I agree - the 85mm fits me better too. The other thing about using this prime lens is *requires* more movement from the photographer which opens up more angles vs the 70-200mm. I find being forced to move around more to vary up the shots creates more opportunities and ideas for shooting and posing the subject, as well.
I had the 85mm and I was crazy about the 70-200. Bought it, spent a lot, then when I go out I take my 85mm because I think it's so much more convenient to use. I have the 1.8 version, but even so I keep it at 2.8, so more of the face is in focus and it's also easier to work with. I think also that a hint of the background make portraits very cool with this lens, because it compress a lot the background while still let you know where the person is. At 200mm 2.8 the chosen location is not even relevant in many shots.
Have you tried shooting at 70mm...just a thought. When I shoot portrait with my 70-200 2.8 gm I rarely go past 135mm. Good stuff Manny👍 Would love to see you throw in an ultra wide(12-24/16-35) into one of your shoots to see what all that creativity you got does with it.
Given that 85 &105 are good portrait lenses, I wish a reviewer would shoot the 70-200 at the same focal length on the 70-200 to get an idea of the difference between the zoom and prime at the same focal lengths.
I enjoyed your video. Thank you for making it. One note worth considering: If the subject is super camera shy, rather than a model, the 70-200 mm gives you some distance, which makes the subject more comfortable. I just shot a woman of a certain age who hates appearing on camera. In this case, I enjoyed the 70-200. When the subject is super confident, like an actress, I enjoy working with my 35 f1.4 and getting really close.
Hi Manny thanks for this video! Just my opinion, audience is expecting to see comparison wherein you used both lens to its maximum potential before comparing. For example, you didin't shoot the 70-200 through its entire focal range and not only the 200mm end. The ourpose of the title is to help viewers decide and compare advantages and disadvantage of both lens in real life shoot. Would be better to use the 70 to 200 in its entire focal range since its not only 200. There is also that 85mm or 135 or 70mm range in that zoom lens that audience wants to see compared with the prime. Thank you
What macro do you use Anthony, is it the Sony 90mm 2.8? How is the AF? The reason I'm asking is that I went to the store to check on the 85 1.4 GM, I love the picture when you get it, but the lens is really frustrating, man, the is a nightmare, it goes to infinity, then it goes back, it really takes a awhile to get focus is the place is not really well bright. So I'm thinking about the Sigma Art 85mm 1.4, but not sure yet. I'd like to use the 90mm macro, a lot of photographer use macro for portrait, but I do know macro tends to have a slow AF so after my experience with the 85 today, I'm not sure. I used to have a 135 f/2.8 back in the days, but were amazing, light, and small, now days the lenses are gigantosores, so I don't know. I think the Sigma Art 105 would be ideal, but from the pictures, it will be even bigger.
Carlos Rosa, I haven't seen any reviewer describing abt slow af from Sony 85f14 GM (now I am curious) , but one of Manny's video showed Sigma 85f1.4 art focus hunting a lot.
Well, simple, if you'd like to see that, go to any store and try it, it's a Crappie AF, so for that price, it's a piece of junk with Beautiful Silky colours and an Amazing Bokeh and people just praise that without saying the Crappie side of the lens, which it's Completely Overpriced, if it had a fairly good AF, it would be on my list to go inside my bag, but with that Crappie AF, never, not at that price and even if was at 1k price tag, I would still think hard, because I like to have a reliable AF, specially for portraits. Now, I Love the Zeiss Batis 85 f/1.8, beautiful silky colours and great bokeh, not as good as the 85 f/1.4 GM but it's really nice, it cost half of the price, it's really small compare to the GM and it will probably be on my bag in the near future, I just want to wait to see the Sigma Art 85mm 1.4 and decide between the two.
You’ve come a long way since this video bro. I just watched this (again) because I’m planning a headshot session soon at night and wanted to figure out what’s best between my 85 1.8 and the Tammy 70-180. Still can’t make a decision so I guess I’ll try both. 🤷🏾♂️. These things happen.
If it's for portraits I'd say the 85mm, though I went for the Tammy 70-180 as a lens to cover most to go with my Sigma 24-70 F2.8. I'm not a portrait focused shooter though.
I following your videos long ago because we both know why the sony is the best nowdays, and i see your videos just getting better with every upload and giving me inspiration.
85 mm is perfectly suited for indoor portraits. 135mm is a perfect outdoor portrait lens. 70-200 mm is a versatile lens specifically designed for outdoor candid, not portraits, imo. I know some photographers who use 80-200 mm for indoor wedding photography, coupled with 85mm lens on their second camera.
I had a Sony 85mm f/1.8 recently. It was a great lens for portraits; just not on my Sony a6600 where it was too tight. I've sold it and ordered a Tamron 70-180 which I'm waiting for. I think the 85 is great on a full frame camera, although I would still go for a 70-200 if I had a full frame body.
hopefully, you will be able to afford 200 mm F2 pretty soon, thanks for the video and I guess 70-200 is better in terms of what you can do with it (wildlife, bird photography, sports, and portraits, and some landscape), and 85 mm 1.4 is good if you are just wanting to focus on one thing and get the best results.
Hello Manny I’m Glad i came by Your channel . You have this unique style & great patience when making video tutorials. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to show yours skills & knowledge. Yes F 1.4 or 1.8 *(prime lens)* are indeed sharper lens. Again thank you Stay Healthy & Safe with this Nationwide pandemic. God Speed. 📷📸🎥
shoot weddings looking for a lens to separate people from the background during speeches and ceremony. I was contemplating the 70-20] f4, 85mm 1.8 and the 90mm macro 2.8. Is the compression at 200 significantly better than what I would get with those other lenses?
5:14 haha. Funny to watch this now considering the 200mm is your new favorite lens. You know you don't have to shoot a 70-200 at 200 right? You can shoot it at 85mm, plus you also got 70-199...
Your channel is wayyyy underrated...glad I found it. I shoot Sony too and have been looking for these comparison videos...would also like to see some videos on composition tips with the recorded view finder again. Thanks for your content!
Fun vid as I just used an 85 1.8 for corporate headshots in the studio and also my GF just got me a Nikon 70-200 2.8/G VR II that I am going to use at that exact location in Chicago for an engagement shoot. I was surprised, but impressed with the verdict for the 85, because I would have guessed the 70-200 because it can hit 85 (albeit at f/2.8) and even 70 to get close and can also hit 200 for nice compression and comparable bokeh. However, like you mentioned, the choice is personal. It’s good to have choices for creativity and different preferences.
200mm for portraits should be medium close up or extreme close up, it's not for full body portrait. That's why you can zoom down to 70mm if you want full body.
The part of the video when you show the live view of you shooting, focusing, framing was really helpful, first time I see this on youtube and it was a real betterment. Thanks for that and keep up the good work !
I like the video tutorial, but in this video I thought you got more dramatic shots using the 70 - 200mm lens, though I'm a fan of the 85mm focal length too.
I would recommend to anyone shooting 200 to choose a subject first that is either close family or friend. You need a strong connection with the model to shoot so far back or you risk losing interest in a remarkable option. That is for anyone who hasn’t shot portraiture in that focal length.
Hey Manny! Thank you for such a great explanation between the 2 lenses. I shoot with Canon5D markii & have both the Canon 70-200 & 85L 1.4 & I agree with you on the fact that it's much easier to engage with your models/clients with the 85L 1.4. You can with the 70-200 also, but only if you're going for those tight headshots. IMO I am really enjoying the Canon 85L 1.4 & can't wait to get out for some awesome shots. Thank you for sharing your views on these 2 awesome lenses. BTW,your wife is lovely.
I am a landscape, architecture and travel focused amateur photographer so for me I'd guess that a very fast 85mm prime would be best but I'd use my Tamron 70-180 F2.8 with my A7IV if I had to do portraits in a pinch. I just don't have any more suitable lenses on my X-T3 or A7IV as it's just not my focus. Maybe my Sigma 24-70 F2.8 or my Fuji 16-55 F2.8?
Of course, you can shot the 70-200mm lens at 85mm and then the big difference would be: weight and size of the lens, and the wider aperture of the 85mm. I like them both and they both have their pros and cons...
Uh...the nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 ed is like an ax. No way is my 85 sharper than that. As for me, yes, the 85 is lighter , less intimidating ,and yes has the otion of a wider aperture in low light. But the ruthless speed and versatility a.k.a work flow of the 70-200mm fl ed make it such a fun choice. Especially when am out snapping people in huge cities.
wider aperture in low light is useless except you shoot small things and faces!! It will make the background extremely unnoticeable!! Don't be tricked from specs!! THE QUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT(lens crystal structure)!! A Leica will always outperform nikon & canon lovers for example!!
I like the 85 as well but the 70-200 zoomed out was better at smoothing out the busy flashing detail in the Chi-Town skyline allowing the subject to be more isolated.
At 200mm you don’t feel very engaged? Then just step closer and zoom out!! That’s the whole point of the 70-200mm zoom it allows you both full body and tight headshots with a twist of the wrist!
Curious.... why wouldn’t you use face detection (or even eye AF) and have the shot already composed (model already off to the side)? Most of these shots were taken using the old “focus and re-compose” technique. I’m currently Canon but thinking of switching. I thought those features would be well suited to this style of photography so be interested why they weren’t used
Hai Manny Ortiz, I'm sorry before if my english is not good. I want to ask you, what is the function drag the focus from the model to the middle/the sun? I just started learning about photograph. Thank you
THX a lot for your videos, mate! U certainly inspire people to dive into photography and blokey blokes like me to at least try and master up a bit their pitiful skills. Well done and congrats from Eastern Europe!
Bad Ass video Manny! Really powerful getting to watch what you are focusing on and how you frame in real time! Then seeing the post transformation. It would be cool to hear you and the model interacting too, add another level of depth. Great work and thanks for sharing man!
You should do a comparison between this 70-200 2.8 and the sigma a-mount version with the la-ea4 adapter. Is it worth the 2600 for the emount ? Or should we spend around 500 for the a mount sigma and adapter.
This is next level, and for a photo Rookie like myself I get a much better Idea of what is done in camera and what is done in post. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I am new to your channel but will def SUB and share.. thanks again
I've rarely done full length at 200mm and most definitely not in the landscape orientation. IMO, 130+mm should mostly be used for upper body or head & shoulder. Doing so would provide far better separation.
HI Manny, Thank you for the informative videos. There are many photographers on youtube, your tutorial stands out and i have learnt a few things from you already. I own sony A7, with 85mm samyang, beautiful results. It's just handling the manual focus all the time, can be little tricky. Also shoot with 50mm and 35mm on portrait. Again, love your work. Thank you.
70-200 lens will be heavy u may have to move around a bit, but everything is a learning process and we shouldn't disable our abilities. As photographers we must learn new methods to stay ready.
Nice comparison thank you, pleas let your model/wife to have behind the scene comments - it’s so nice to see your real life communication) Nice channel. Respect
I'm not Manny but nobody can say what your next lens is if you don't say what type of photography you do most often. Tthere are different recommendations for street, landscape, sports, portraits, wildlife, travel, and just normal walkaround. Also, you have to give a budget and what kind of weight you're willing to deal with.
hey manny im getting the sony a7ii and am a heavy portrait shooter so I am debating between the canon 70-200f4l usm with sigma mc11 or the sony fe 85 1.8, i would love eye af but would also love the flexibility of the zoom as I could use it for sports etc.
If you are a portrait shooter, go with the 85 1.8. The 70-200 will not have as nice bokeh as the 85 1.8, but more importantly, it will force you to stand very far away from the model, if you want to get the blur. You will lose the intimacy of the portrait shoot. Also, not only, that the 85 will focus much much better (since it's a native lens), but it will be very easy to carry around, and it's less "scary for the models" because of the compact size.
Based on what you shoot... definitely the Sony 85 1.8. Very good lens for the price and you'll appreciate the faster focusing, better eye-af than the Sigma. In addition, the Sony isn't good for sports anyway... unless you get the A9!
Luca P i was thinking about the exact same thing. The canon 70-200 f4 (with metabones adapter) or the sony 85mm 1.8. True i would have more bokeh and less trouble focusing if i stay native.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree - the 85mm fits me better too. The other thing about using this prime lens is *requires* more movement from the photographer which opens up more angles vs the 70-200mm. I find being forced to move around more to vary up the shots creates more opportunities and ideas for shooting and posing the subject, as well.
instablaster...
I feel like the 70-200 looked sharper idk
Got both an prefer my 70/200 .... thank you for this video 👍🏻
I had the 85mm and I was crazy about the 70-200. Bought it, spent a lot, then when I go out I take my 85mm because I think it's so much more convenient to use. I have the 1.8 version, but even so I keep it at 2.8, so more of the face is in focus and it's also easier to work with. I think also that a hint of the background make portraits very cool with this lens, because it compress a lot the background while still let you know where the person is. At 200mm 2.8 the chosen location is not even relevant in many shots.
So this is the focus and recompose that you were talking about. Thank you so much for you tutorials
The compression on the 200mm is 🔥
Have you tried shooting at 70mm...just a thought. When I shoot portrait with my 70-200 2.8 gm I rarely go past 135mm. Good stuff Manny👍 Would love to see you throw in an ultra wide(12-24/16-35) into one of your shoots to see what all that creativity you got does with it.
Then he would only get ƒ2.8 versus ƒ1.4 with the 85mm
Given that 85 &105 are good portrait lenses, I wish a reviewer would shoot the 70-200 at the same focal length on the 70-200 to get an idea of the difference between the zoom and prime at the same focal lengths.
I enjoyed your video. Thank you for making it. One note worth considering: If the subject is super camera shy, rather than a model, the 70-200 mm gives you some distance, which makes the subject more comfortable. I just shot a woman of a certain age who hates appearing on camera. In this case, I enjoyed the 70-200. When the subject is super confident, like an actress, I enjoy working with my 35 f1.4 and getting really close.
100%
Hi Manny thanks for this video! Just my opinion, audience is expecting to see comparison wherein you used both lens to its maximum potential before comparing. For example, you didin't shoot the 70-200 through its entire focal range and not only the 200mm end. The ourpose of the title is to help viewers decide and compare advantages and disadvantage of both lens in real life shoot. Would be better to use the 70 to 200 in its entire focal range since its not only 200. There is also that 85mm or 135 or 70mm range in that zoom lens that audience wants to see compared with the prime. Thank you
If I was shooting a model like that I’d be using Macro.
ha ha ha , really????
What macro do you use Anthony, is it the Sony 90mm 2.8? How is the AF? The reason I'm asking is that I went to the store to check on the 85 1.4 GM, I love the picture when you get it, but the lens is really frustrating, man, the is a nightmare, it goes to infinity, then it goes back, it really takes a awhile to get focus is the place is not really well bright. So I'm thinking about the Sigma Art 85mm 1.4, but not sure yet. I'd like to use the 90mm macro, a lot of photographer use macro for portrait, but I do know macro tends to have a slow AF so after my experience with the 85 today, I'm not sure. I used to have a 135 f/2.8 back in the days, but were amazing, light, and small, now days the lenses are gigantosores, so I don't know. I think the Sigma Art 105 would be ideal, but from the pictures, it will be even bigger.
Carlos Rosa, I haven't seen any reviewer describing abt slow af from Sony 85f14 GM (now I am curious) , but one of Manny's video showed Sigma 85f1.4 art focus hunting a lot.
Well, simple, if you'd like to see that, go to any store and try it, it's a Crappie AF, so for that price, it's a piece of junk with Beautiful Silky colours and an Amazing Bokeh and people just praise that without saying the Crappie side of the lens, which it's Completely Overpriced, if it had a fairly good AF, it would be on my list to go inside my bag, but with that Crappie AF, never, not at that price and even if was at 1k price tag, I would still think hard, because I like to have a reliable AF, specially for portraits. Now, I Love the Zeiss Batis 85 f/1.8, beautiful silky colours and great bokeh, not as good as the 85 f/1.4 GM but it's really nice, it cost half of the price, it's really small compare to the GM and it will probably be on my bag in the near future, I just want to wait to see the Sigma Art 85mm 1.4 and decide between the two.
Just to be clear you are talking about Sony 85 f/1.4 GM (with Crappie AF)?
Focus and recompose seems funny, you would use it on a DSLR without wide spread focus points, but on a Sony??
You’ve come a long way since this video bro. I just watched this (again) because I’m planning a headshot session soon at night and wanted to figure out what’s best between my 85 1.8 and the Tammy 70-180. Still can’t make a decision so I guess I’ll try both. 🤷🏾♂️. These things happen.
Yo do come back and let me know how it went. I'm also deciding between two similar lenses
@@bahaatamer1245 In my opinion, if you only shoot portrait, then get a 85mm will be better and spend the rest for lighting gear...
If it's for portraits I'd say the 85mm, though I went for the Tammy 70-180 as a lens to cover most to go with my Sigma 24-70 F2.8. I'm not a portrait focused shooter though.
I like both, and it depends on how much time I have. I also like really really fast lenses like f1.4
I following your videos long ago because we both know why the sony is the best nowdays, and i see your videos just getting better with every upload and giving me inspiration.
Good perspective of analysis. Communication with model and relation with distance!
85 mm is perfectly suited for indoor portraits. 135mm is a perfect outdoor portrait lens. 70-200 mm is a versatile lens specifically designed for outdoor candid, not portraits, imo. I know some photographers who use 80-200 mm for indoor wedding photography, coupled with 85mm lens on their second camera.
I had a Sony 85mm f/1.8 recently. It was a great lens for portraits; just not on my Sony a6600 where it was too tight. I've sold it and ordered a Tamron 70-180 which I'm waiting for. I think the 85 is great on a full frame camera, although I would still go for a 70-200 if I had a full frame body.
hopefully, you will be able to afford 200 mm F2 pretty soon, thanks for the video and I guess 70-200 is better in terms of what you can do with it (wildlife, bird photography, sports, and portraits, and some landscape), and 85 mm 1.4 is good if you are just wanting to focus on one thing and get the best results.
bro im glad I came across your channel. you're def inspiring me
Hello Manny I’m Glad i came by Your channel . You have this unique style & great patience when making video tutorials. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to show yours skills & knowledge. Yes F 1.4 or 1.8 *(prime lens)* are indeed sharper lens. Again thank you Stay Healthy & Safe with this Nationwide pandemic. God Speed. 📷📸🎥
shoot weddings looking for a lens to separate people from the background during speeches and ceremony. I was contemplating the 70-20] f4, 85mm 1.8 and the 90mm macro 2.8. Is the compression at 200 significantly better than what I would get with those other lenses?
5:14 haha. Funny to watch this now considering the 200mm is your new favorite lens. You know you don't have to shoot a 70-200 at 200 right? You can shoot it at 85mm, plus you also got 70-199...
Your channel is wayyyy underrated...glad I found it. I shoot Sony too and have been looking for these comparison videos...would also like to see some videos on composition tips with the recorded view finder again. Thanks for your content!
Agreed. I like how he both shows us the viewfinder while he works and tells us what he did and why. So much better than the norm.
bokeh is my main concern. do you think the bokeh of 85 at 1.4 is any different than the bokeh of the 70-200 at 200, f2.8? thank you
Fun vid as I just used an 85 1.8 for corporate headshots in the studio and also my GF just got me a Nikon 70-200 2.8/G VR II that I am going to use at that exact location in Chicago for an engagement shoot.
I was surprised, but impressed with the verdict for the 85, because I would have guessed the 70-200 because it can hit 85 (albeit at f/2.8) and even 70 to get close and can also hit 200 for nice compression and comparable bokeh. However, like you mentioned, the choice is personal. It’s good to have choices for creativity and different preferences.
200mm for portraits should be medium close up or extreme close up, it's not for full body portrait. That's why you can zoom down to 70mm if you want full body.
Lol. As much as I love the corporate presentation intro, I love the style your have grown into today.
Gee thanks! Just the two lenses I needed to be compared...might have to rent the 85mm while in Cairo next month.
The part of the video when you show the live view of you shooting, focusing, framing was really helpful, first time I see this on youtube and it was a real betterment. Thanks for that and keep up the good work !
Thanks for the info. I'm considering purchasing the 85 mm to go along with the 50 mm that I already have for portraits!!!
What is the reason for focus and recompose instead of just moving the focusing point?
chanala easier
I like the video tutorial, but in this video I thought you got more dramatic shots using the 70 - 200mm lens, though I'm a fan of the 85mm focal length too.
I would recommend to anyone shooting 200 to choose a subject first that is either close family or friend. You need a strong connection with the model to shoot so far back or you risk losing interest in a remarkable option. That is for anyone who hasn’t shot portraiture in that focal length.
Hey Manny! Thank you for such a great explanation between the 2 lenses. I shoot with Canon5D markii & have both the Canon 70-200 & 85L 1.4 & I agree with you on the fact that it's much easier to engage with your models/clients with the 85L 1.4. You can with the 70-200 also, but only if you're going for those tight headshots. IMO I am really enjoying the Canon 85L 1.4 & can't wait to get out for some awesome shots. Thank you for sharing your views on these 2 awesome lenses. BTW,your wife is lovely.
I am a landscape, architecture and travel focused amateur photographer so for me I'd guess that a very fast 85mm prime would be best but I'd use my Tamron 70-180 F2.8 with my A7IV if I had to do portraits in a pinch. I just don't have any more suitable lenses on my X-T3 or A7IV as it's just not my focus. Maybe my Sigma 24-70 F2.8 or my Fuji 16-55 F2.8?
Great Video Manny, What Kind of Focus You Used?
Of course, you can shot the 70-200mm lens at 85mm and then the big difference would be: weight and size of the lens, and the wider aperture of the 85mm. I like them both and they both have their pros and cons...
Sooo helpful!! Thank you! I am super reserved too and do not like to yell. 🙌🏽
Love your videos brother, simple and well explained! Keep em coming
i have FE 55mm F1.8 ZA, should i go for 85mm 1.4 or 70-200 2.8?
What did u end up going for? I’m stuck on the same question 😩😩.
Looking forward to the upcoming Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 lens...
For E mount? When it's coming..
Supposedly it is coming in early spring 2020...
same!
This was a very good comparison. The 85 1.4 is just a good lens and focal length.
Uh...the nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 ed is like an ax. No way is my 85 sharper than that. As for me, yes, the 85 is lighter , less intimidating ,and yes has the otion of a wider aperture in low light. But the ruthless speed and versatility a.k.a work flow of the 70-200mm fl ed make it such a fun choice. Especially when am out snapping people in huge cities.
wider aperture in low light is useless except you shoot small things and faces!! It will make the background extremely unnoticeable!! Don't be tricked from specs!! THE QUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT(lens crystal structure)!! A Leica will always outperform nikon & canon lovers for example!!
i'd like to see you work in lightroom please!
lightroom is a joke
I like the 85 as well but the 70-200 zoomed out was better at smoothing out the busy flashing detail in the Chi-Town skyline allowing the subject to be more isolated.
Love the last two shots and their edits. Well done
At 200mm you don’t feel very engaged? Then just step closer and zoom out!! That’s the whole point of the 70-200mm zoom it allows you both full body and tight headshots with a twist of the wrist!
But then you loose the background blur/bokeh..
So when you hit the focus button then you move it and take the photo with her off center , you are using the lock focus ?
Loved watching this shoot again :) thank you so much.
Curious.... why wouldn’t you use face detection (or even eye AF) and have the shot already composed (model already off to the side)? Most of these shots were taken using the old “focus and re-compose” technique. I’m currently Canon but thinking of switching. I thought those features would be well suited to this style of photography so be interested why they weren’t used
Awesome video Manny, showing the viewfinder is a nice move. I think more than that, I enjoyed watching your technique with focusing.
+Joe Narlock Thanks Joe
Hai Manny Ortiz, I'm sorry before if my english is not good. I want to ask you, what is the function drag the focus from the model to the middle/the sun? I just started learning about photograph. Thank you
Thank you manny for your video!! i really liked it!!! you are my inspiration!!
Yeah bro, you're up next! You and your wife got that synergy that translates well on screen.
Didn't know you're in Chicago, we're in Rockford and come shoot there quite often. Good stuff!
THX a lot for your videos, mate! U certainly inspire people to dive into photography and blokey blokes like me to at least try and master up a bit their pitiful skills. Well done and congrats from Eastern Europe!
Bad Ass video Manny! Really powerful getting to watch what you are focusing on and how you frame in real time! Then seeing the post transformation. It would be cool to hear you and the model interacting too, add another level of depth. Great work and thanks for sharing man!
So with the 70-200mm you can’t set it to 85mm?
You should do a comparison between this 70-200 2.8 and the sigma a-mount version with the la-ea4 adapter. Is it worth the 2600 for the emount ? Or should we spend around 500 for the a mount sigma and adapter.
This is next level, and for a photo Rookie like myself I get a much better Idea of what is done in camera and what is done in post. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I am new to your channel but will def SUB and share.. thanks again
I've rarely done full length at 200mm and most definitely not in the landscape orientation. IMO, 130+mm should mostly be used for upper body or head & shoulder. Doing so would provide far better separation.
Is that situation to shoot wide open? Both background and model are equal subjects
I'll take "speed" over "length" any day.
You sir are the truth ❗️❗️ Love your photography brotha
Gracias mi hermano! Me gusta! You rock Manny.
CANON 85L 1.4 with IS is DOPE!
HI Manny, Thank you for the informative videos. There are many photographers on youtube, your tutorial stands out and i have learnt a few things from you already. I own sony A7, with 85mm samyang, beautiful results. It's just handling the manual focus all the time, can be little tricky. Also shoot with 50mm and 35mm on portrait. Again, love your work. Thank you.
How did you get the Focus sharp at 1.4 and recomposing ? That is sick.
at that distance is possibile if you move the camera only parallel to the subject ;)
Omg...
Thank you for all your videos. I learns a lot. You’re amazing.
Manny why not focus on the model for the first shots you were doing with the 200mm?
I own a A6300 If I only can buy one lens can you please recommend for me which lens work both pretty much in video and photo?
I really enjoyed to see the viewfinder. Interesting format.
70-200 lens will be heavy u may have to move around a bit, but everything is a learning process and we shouldn't disable our abilities. As photographers we must learn new methods to stay ready.
6:25 LoL Manny, of course you can afford a 200mm f2 lens. :)
I've been following you for a while now, but watching the screen was so informative that I think all your vids should have it! Haha great shots
My dude, the view finder action, and the eye focusing function was crazy! Ah!
I finally own both tomorrow (but on a Nikon) and it took me ages to save the money haha :D
Very nice post processing. Beautiful color. Will you show us later the editing process of those images?
Very good. Thank you.
Thanks for the tips tried the 70-200 but that thing is so hard to handle :)
Ome of the best vid i've ever seen about that! Thk man!!! Greetings from Italy
New subscriber here... Man, you content is awesome. Most engaging Photography channel I've come across!!! Dope stuff man. Thanks
Nice comparison thank you, pleas let your model/wife to have behind the scene comments - it’s so nice to see your real life communication) Nice channel. Respect
I know Keydrin Franklin. He uses a 400mm f/4 when he can!
Hi Manny. Is the 70-200 GM as sharp as 55mm zeiss f1.8? thx man
Hey Manny! Love your photos!! As someone new to photography would recommend the sony 85mm 1.8 for 600 bucks?
Love videos manny, Which lens would you prefer, a 85 G master or the 24-70 G master
Mike Pulido 85 GM ;)
Manny, I have a sony a6000. I just have the kit lens. If you were in my shoes what would be the next lens you buy?
I'm not Manny but nobody can say what your next lens is if you don't say what type of photography you do most often. Tthere are different recommendations for street, landscape, sports, portraits, wildlife, travel, and just normal walkaround. Also, you have to give a budget and what kind of weight you're willing to deal with.
kalel33 I have the same camera,what do you recommend for street?
My 70-200 gm is definitely sharper wide open than my 85 gm wide open....albeit the 85 is at F1.4
keep the video still for the love of god, feels like im on a roller coaster
This was awesome! You're a great inspiration. Keep at it brother.
+Ismail Choudhry Thanks
Great video Manny! Do you mind sharing how your recorded your camera's screen?
How you lock the focus on your subjects ?
thanks for the thoughts, the effort and the sharing. thumbs up.
LOVE the 85!
I have a Nikon D7000. Would an 85mm 1.8D lens work for me rather than a more expensive 1.8 G lens?
Yes, it would. You'd have autofocus.
The 1.8D is said to be better (sharper) than the 1.8G as well.
that instrumental at the very end with the hotwings was FLAME.. What is that?
hey manny im getting the sony a7ii and am a heavy portrait shooter so I am debating between the canon 70-200f4l usm with sigma mc11 or the sony fe 85 1.8, i would love eye af but would also love the flexibility of the zoom as I could use it for sports etc.
Get Sigma Art 1.8 lens.
If you are a portrait shooter, go with the 85 1.8. The 70-200 will not have as nice bokeh as the 85 1.8, but more importantly, it will force you to stand very far away from the model, if you want to get the blur. You will lose the intimacy of the portrait shoot.
Also, not only, that the 85 will focus much much better (since it's a native lens), but it will be very easy to carry around, and it's less "scary for the models" because of the compact size.
Based on what you shoot... definitely the Sony 85 1.8. Very good lens for the price and you'll appreciate the faster focusing, better eye-af than the Sigma. In addition, the Sony isn't good for sports anyway... unless you get the A9!
Luca P i was thinking about the exact same thing. The canon 70-200 f4 (with metabones adapter) or the sony 85mm 1.8.
True i would have more bokeh and less trouble focusing if i stay native.
Hey Manny, can please tell me what software you used to create your intro to this video? It is REALLY nice. Please let me know. Thanks.
+Peter Yu I purchased the template from videohive.com
Thank you!