurred creating more separation. This graph shows what is going on: howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-100mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
Im agree with you at 4:48 the left imagage is at 200mm and the right is at 100mm definitely and without a doubt, is someone cant notice this, definitely dosnt deserve to be named as a pro photographer, you can see clearly at the left an aparentely closest background, more blur, and "bigger palm tree at the back
Hi Matt, you labelled the images incorrectly at 4.39. The 200mm both has a shallower DOF (as per your calculations beforehand) and brings the background elements closer. The model stays the same size because you doubled the focal length and doubled the distance. However, in relation to the background you moved a neglible amount backwards and doubled the lens, effectively magnifying the background (making it appear closer)
One thing you did not discuss is what is the best type of bokeh Eg the palm trees Where you can make out the palm trees? Or where they are just a blur Which would win a photo competition?
Dear Matt! I bought the 70-200 f4, for my NIKON D800 and I LOVE IT!! Also for portraits! I've seen many reviews with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 and some primes (NIKON). The 70-200 f4 came out as TEST WINNER! So I bought it! Btw, I LOVE your work! You inspire me enormously! I check you website (s) every day! Please keep up the GREAT work! You reallllllly inspire me!!!! Best of greetings from the Netherlands (Eindhoven). Vincent Pothuizen
It is not the issue of the focal length, but *how the lens was designed*. Those boring 3x zooms have too many optical elements in them; in other words, too much glass, and produce boring and flat images, with zero character. You see one, you see them all. It is visual confectionery. On the other hand, there is visual art. A well-designed prime lens will have less elements, far better optical glass, and may render astonishingly beautiful 3D image, or, enhance some other optical quality of the photograph, like micro-contrast and colour, the way bohkeh is rendered, etc. which lens designer has chosen as a goal. Take a portrait with Leica's 75mm Cron lens, or Pentax's 77mm designed by Jun Hirakawa, and then use 70-200 at 75 or 77 mm; print photographs and you will never touch 70-200 again.
I saw you were shooting with Canon 70-200mm lens. For most people Matt Granger says the 70-200mm is best choice. I agree it's more flexible with focal lengths and the narrow field of view works really well for head shots. Plus 70-200 gives the background more compression which I really like. Cannon at 200mm is great for head shots.
since i'm doing video, i just got a Canon 70-200 f.2.8 (non IS) and an Rokinon 85mm T.1.5 (manual focus, cine lens) and i'm very happy with both. The 85mm at T.1.5 (f.1.4) is perfect for interviews (and i guess portraits) when you want to really isolate your subject, meanwhile the 70-200 at 135 or 200mm gives me greater compression and is also great for pictures (since its got autofocus). I'd say get both, you'll find use for it. A cheaper alternative would be the Canon 85 f.1.8 (around $400)
Zoom lenses are more forgiving. I find it harder to have bad photos. Many of them are good photos. Prime lenses require a lot of shots. The awful ones are terrible. However, when you nail a shot with a prime lens, it looks amazing. The clarity of the focus is unmatched in a zoom lens.
at 4:34 I think you accidentally changed the places of titles and pictures (because left one definitely looks like the 200mm and right one like 100mm), not the other way around. Am I correct??
Yes, you are right. You can go few seconds back and match, the one with two palm trees coming out of her head is @ 100 mm. and not the other way around.
70-200 is a big heavy lens for portraits. The 85 will be a lot less weight and bulk if portraits are your purpose. What about the 24-70mm zoomed all the way in?
two things. first, it's good you addressed subject magnification wrt to DoF even if you didnt get into it that much. the second is that I cannot agree with your assessment regarding the sharpness / fine detail reproduction of the 70-200 f2.8 gen 2 lenses compared to 85s. The zooms take it at all equivalent apertures. they carry contrast to finer resolutions considerably better. Not that it matters. I would like to see you buy/borrow/rent a 135 APO sonnar and compare it to the 85L for a video.
This was not his best work - obviously too shaky and missed focus. We had a mix up and no one brought stabiliser and this was first time using this camera. We have shot since with his own camera and rig and results are much better. Apologies for this one
Hi Matt. It appears that you switched the images at 4:34. Photo on the left is probably taken at 200mm. Great comparison, though. And perfect timing. I own 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm thinking about purchasing the 85mm 1.4 from Sigma (f/1.2 from Canon is little bit expensive for me).
Matt you rock..Big fan of yours from Ireland! Canon or Nikon, your videos are great. I shoot Canon and still watch all your videos. Keep up the good work man, These guys are just key board warriors, it shouldn't matter what you shoot with, photography is what you make it.
7 лет назад+1
son 2 lentes totalmente diferentes, uno tiene la virtud de la luminosidad, pero es fijo y poca construcción que lo hace muy exacto en enfoque. , el otro es un zoom que ahorra movimientos. el boké de las fotografías pueden ser parecidos, en 85 1.8 y 200 2.8, pero sin duda lo que cambia es el fondo de lo desenfocado. en 200, el objeto desenfocado es mas grande que en 85
just one point about the relative DoF.. You say they're 'pretty similar' 6cm vs 4cm but that's a 50% difference the way I view it and Very significant ----
One diffrence is, there is a subtle olor-shift and the 70-200mm seems a touch "warmer/ magenta" wheras the 85mm is a touch cooler/ neutral. Assuning that you are on a tripod nd keeping the exact same distance at least (camera angles are a touch off) the 70-200mm has a much more pronounced "flattening" of the perspective. It's an interesting comparison for sure but I generally prefer an 85mm for a 3/4 style portrait and a 100mm for a headshot.
Can anyone verbalize the difference of bokeh between 85 prime and 70200@85 (both F 2.8)? I didn't see much other than the color rendering and I think Matt didn't specify much about it.
Like Matt said, compression is the biggest difference besides light gathering capabilities between these two lenses. There is also subject rapport to consider. A 70-200 is a HUGE lens which may be intimidating to your subject whereas a prime might be less scary :). On a side note, this is exactly why I picked up a 60 yo russian rangefinder for my street photography over my D700. People give a totally different reaction based on what kind of camera you are using...which in my case is What's That?
An 85mm 1.2 is 2k, that's what I paid for my 70-200 2.8, so you still pay for that extra 2 1/2 stops, in dark areas where you need to freeze action thats very handy, but since the video was talking portraits where the subject is normally still I didn't think it applied. Yes they do different things, I'm just pointing out that the 70-200 has some very useful portrait features that an 85 lacks.
Something to concider for portraits is that the 70-200's all come with VR/VC/IS, and you can make up for the lack of light vs a 85 prime with a slower shutter, and still keep sharp shots! This becomes even more of a benifit when you want to keep some DOF in your shots and shoot at say 5.6. I've taken shots as low as 1/6th with the VRII (something I didn't think was possible). While I'd love to have an 85mm, I just can't find a way to justify it.
I was thinking about getting the (canon) 85 f1.8 to use alongside my 70-200 for weddings (I shoot 2 bodies). Good idea? Too specialist? I thought it would be great for the end of the night when your arms are about to fall off too!
Who was your DOP today Matt? A little struggle with the AF me thinks... Video> steadycam>manual focus...or a tripod! I'm happy to see you two beautiful creatures on a locked off. (Can I come to Oz and work for you?)
Good comparison. I personally love the 70-200mm, due to its flexibility and find that the 85mm rarely comes out of my bag. My favourite lens though is the Zess 85mm 1.4 Planer T, which for me is the best feeling lens you can buy (though not optically in the same league as the Canon 85mm 1.2 or Nikkor 85mm 1.4) and the lack of AF can mean it take time to focus, even with the in camera manual focus meter. But it feels just a little bit more special than any other lens I have ever used.
Hi Matt, I think there is a mistake @ 4:38 if we consider the background : Your calculator says DOF is 0.04m @ 200mm & 0.06 m @ 100mm. So, look at the background, the bokeh of the shot on the left looks more diffused, more blurry and compressed than the one on the pict on the right. So ... wouldn´t be the contrary, @200mm on the left and @100m on the right ? Kind regards.
Hello. I make a living with real estate and interior design photography. Occasionally, I provide head-shots for my cleints, cover events etc... I currently have the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8. Which lens makes the best business sense to own. I'm considering the versatility of the focal range and its aperture. At first I thought of acquiring the 85 1.8 rather than sinking four times as much on the 70-200. But I think that the 85mm is extremely specialized. Not only that, given that I shoot on location, I have to adapt the various spaces provided by the client. Essentially, the 85mm might be too long for tight spaces. Is having the 70-200 the smartest purchase? PS, this is going on a D800. Thanks in advance for feedback.
I have both the 85mm f1.2 and 70-200mm IS II and I think 70-200 is the best when it comes to sharpness, contrast, and speed and I'm not having a problems with the chromatic aberration specially at 200mm unlike the 85mm but I always use the 85mm over the 7-200 at portrait mainly because of the awesomeness of the 1.2 :D
It is said that 135 often misses the focus, I was not advised to buy it, I have the 70-200 2.8 with a stabilizer and happy ochen.No 85 1.2 also really want a very good lens
any plans on reviewing the 135L? Curious to hear your opinion against the 85L. For portrait I use a Sigma 50 and 135L combo, have the X100s if I really need to shoot 35mm
What is that camera strap that you are using on your 1D-X? It looks so much better than the normal strap, and I would love one like that for event shoots.
I guess it depends on what you need. If you shoot a LOT of portraits and don't need the 200mm then a prime lens is the better choice, those are usually sharper than zoom lenses as well. I find the Walimex/Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4 to be very interesting. Sure, it has no AF but do you really need that for portraits? Plus it only costs about 300€, about 1/5 of what Nikon's 85mm 1.4g costs! I would go for the zoom lens as well though, it's more versatile.
the 85mm 1.8G nikon is way cheaper than 70-200mm 2.8 SIGMA (& of course any other brand). I am shooting mostly events indoors, but occasionally portrait. So which lens do you suggest for me Matt Granger ? .. cheers..
I love both lenses equally but as far as best portrait lens for best image I'd go with 85mm it has the best color rendition and sharpness of the two, but for usage for events that are mixed with portrait situations I'd lean towards, the 70-200mm, still great images with the flexibility to re-frame a subject without having to move too much.
I like the 85 mm, but it really takes a while to learn how to handle this lens. The first few shots I got many miss focus just because I was breathing when I press the shutter, the DOF is very shallow. But as soon as I can handle it, the results and the bokeh are so dramatic...
I had a fixed 50mm that I ended up selling because it was hardly getting used. That's just the kind of photography I do. A fixed lens of that focal length doesn't make sense for nature photography. I need the versatility of a zoom, some folks don't. All of that depth of field math just has little meaning to a fan of the zoom lens so maybe this is more for the potrait taker I guess.
consider getting a second hand higher end model, like the d7000 or d300 i think. I started entry level but soon moved to second hand semi-pro camera cos the handling, af and fps is so much better....
Thank you for the video... Very informative. I've been looking for a good camera sling and notice you're using one. What brand are you using (holding the 70-200mm) and are you satisfied with the quality. Thank you in advance.
Great videos as always. But Help.! I have Nikon D7000 ( with Nikon Grip ); Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4 looked at buying Nikon D600; but glass I own would not do justice ( or would it ) or buy . Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 O/S or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. Would like to shoot portraits and possibly fashion portraits inside and out .. Do I cut losses; sell gear and buy Nikon D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens.Or D600 body and 2nd hand 85mm or Samyang 85mm f1.4 Any suggestions greatly received.
It's not about the lens focal length that makes a great portrait, it's the type of portrait and the narrative. If you are shooting beauty, a 180mm-300mm f2.8 is the way to go as it has the right perspective of the face and it's shape, It flattens the perspective. I use a Hasselblad 150mm or a 250mm with an extension tube. 85mm is mainly a 3/4 length portrait lens, basically waist up. nothing closer or there will be distortion on the face, nose etc. Shoot with primes, they are generally, faster sharper and lighter. if it's an environmental portrait, where you want to include the subject in their environment or surroundings, then use 50mm down to 24mm keep the lens level and parallel to walls, doors etc, to limit the distortion as you go wider. I tend to use a 28mm as most of my environmental portraits are indoors in offices or rooms.
yes, pretty much. on canon you'd have 80mm, on nikon 75mm. but buying an 1.4 doesn't give you 1.4 on a crop sensor, it gives you something around 2.1-2.2 (full frame equivalent). you should take that into account.
Matt, at 4:35, the 100mm and 200mm label should be swapped. The photo on the left is shot at 200mm and the one on the right is 100mm because you definitely see a wider angle as shown by more background coverage. Please check your metadata and somehow correct this video.
I have a bit of a dilemma and would love to get a tips wich to choose, I own a DX camera (D3200), and allready own a 35mm 1.8G and I love it, I get such sharp pictures with it, but I have that problem of distortion when close up portraiture and I am now looking to get a new lens, and my mind was allways set on the 85mm 1.8G, but then I started thinking about the 50mm 1.4G, it is a little bit cheaper, and would work better in low light situations..... the 50mm will be then on my camera equavelent (dunno how to spell it) to 75mm, but what about the 85mm? seen great reviews on both of them, but my head keep telling me go for the 85mm..
No it wouldn't be equivalent. It will have 50mm perspective - not ideal for flattering portrait, (mostly head shots). For portrait, 85mm is better focal length, even on crop. Also 35 and 50 is fairly close, so you must decide, whether it makes sense for you, to have both...
85mm on a cropped Nikon sensor is equivalent to a lens with 127mm FOV. A bit too tight for portraits IMO. I would go with the 50mm also. Here is a link to a cropped sensor calculator www.digified.net/focallength/
What lens was used for this video seems like it focus on both of you plus the back ground tree.I'm looking for a lens like that for a video. This is like the iPhone camera. Thanks I'm advance
I have APS-C DSLR with 55-200 lens, want to buy Full frame 85 F/1.8 lens but when attached to my APS-C DSLR it will give me field of view similar 127.5 mm of Full frame. Now to know how much working space is required should I 1st try out with my 55-200 set at 85 mm or 120 mm. I am not after bokeh but better IQ & subject compression, sinec my 55-200 lens version is doesnt have sharpness I want.
If you have an APS-c camera and want to know what the 85mm will look like then set the 55-200 at 85mm and look through the lens, if you dont want to stand so far back for a head and shoulders shot then use a 50 1.4 or 1.8 which will be equivilent to 75mm on full frame.
@thatnikonguy it seems like you accidentally mixed up the 100mm / 200mm shots at around 04:35 (more compression on the left one, but the title says "@100mm", etc.).
what about 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? I mean I'm not one to argue about this but it all just seems effortless with that lens. It feels like that one lens you'd take with you if you had to pick only one while on an adventure. Although it is nearly 2 thousand dollars...
Hi Matt, I'm somewhat confused with what camera you are you using these days? i know this video is old but still I've always knew you to me the Nikon guy but with video here throws me completely... are you saying that canon lens are better the Nikon or just the 70-200 2.8/f and the 85mm 1.2/f?
I have 35mm 2.0, 16-28mm 2.8. And I am looking for a lens that I can take portrait and landscape. I think I will more likely take photos of my family and friends, but still I often go travel around. In that case, should I buy 70-200mm 2.8 or 85mm 1.2? Or maybe 24-70mm 2.8 and 24-105mm 4? If I have choose only one from them, which lens should I go for? I am struggling for weeks to make a decision!! Any suggestions will be appreciated!
70-200 lens is fantastic but with a version III (3) 2X converter attached, it becomes a very accurate and tack sharp 400 mm lens with very little vignetting. Which I am not worried about really as usually add a bit of vignetting in Photoshop anyway.... Sell your 70-200 on eBay. They are Gold. If you have the version II Canon f:2.8 L series 70-200 EF USM version II like I have, they are worth a fortune. Never lose value. Good luck with the 85 only, if portraits are all you do.
She decided to deep throat it.....hahahahaha that's the best thing you've ever said. I literally fell out of my chair laughing. Quite the difference in that prime. It's on the list :-|
Im not a pro, but I just use 85mm f1.8 on a Nikon FA shooting Fuji Superia, gives that classic warm grainy film look with good skin tones my digitals cant produce.
I'm assuming your shooting on a full frame camera.....if you had a crop sensor camera like the Canon 7D, what you you recommend for a great portrait lens? My requirements are ultra sharpness, great background blur and a cost of around $1500. I currently own the 50mm 1.4 (non L). It's great for portraits, but I would like image stabilization for lower light and/or moving subjects. Thanks for any help.
maybe you can have a look at 24-105L. main reasons for my recommendation: 1. price is now a bargain. 2. you're using an APS-C camera. main shortcoming of this lens is the edge quality which is not an issue for you. other than these two things, background blur... I 'm not sure whether it meets your requirement. it's said to be average but bokeh is really subjective.
dgfsxgf Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I definitely considered that lens. The one thing that was holding me back was that it only goes to a f4 aperture. I believe it has image stabilization, but the f4 isn't very good for low light situations.
graphicartdude The BEST canon crop sensor lens I've ever used is the EFS 17-55 f/2.8. From personal experience, this lens is much sharper than the 24-105. (I've owned and used both). It's 2.8 and has IS. It gives you a field of view of about 27mm to 88mm, which is extremely usable. Once it's on your body, you'll rarely ever need to swap lenses. Only downside is that it's purely for crop sensors. If you have no intention of getting a full frame body, I truly recommend it 100%.
nasri I agree with you. 17-55 f2.8 matches the needs best (and is a perfect EF-S lens). regarding sharpness, I'm not sure if it's right to say 17-55 is much sharper than 24-105. I would say it is much sharper near the edge. For center area, 24-105 is actually one of the sharpest (even sharper than 24-70 f2.8L).
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I'm pretty convinced with the 17-55mm...I'm just concerned about the faulty IS problem and dust issues that seem to plague this lens. I'm also wondering if it's best to just go with prime lenses for higher quality. I already have the 50mm 1.4 (non L) which I really like...I was thinking about going with the 135mm and maybe the 10-22mm. But this 17-55mm would really come in handy for versatile shooting. It's a tough decision. Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.
The difference between a FF & DX camera is that the DX picture is a "cropped" version of the FF picture. The perspective of a picture taken with a DX sensor is the same as the perspective of the picture taken with a FF sensor using the same lens. The difference between the two pictures is that the DX sensor takes a picture with a smaller angle of view because it has been "cropped". So a picture taken with a 50mm lens will have the angle of view of a 75mm lens, but the perspective and DoF of a 50mm lens.
Doctor_KDS Shaft nonsense is that? The perspective depends only on the distance. Using a longer lens or cropping give exactly same results on perspective if the shooting location is same.
@4:40 the left image is taken at 200 and the right one at 100. Simply look at the background
Liciu SVisual Exactly what I was about to point out but you had already mentioned it. Thanks :)
It looks like the two images are mixed up at 4:41. the 100mm looks more like the 200mm should look. The Canon 100mm L macro is super too, probably a lot sharper than the 70 - 200.
Hugh Sweeney I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the 2 focal lengths were flopped! I bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II last fall and it is amazingly sharper compared to my previous three 2.8 versions. Is it prime sharp? Maybe not, but it's so damn close! Not sure if this link will post: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154291309640405&set=pb.184563975404.-2207520000.1404711099.&type=1&theater
cool, I'd love one of those lenses too.
Hugh Sweeney I want to take professional quality photography but does this mean I have to buy a red ring lens?
No, it means you have to be good!
Your lens matches her sweater
6:43, yep totally looking at her face.
Do you have it in f/16?
yup looking at the face lol haha
how are you taking a naked shot in a law library??????
Three years ago and still vitally relevant! Thank you Matt
at 4:33 min during shots comparision, 100mm shot has been swapped with 200mm shot. mistake while editing the video
I noticed that as well
Yes, I own both and I do shoot a lot of portrait. You may combat the camera/lens shake with IS/VR/VC or whatever but you can't combat motion blur if you are shooting at 1/60 or slower. Also, like what was covered here, you can create something special with 1.2/1.4. Trust me, you will be shocked to see the difference in background rendering. I use 70-200 mostly but for a dedicated portrait session, 85 wins all the time.
Just for portraiture the 85 mm (1.2, 1.4 or 1.8) is a step up in quality that you can achieve. The isolation and contrast is superb, but 70-200 is also a very good lens, also did some portrait work with it. It's great allrounder, much more you can do than with 85 mm. However just for portrait 85mm is a great lens (on FF and on crop).
Just purchased a rokinon 85mm f1.4 manual focus, the sharpness is amazing. Cost under $300 on amazon
that deep throat
+Crimson tiger nice avatar bruh
+Crimson tiger hahahaha I thought what the hell is going on there?! :D
lol
OK no one else like this comment because it now has 69 likes and I think that is perfect
Octahedron lol thanks
Hi Matt. At about 4:40 on this video you're comparing 100mm and 200mm shots, but it looks like the shots are swapped. The 100mm shot has the more compressed background like a 200mm would be.
wow and i thought that i got it wrong, but i was right! they really are swapped !
I noticed this too. I was trying to figure out why I thought I was wrong, but it turns out I'm not the only one.
ZyklonB95 PS, I love Tina!!!
6:57 her face when she finds out the price haha :')
Sarah Buxton OMG yes! she said "give me that!"
The focal length of the photos in 4:49 were wrongly state,@100mm should be the effect of 200mm and vise versa.
Pretty sure you're getting mixed up with depth of field. With the same framing at 100mm vs 200mm you will have more depth of field at 200mm because the subject is further away. You also had the examples around the wrong way.
This is why telephoto lenses can be better for portrait photography because you get more of your subject in sharp focus and less background for better separation.
Hi Sigma, no, you get less dof with the 200mm and reframing farther.
So I looked it up and actually the depth of field on the subject is the same if the apertures are the same with the same subject framing. What I was trying to explain is that the 200mm effectively magnifies the background bringing it closer and making it look more blurred creating more separation.
This graph shows what is going on:
howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-100mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
Hi Sigma, i check on the link very nice tool, yes the back gets closer.
Yes
Im agree with you at 4:48 the left imagage is at 200mm and the right is at 100mm definitely and without a doubt, is someone cant notice this, definitely dosnt deserve to be named as a pro photographer, you can see clearly at the left an aparentely closest background, more blur, and "bigger palm tree at the back
Hi Matt, you labelled the images incorrectly at 4.39. The 200mm both has a shallower DOF (as per your calculations beforehand) and brings the background elements closer.
The model stays the same size because you doubled the focal length and doubled the distance. However, in relation to the background you moved a neglible amount backwards and doubled the lens, effectively magnifying the background (making it appear closer)
1:50 "...deepthroat it or something..." You just threw it out there. lol
oh my god, she is the cutest model ever, i love her!!
I love your model's sense of humor!
One thing you did not discuss is what is the best type of bokeh
Eg the palm trees
Where you can make out the palm trees?
Or where they are just a blur
Which would win a photo competition?
Have to leave a compliment. Probably you are one of the best reviewing lenses. Love the real world approach. That's what counts
Dear Matt!
I bought the 70-200 f4, for my NIKON D800 and I LOVE IT!! Also for portraits! I've seen many reviews with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 and some primes (NIKON). The 70-200 f4 came out as TEST WINNER! So I bought it!
Btw, I LOVE your work! You inspire me enormously! I check you website (s) every day! Please keep up the GREAT work! You reallllllly inspire me!!!!
Best of greetings from the Netherlands (Eindhoven).
Vincent Pothuizen
At 7:35 she is like why the hell does this piece of glass cost 2000 bucks 😂
It is not the issue of the focal length, but *how the lens was designed*. Those boring 3x zooms have too many optical elements in them; in other words, too much glass, and produce boring and flat images, with zero character. You see one, you see them all. It is visual confectionery.
On the other hand, there is visual art. A well-designed prime lens will have less elements, far better optical glass, and may render astonishingly beautiful 3D image, or, enhance some other optical quality of the photograph, like micro-contrast and colour, the way bohkeh is rendered, etc. which lens designer has chosen as a goal.
Take a portrait with Leica's 75mm Cron lens, or Pentax's 77mm designed by Jun Hirakawa, and then use 70-200 at 75 or 77 mm; print photographs and you will never touch 70-200 again.
I challenge you too look at my photos from my 5 D Mark IV and 70-200 2.8 L II and say that drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B37AT6vo9v9uY0pVWVBXR09qSE0
Zvonimir Tosic
0:32 when you go dressed as the lens...
I saw you were shooting with Canon 70-200mm lens. For most people Matt Granger says the 70-200mm is best choice. I agree it's more flexible with focal lengths and the narrow field of view works really well for head shots. Plus 70-200 gives the background more compression which I really like. Cannon at 200mm is great for head shots.
since i'm doing video, i just got a Canon 70-200 f.2.8 (non IS) and an Rokinon 85mm T.1.5 (manual focus, cine lens) and i'm very happy with both. The 85mm at T.1.5 (f.1.4) is perfect for interviews (and i guess portraits) when you want to really isolate your subject, meanwhile the 70-200 at 135 or 200mm gives me greater compression and is also great for pictures (since its got autofocus). I'd say get both, you'll find use for it. A cheaper alternative would be the Canon 85 f.1.8 (around $400)
Zoom lenses are more forgiving. I find it harder to have bad photos. Many of them are good photos. Prime lenses require a lot of shots. The awful ones are terrible. However, when you nail a shot with a prime lens, it looks amazing. The clarity of the focus is unmatched in a zoom lens.
at 4:34 I think you accidentally changed the places of titles and pictures (because left one definitely looks like the 200mm and right one like 100mm), not the other way around. Am I correct??
+Rosumisorimu Yes you are!
Yes, you are right. You can go few seconds back and match, the one with two palm trees coming out of her head is @ 100 mm. and not the other way around.
70-200 is a big heavy lens for portraits. The 85 will be a lot less weight and bulk if portraits are your purpose. What about the 24-70mm zoomed all the way in?
nice point
two things. first, it's good you addressed subject magnification wrt to DoF even if you didnt get into it that much.
the second is that I cannot agree with your assessment regarding the sharpness / fine detail reproduction of the 70-200 f2.8 gen 2 lenses compared to 85s. The zooms take it at all equivalent apertures. they carry contrast to finer resolutions considerably better. Not that it matters.
I would like to see you buy/borrow/rent a 135 APO sonnar and compare it to the 85L for a video.
This was not his best work - obviously too shaky and missed focus. We had a mix up and no one brought stabiliser and this was first time using this camera. We have shot since with his own camera and rig and results are much better. Apologies for this one
Hi Matt. It appears that you switched the images at 4:34. Photo on the left is probably taken at 200mm.
Great comparison, though. And perfect timing. I own 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm thinking about purchasing the 85mm 1.4 from Sigma (f/1.2 from Canon is little bit expensive for me).
Matt you rock..Big fan of yours from Ireland! Canon or Nikon, your videos are great. I shoot Canon and still watch all your videos. Keep up the good work man, These guys are just key board warriors, it shouldn't matter what you shoot with, photography is what you make it.
son 2 lentes totalmente diferentes, uno tiene la virtud de la luminosidad, pero es fijo y poca construcción que lo hace muy exacto en enfoque. , el otro es un zoom que ahorra movimientos.
el boké de las fotografías pueden ser parecidos, en 85 1.8 y 200 2.8, pero sin duda lo que cambia es el fondo de lo desenfocado. en 200, el objeto desenfocado es mas grande que en 85
how about a 100 or 200 macro for portrait?
I made the same choice after owning both 85L ii and 70-200 is II. This is an awesome comparison. Excellent job!!!
just one point about the relative DoF.. You say they're 'pretty similar' 6cm vs 4cm but that's a 50% difference the way I view it and Very significant ----
ha ha. love the outtake at the end!
have 70-200 2.8 L IS Canon but would still like a 85 if I had the money.
Matt, I think the photos at 100 mm and 200 mm by 70-200 interchanged. From around 4:01 minutes to around 4:46 minutes. Kindly recheck.
hi matt i have a question wich one should i buy for wedding shoots canon 50mm 1.2 L or canon 70-200 f2.8 ii..cheers
One diffrence is, there is a subtle olor-shift and the 70-200mm seems a touch "warmer/ magenta" wheras the 85mm is a touch cooler/ neutral. Assuning that you are on a tripod nd keeping the exact same distance at least (camera angles are a touch off) the 70-200mm has a much more pronounced "flattening" of the perspective. It's an interesting comparison for sure but I generally prefer an 85mm for a 3/4 style portrait and a 100mm for a headshot.
Have you ever used a 135 f1.8 for portraiture? I own one and it's my favorite lens for that purpose (used wide open, of course).
glad you can see the quality is going up!
Can anyone verbalize the difference of bokeh between 85 prime and 70200@85 (both F 2.8)? I didn't see much other than the color rendering and I think Matt didn't specify much about it.
At 4:43 when comparing the 100mm and 200mm pictures; It's pretty evident you've switched the labeling of the images on accident. Oops!
+Nicholas Thon My thoughts exactly!!!!
+Nicholas Thon lol
I have been shopping around for a 85mm lens; hopeful I can get mine before Christmas.
This is a superb video, well structured, interesting, everything. Thanks!
Hi, are you enjoying your new canon gear and do you prefer anything about it compared to the nikon stuff? Cheers
Like Matt said, compression is the biggest difference besides light gathering capabilities between these two lenses. There is also subject rapport to consider. A 70-200 is a HUGE lens which may be intimidating to your subject whereas a prime might be less scary :). On a side note, this is exactly why I picked up a 60 yo russian rangefinder for my street photography over my D700. People give a totally different reaction based on what kind of camera you are using...which in my case is What's That?
An 85mm 1.2 is 2k, that's what I paid for my 70-200 2.8, so you still pay for that extra 2 1/2 stops, in dark areas where you need to freeze action thats very handy, but since the video was talking portraits where the subject is normally still I didn't think it applied. Yes they do different things, I'm just pointing out that the 70-200 has some very useful portrait features that an 85 lacks.
Something to concider for portraits is that the 70-200's all come with VR/VC/IS, and you can make up for the lack of light vs a 85 prime with a slower shutter, and still keep sharp shots! This becomes even more of a benifit when you want to keep some DOF in your shots and shoot at say 5.6. I've taken shots as low as 1/6th with the VRII (something I didn't think was possible).
While I'd love to have an 85mm, I just can't find a way to justify it.
Thanku so much sir..u hav done some amazing comparison videos n those are such informative n very helpful for beginners..loved ur work♥️🙏
I was thinking about getting the (canon) 85 f1.8 to use alongside my 70-200 for weddings (I shoot 2 bodies). Good idea? Too specialist? I thought it would be great for the end of the night when your arms are about to fall off too!
Who was your DOP today Matt? A little struggle with the AF me thinks... Video> steadycam>manual focus...or a tripod! I'm happy to see you two beautiful creatures on a locked off. (Can I come to Oz and work for you?)
Good comparison. I personally love the 70-200mm, due to its flexibility and find that the 85mm rarely comes out of my bag. My favourite lens though is the Zess 85mm 1.4 Planer T, which for me is the best feeling lens you can buy (though not optically in the same league as the Canon 85mm 1.2 or Nikkor 85mm 1.4) and the lack of AF can mean it take time to focus, even with the in camera manual focus meter. But it feels just a little bit more special than any other lens I have ever used.
What focal length provides the most flattering compression of facial features in head & shoulder shots and also group shots?
Yes Matt is really doing a great job, reinventing tutorials in a slightly different way! Thumbs up big time!
Hi Matt, I think there is a mistake @ 4:38 if we consider the background : Your calculator says DOF is 0.04m @ 200mm & 0.06 m @ 100mm.
So, look at the background, the bokeh of the shot on the left looks more diffused, more blurry and compressed than the one on the pict on the right.
So ... wouldn´t be the contrary, @200mm on the left and @100m on the right ?
Kind regards.
Hello. I make a living with real estate and interior design photography. Occasionally, I provide head-shots for my cleints, cover events etc... I currently have the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8. Which lens makes the best business sense to own. I'm considering the versatility of the focal range and its aperture. At first I thought of acquiring the 85 1.8 rather than sinking four times as much on the 70-200. But I think that the 85mm is extremely specialized. Not only that, given that I shoot on location, I have to adapt the various spaces provided by the client. Essentially, the 85mm might be too long for tight spaces. Is having the 70-200 the smartest purchase? PS, this is going on a D800. Thanks in advance for feedback.
I have both the 85mm f1.2 and 70-200mm IS II and I think 70-200 is the best when it comes to sharpness, contrast, and speed and I'm not having a problems with the chromatic aberration specially at 200mm unlike the 85mm but I always use the 85mm over the 7-200 at portrait mainly because of the awesomeness of the 1.2 :D
It is said that 135 often misses the focus, I was not advised to buy it, I have the 70-200 2.8 with a stabilizer and happy ochen.No 85 1.2 also really want a very good lens
any plans on reviewing the 135L? Curious to hear your opinion against the 85L.
For portrait I use a Sigma 50 and 135L combo, have the X100s if I really need to shoot 35mm
Wait - "that Nikon guy" with a Canon? Good for you!! Welcome to the light side, we have cookies!
Which one give more sharp result of a picture at F4 ??? Canon 85mm f1.8 or temron 70-200 non VC.
This was the perfect video I needed to make the decision on which one I was going to buy. Now I picked the right one! Thank you!!
cual de los dos es el mejor 85mm o el 70-200mm
que diferencia hay entre el 70-200mm y 70-300mm
muchas gracias por su respuesta
What is that camera strap that you are using on your 1D-X? It looks so much better than the normal strap, and I would love one like that for event shoots.
What camera did you shoot this with? The sharpness is great
I guess it depends on what you need. If you shoot a LOT of portraits and don't need the 200mm then a prime lens is the better choice, those are usually sharper than zoom lenses as well.
I find the Walimex/Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4 to be very interesting. Sure, it has no AF but do you really need that for portraits? Plus it only costs about 300€, about 1/5 of what Nikon's 85mm 1.4g costs!
I would go for the zoom lens as well though, it's more versatile.
the 85mm 1.8G nikon is way cheaper than 70-200mm 2.8 SIGMA (& of course any other brand). I am shooting mostly events indoors, but occasionally portrait. So which lens do you suggest for me Matt Granger ? .. cheers..
I love both lenses equally but as far as best portrait lens for best image I'd go with 85mm it has the best color rendition and sharpness of the two, but for usage for events that are mixed with portrait situations I'd lean towards, the 70-200mm, still great images with the flexibility to re-frame a subject without having to move too much.
Thanks mate, your videos are great and cover a wide range of topics. keep em coming. cheers
I like the 85 mm, but it really takes a while to learn how to handle this lens. The first few shots I got many miss focus just because I was breathing when I press the shutter, the DOF is very shallow. But as soon as I can handle it, the results and the bokeh are so dramatic...
I had a fixed 50mm that I ended up selling because it was hardly getting used. That's just the kind of photography I do. A fixed lens of that focal length doesn't make sense for nature photography. I need the versatility of a zoom, some folks don't. All of that depth of field math just has little meaning to a fan of the zoom lens so maybe this is more for the potrait taker I guess.
consider getting a second hand higher end model, like the d7000 or d300 i think. I started entry level but soon moved to second hand semi-pro camera cos the handling, af and fps is so much better....
Thank you for the video... Very informative. I've been looking for a good camera sling and notice you're using one. What brand are you using (holding the 70-200mm) and are you satisfied with the quality. Thank you in advance.
i'm looking wide angle lens not just for landscape more about group, senior, family, wedding lens what you think what is best for me ? thanks
What camera did you use to shoot this episode? Image looks very nice!
Great videos as always. But Help.! I have Nikon D7000 ( with Nikon Grip ); Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4 looked at buying Nikon D600; but glass I own would not do justice ( or would it ) or buy . Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 O/S or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. Would like to shoot portraits and possibly fashion portraits inside and out .. Do I cut losses; sell gear and buy Nikon D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens.Or D600 body and 2nd hand 85mm or Samyang 85mm f1.4 Any suggestions greatly received.
Thank you Matt! Is that your favorite portrait lens with the 1.6 crop or full frame?
It's not about the lens focal length that makes a great portrait, it's the type of portrait and the narrative. If you are shooting beauty, a 180mm-300mm f2.8 is the way to go as it has the right perspective of the face and it's shape, It flattens the perspective. I use a Hasselblad 150mm or a 250mm with an extension tube. 85mm is mainly a 3/4 length portrait lens, basically waist up. nothing closer or there will be distortion on the face, nose etc. Shoot with primes, they are generally, faster sharper and lighter. if it's an environmental portrait, where you want to include the subject in their environment or surroundings, then use 50mm down to 24mm keep the lens level and parallel to walls, doors etc, to limit the distortion as you go wider. I tend to use a 28mm as most of my environmental portraits are indoors in offices or rooms.
i have a 7-200 F2.8 and love portraits - do i need a 85mm? or it will be a wast?
The question I have is would I buy the 50 mm for a crop sensor to make it close to the 85 fx type lens?
yes, pretty much. on canon you'd have 80mm, on nikon 75mm. but buying an 1.4 doesn't give you 1.4 on a crop sensor, it gives you something around 2.1-2.2 (full frame equivalent). you should take that into account.
Matt, at 4:35, the 100mm and 200mm label should be swapped. The photo on the left is shot at 200mm and the one on the right is 100mm because you definitely see a wider angle as shown by more background coverage. Please check your metadata and somehow correct this video.
I have a bit of a dilemma and would love to get a tips wich to choose, I own a DX camera (D3200), and allready own a 35mm 1.8G and I love it, I get such sharp pictures with it, but I have that problem of distortion when close up portraiture and I am now looking to get a new lens, and my mind was allways set on the 85mm 1.8G, but then I started thinking about the 50mm 1.4G, it is a little bit cheaper, and would work better in low light situations..... the 50mm will be then on my camera equavelent (dunno how to spell it) to 75mm, but what about the 85mm? seen great reviews on both of them, but my head keep telling me go for the 85mm..
No it wouldn't be equivalent. It will have 50mm perspective - not ideal for flattering portrait, (mostly head shots). For portrait, 85mm is better focal length, even on crop.
Also 35 and 50 is fairly close, so you must decide, whether it makes sense for you, to have both...
I would go with the 50mm 1.8G and save about $350.
85mm on a cropped Nikon sensor is equivalent to a lens with 127mm FOV. A bit too tight for portraits IMO. I would go with the 50mm also.
Here is a link to a cropped sensor calculator www.digified.net/focallength/
What lens was used for this video seems like it focus on both of you plus the back ground tree.I'm looking for a lens like that for a video. This is like the iPhone camera. Thanks I'm advance
I have APS-C DSLR with 55-200 lens, want to buy Full frame 85 F/1.8 lens but when attached to my APS-C DSLR it will give me field of view similar 127.5 mm of Full frame. Now to know how much working space is required should I 1st try out with my 55-200 set at 85 mm or 120 mm. I am not after bokeh but better IQ & subject compression, sinec my 55-200 lens version is doesnt have sharpness I want.
If you have an APS-c camera and want to know what the 85mm will look like then set the 55-200 at 85mm and look through the lens, if you dont want to stand so far back for a head and shoulders shot then use a 50 1.4 or 1.8 which will be equivilent to 75mm on full frame.
@thatnikonguy it seems like you accidentally mixed up the 100mm / 200mm shots at around 04:35 (more compression on the left one, but the title says "@100mm", etc.).
what about 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? I mean I'm not one to argue about this but it all just seems effortless with that lens. It feels like that one lens you'd take with you if you had to pick only one while on an adventure. Although it is nearly 2 thousand dollars...
Hi Matt, I'm somewhat confused with what camera you are you using these days? i know this video is old but still I've always knew you to me the Nikon guy but with video here throws me completely... are you saying that canon lens are better the Nikon or just the 70-200 2.8/f and the 85mm 1.2/f?
I have 35mm 2.0, 16-28mm 2.8. And I am looking for a lens that I can take portrait and landscape. I think I will more likely take photos of my family and friends, but still I often go travel around. In that case, should I buy 70-200mm 2.8 or 85mm 1.2? Or maybe 24-70mm 2.8 and 24-105mm 4? If I have choose only one from them, which lens should I go for?
I am struggling for weeks to make a decision!! Any suggestions will be appreciated!
So if I am using a 75mm f1.8 on Olympus OM-D am I getting the compression of a 75mm lens or 150mm lens in full frame equivalent terms?
70-200 lens is fantastic but with a version III (3) 2X converter attached, it becomes a very accurate and tack sharp 400 mm lens with very little vignetting. Which I am not worried about really as usually add a bit of vignetting in Photoshop anyway.... Sell your 70-200 on eBay. They are Gold. If you have the version II Canon f:2.8 L series 70-200 EF USM version II like I have, they are worth a fortune. Never lose value. Good luck with the 85 only, if portraits are all you do.
She decided to deep throat it.....hahahahaha that's the best thing you've ever said. I literally fell out of my chair laughing. Quite the difference in that prime. It's on the list :-|
Im not a pro, but I just use 85mm f1.8 on a Nikon FA shooting Fuji Superia, gives that classic warm grainy film look with good skin tones my digitals cant produce.
Thanks Matt! Excellent video!
Good comparison and explanation. Thanks
Enjoyed the video - but the guy with the video camera should stik to soft drinks or get a tripod ;)
Lars Kjær Yeah, we got a little earthquake preview there.
🤣🤣
I'm assuming your shooting on a full frame camera.....if you had a crop sensor camera like the Canon 7D, what you you recommend for a great portrait lens? My requirements are ultra sharpness, great background blur and a cost of around $1500. I currently own the 50mm 1.4 (non L). It's great for portraits, but I would like image stabilization for lower light and/or moving subjects. Thanks for any help.
maybe you can have a look at 24-105L. main reasons for my recommendation: 1. price is now a bargain. 2. you're using an APS-C camera. main shortcoming of this lens is the edge quality which is not an issue for you. other than these two things, background blur... I 'm not sure whether it meets your requirement. it's said to be average but bokeh is really subjective.
dgfsxgf Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I definitely considered that lens. The one thing that was holding me back was that it only goes to a f4 aperture. I believe it has image stabilization, but the f4 isn't very good for low light situations.
graphicartdude The BEST canon crop sensor lens I've ever used is the EFS 17-55 f/2.8. From personal experience, this lens is much sharper than the 24-105. (I've owned and used both). It's 2.8 and has IS. It gives you a field of view of about 27mm to 88mm, which is extremely usable. Once it's on your body, you'll rarely ever need to swap lenses. Only downside is that it's purely for crop sensors. If you have no intention of getting a full frame body, I truly recommend it 100%.
nasri I agree with you. 17-55 f2.8 matches the needs best (and is a perfect EF-S lens). regarding sharpness, I'm not sure if it's right to say 17-55 is much sharper than 24-105. I would say it is much sharper near the edge. For center area, 24-105 is actually one of the sharpest (even sharper than 24-70 f2.8L).
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I'm pretty convinced with the 17-55mm...I'm just concerned about the faulty IS problem and dust issues that seem to plague this lens. I'm also wondering if it's best to just go with prime lenses for higher quality. I already have the 50mm 1.4 (non L) which I really like...I was thinking about going with the 135mm and maybe the 10-22mm. But this 17-55mm would really come in handy for versatile shooting. It's a tough decision. Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.
So if distortion stop at 85mm on a Full-Frame, does that also apply to a crop? Or do I need 50-55 mm
85 mm on crop is equivalent to about 130 mm. It is a perfectly good focal length for portraits if you have room. 50 mm is also a good one.
The difference between a FF & DX camera is that the DX picture is a "cropped" version of the FF picture. The perspective of a picture taken with a DX sensor is the same as the perspective of the picture taken with a FF sensor using the same lens. The difference between the two pictures is that the DX sensor takes a picture with a smaller angle of view because it has been "cropped". So a picture taken with a 50mm lens will have the angle of view of a 75mm lens, but the perspective and DoF of a 50mm lens.
Doctor_KDS Shaft nonsense is that? The perspective depends only on the distance. Using a longer lens or cropping give exactly same results on perspective if the shooting location is same.