There are hundreds on videos on this topic on RUclips and honestly, your approach to this topic is the best and the most practical one. I loved your analysis and the way you explained all the parameters for choosing a lens. Thank you for this awesome video. Keep up the good work!
I love it. When I went from DSLR to mirrorless I reluctantly sold my 85, 105, and 135 to buy an RF 70-200 and 9.9 out of 10 times I don’t miss the primes- the .1 times when I do miss them is when I want that overkill bokeh I’d get from 105mm F1.4... When I was using a 5Diii the wider aperture was super important to me because you really noticed the benefits as far as the camera’s focusing confidence and general low light performance, but on the R6 the low light performance is so good that even F4 lenses haven’t given me any problems (practically speaking)- I can stress test them and find simulated scenarios where the difference seems to matter, but in reality F2.8 and even F4 has been great.
You're one of the absolute best photographers and teachers on the planet. I've invested in a lot of your programs. You're certainly correct about the visible results. I've switched from my 70-200 f/2.8 to an 85 f1.8 for weddings. I use a 35 on one camera, and the 85 on the other after watching Neil Redfern's videos. The fatigue and back pain after a wedding lugging the 70-200 on my camera wasn't worth it. It's clear that you're on the money for general portraits, however. Thanks for so much incredible instruction over these past years. You're an amazing resource!
I primarily shoot landscape, but want to shoot more portraits for friends and family. You turned on the light bulb for me to look at compression by showing how it works. The compression with the shot of your baby with the trees is absolutely stunning! Thank you very much!!
I started out with a 70200, but recently did an audit to see which focal lengths I use the most and I’m mostly at 70, 105-135 & 200. The 200 end being my most used for events and street photography. Of course I crop as needed with Sony A7RV, but I wouldn’t think of going to the 100-400 for reach and lose out on f/2.8. Great video!
GLAD I FOUND THIS VIDEO! These days I am shooting a 55-200mm DX ZOOM LENS on my full frame Nikon camera, which is giving me a 85-300mm perspective. You are really helping me!
As many others here I also have both lenses. And this video confirms my choices. I almost always reach for the 70-200. Almost to the point where I'm wondering if I should sell the 85 mm.. (but sometimes I need the extra stops, so I'll keep it)
Best video on the subject! Objective and to the point. Addesses the practical aspects, not the usual way people would approach that very same comparison! Great job, Pye. Keep it up
I have both. Both lenses are capable of creating beautiful background blur. And I used both for beautiful portraits. The 70-200 feels a bit more practical (zoom), but I am in love with the DS magic when used with closeup portraits.
Absolutely agree. The 70-200 is versatile and with a prime level quality (talking about the RF 70-200 f2.8). And all that in a small package. Cant go wrong with that. But the RF 85 f1.2 DS is a lens on a whole new level. Especially the DS version. If your all in for background blur and bokeh look, I don't think another lens can achieve what this is capable of. Plus it probably a nearly perfect image rendering without any chromatic aberrations or other cons. One reviewer once said its the best lens he ever tested, and that was the non DS version. The 70-200 produces great images, but you can absolutely see the difference in bokeh especially when faced with backgrounds that are not very smooth (daylight with a lot of foliage for example).
@@Seitenwerk I’m getting the DS version next week. Would you highly recommend it over the original RF 85MM 1.2? I do prefer the DS makes the subject pop and background less distracting.
For me you are the most logical photographer on RUclips! And also someone who finally takes the magic out of the RF 85mm/1.2 - rightly so in my opinion! Because the 85mm is simply praised far too much in the sky. For the fact that it is only a portrait focal length.... Therefore, I recommend everyone first look at the RF 50mm/1.2 before buying an "inflexible" focal length! The 50mm can also always stay on the camera since much more universal! :)
You make it 50 vs 85...but its not that at all...they are two focal lengths that each have their own mission, and one cannot replace the other in many instances. I have both RF f1.2 primes and use them equally. As to the arguments of this video, I do not buy it's premises. Looking at one photo and not side by side, just because you might not be able to tell the FL of the lens used does not support his conclusions.
I knew I needed the 70-200mm, but I didn't realize how much more versatile it actually was. I really only needed it for just zoomed-in close ups, but i had no idea that it can function like an 85mm, even at 2.8. Thank you for this!
I have a few primes (20 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 105 2.8 MC) and they're amazing - love them. I'm considering the 70-200 2.8 for all the reasons you mention but I've been overlooking distance to subject, so this was a helpful reminder. I'm concerned I'm overlapping coverage too much but at the same time I feel the 70-200 is a must-have for event coverage. Thanks for this insightful & informative video!
I have the primes and the zooms. I prefer the look of the primes 100%. The clients don’t. I miss moments switching lenses. For the most part now I use 28-70 and 70-200. The 28-70 has that prime look in a zoom and I get more special moments.
Excellent approach on the subject. I have researched a lot about this. I recently got a 70-200mm but my heart was set on 85mm 1.2 (because of that beautiful blurred background) which is so out of my budget (i am a hobbyist) but I am so happy with my choice. The 70-200 shoots amazing portraits AND is so versatile. On the downside it is very heavy. Neither is cheap but I got a sigma EF + adapter for my rf camera and i love the setup and the overall cost was way better than upgrading to the canon rf
I love this real world comparison. You could have flipped the images and lenses and still proved your point. I own the new Sony 70-200GM II and it really is a zoom prime lens. The old version rarely left my bag because it was so heavy with average image quality. I have been pondering this question ever since that lens arrived. I love my 85mm, and 135mm primes especially in low light but I no longer feel like I'm compromising in any other way. The new 70-200 even gives the king (Sony 135mm GM) a run for it's money. I will still use the 35,85 and 135 for portraits but the 70-200 cannot be beat for an event. I even picked up the new Tamron 35-150 for when I just want a one lens solution with maximum versatility.
Awesome video great info!! I went with the 70-200 no regrets, but as a photographer you are able to see what they do differently. 85 is amazing hands down, awesome go to lens if your walking a good distance thanks again for the insight!!
Thank you for this video. These are the two lenses I've been going back and forth which to purchase. I want both but, I think you helped me with the clear choice for now. The 70-200mm. Thank you!
I owe a Canon ef 70-300L IS USM f4-5.6 and it is bloody sharp ! The only other lens which is sharper is my macro 100mm L f2 IS USM, so sharp i cut myself just holding it ! Lol The 70-300 is very versatile and I use it for portraits, airshows, pets, sports, great lens
I shoot with both and I couldn’t agree more with every point you hit upon. Love the content - you’re one of my greatest sources for accurate and pertinent information. Thanks!
This is so so weird just yesterday I watched every video on this topic and a lot were from years ago and it's beyond strange that y'all just happened to revisit it at the start of my today ... Great content as always
I have both and use it on different occasions…85 and 50 1.8 (Nikon)probably use indoor and 80-200 2.8 out doors. Certainly the background aesthetic is good or better in zooms. Great video Mr. Pye. (Always 😊)
I use a 35-150 mm f/2-2.8 lens for portraits. I call it my "tweener" lens but it has become my go-to lens for portraits and artistic shoots. I see that I'm not the only one that has found this Tamron lens a great utility lens.
Nice video, very detailed and well explained! You said that the extra stops of light are more relevant for portrait shooters, but as and events + portrait photographer myself, I find those 2 extra stops of light way more important when I'm doing weddings that when I'm shooting portraits. Those 2 stops of light allow me to shoot comfortably on difficult situations that would be impossible to shoot with the 70-200. I've gotten many, many shots thank to that extra 2 stops that otherwise I wouldn't be able to get with the 70-200. It's not just that extra light, it's that you can safely use a slower shutter speed too. I've got plenty of great shots at 1/50 that wouldn't be possible with the 70-200. Also, you usually have way less space to work and you can't easily get the right distance with your subject to work with the 70-200. And the 85 weighs A LOT less, that's also a huge thing when you have to shoot for 10 or 12 hours! I think all of that makes the 85 a much better option for weddings and events. At least for me. Just my 2 cents :)
Hello from the UK, loved the points you made (and your photographs). As you said its hard to tell the difference between them. Space being an issue for me sometimes I go with the 85, but you are right the 70-200 if there is enough space. In low light though, for me there is only one choice really. I did enjoy this, thanks.
You need both! The 85 is faster, less distortion, and forces the photographer to actually move, changing perspective and often the angle. The zoom always has some distortion which software corrects but with loss of quality (minimal - but there), and tends to create a "lazy" photographer. The 85mm I believe is more conducive to the "slow photography" concept. But sometimes nothing but a zoom will do. I require and have both ! Any arguments?
Thank you so much for this lecture. The results which you point out are something that I have always felt. However, over the past decade there has been so much hype about the compression of the 85mm prime lens. I have actually began feeling insecure about not owning a prime lens. Your analysis has confirmed what I have instinctively believed from my beginnings when starting photography. A comparison I would like to see is the benefits between a full frame lens, and an APS lens on an APS camera. I've heard considerable arguments regarding sharpness.
Working distance matters much of the time, especially indoors. Even the 85mm means standing further back than is possible depending on the situation. So, the answer is, get both lenses ($$$$). Oh, where can I get that microphone so my voice will sound that good?
Hi Pye, yes on mirrorless with lenses designed for mirrorless the surmise is correct. However, as an owner of a D 3000 and a Z6 with a mix of the dslr lenses, two S line lenses and a Jupiter 85mm adapted to work with the Z6 , I must say that the difference between a nikon 70 - 300 vs the 70 - 200mm S lens is massive , but , the Jupiter 85 despite being so much older is a sheer delight in terms of aesthetics. Thanks for a lovely and though provoking talk . Loved it 🥰
It is an interesting discussion. The 70-200 2.8 is next generation, and such it is equally good to 85 mm prime lenses. But let us not forget the new prime lenses are *also* next generation, and should be expected to perform considerably better than what are used to from prime lenses.
It's simple if the main concern is composition go for the 70-200 but if sharpness or overall image quality to another level this video still convince me to get a 85mm
photographers need to take that journey of owning both and realizing which one makes it to the bag when going to the field. i remember when i first started i had about 12 lenses all overlapping each other and now i only stick to 3 and sold the rest.
Very interesting video Py, I have both the 85 and 80 - 200 mm lenses , But I personally prefer the 85mm lens for shooting portraits, because it's physically much easier to handle and at the larger apertures one uses for portraiture produces better defiinition. P.S. 80 mm on medium format is equivalent to 50mm on 35 mm, it should be a 150 mm lens to give the same angle of view
Great shots and speedlight work. I agree with your comments, 70 to 200 is just a better overall lens and the longer range compression is visually more impressive. Only issues as you mention are budget and specific use cases should drive people to the 85mm.
I've got Canon R5 with RF 85 1.2 and I love it, it is great for portraits, but limiting during the events, so now I am wondering if I should get 70-200; or maybe 50 1.2. or even 28-70 f2..🤯
I was skeptical about purchasing previously owned 70-200 2.8 due to cost and it’s utility. I agree 100% with all points mentioned in this video. 70-200 lens is more versatile in terms of usability.
I already have both so I am late for this but it was still informative, the reason is I am able to have the option to do both if needed! keep up the great videos though I love these.
I love watching Pi’s videos, Adorama more videos from Pi please! He’s videos are really easy to understand, it’s the way how he explains it! Thanks Pi 👏
Put that 70-200 vs 85 1.2 which is at equivalent price point. The 85 1.2 will yield much more satisfying results even against 200mm 2.8L. I like that you're being practical. But with the 85 1.2 I can still accurately pick it out from several results. That lens is very distinctive.
I disagree with the premise of this video. I have both RF f1.2 lenses and once had the 70-200 f2.8, but I sold the zoom because it could not give me the opportunities that the two f1.2 primes could give. The best lenses for portraiture are still the RF 50L f1.2, RF 85L f1.2, and the EF 132L f2...These in fact give the portraitist far more flexibility and opportunities than the 70-200 f2.8 zoom.
I suggest buying both. Since I prefer fast prime lenses, here are the lenses I purchased listed in the order purchased: 85mm f/1.4 (my personal favorite portrait lens) 105mm f/2.5 (similar to the lens used by photographer Tim McCurry to shoot the famous Afghan Girl photo that appeared on the June 1985 National Geographic cover) 135mm f/2 (use primarily for tight head shots) 180mm f/2.8 (use primarily for reportage) 70-200mm f/2.8 (use in my wedding backup kit)
Hello Pye, thank you for this review. I have the RF 70-200 F2.8 as well as a Sigma 85mm F1.4 and found your information on point and useful. I can get great smoothing and bokeh from both. The RF is to me a better lens for the fact in my case because it has image stabilization at the lens.
Yeah great vid, well spoken and very informative, I was about to buy a sigma 85 art, already have the 70-200 IS2, and am now convinced that that's prob a waste of money for the type of photography I like to shoot, most of the time being in wide open nature backdrops.
20 years ago, I had most of Minolta's G (Luxury) lenses. I had this same issue here. That was long ago but still, my favorite lens was the 70-200 2.8. 85mm's shallow depth was "TOO MUCH UNREAL". On the other side, with right distance with 130mm-200mm range, the background out focusing was much more artistic and realistic, YET MORE THAN ENOUGH BLURRED. I ended up letting go of 85 but Never, not even once regretted.
Great video !! New thoughts now I'am completely used working with my 35, 50 and 85 mm primes (and the 85 is my favorite among them), but I have to say I hardly do events, usually photo settings you have 'all the time' in the world. But especially the photos of the young girl with the 70-200 are really beautiful .....
U have done an amazing work bro, thanks for the light... Though I have not used 70 -200mm so much in my photography life, most of the time I used to be with 85mm n it did some great work for me, but for yo guide I have to atleast love working with 70-200mm 👍👍👍👍
Zoom lens makes you rotate the ring first, then think later. Prime lens makes you think first, then move to position. Prime lens also makes you a keener photographer (or perhaps makes you think you make a mistake buying one). So use primes often to sharpen you skill or yield your super keen skill. And use zoom lens if you are afraid to make mistakes or miss the moments.
I own the RF 70-200 but I still plan to buy the 85 1.2 because the RF 70-200 struggle a bit in low light situation in which the 85 1.2 will struggle less and achieve better focus and give cleaner images . Plus I love the creamy look with the 85 (Non DS).
Good video and debate on an issue where the lines are getting pulled closer ! I would love a 85mm f1.8 as for it would be lens envey and I would use it rarely ! Most zooms of 70-200, 70-300 f2.8 or f4 and very good for versatility. Uses you have a studio with a set environment then a prime would work well. Otherwise the zooms are well more practical.
Great video, great points to consider. I own a 70-200 f2.8 already, nevertheless, I am considering the 85 for closer working distance with couples and studio work. Thanks for your videos from Nicaragua.
Pye, great video as usual! Can you maybe share your opinion on Tamron 35-150? In my view this might be optimal balance between 85mm and 70-200mm and actually one single lens that could replace both. What do you think? Or what others are thinking - any comment on Tamron would be appreciated!
I’m after my next RF lens. I love my 24-105 even with subject background separation and distance, I can still get a present out of focus area and subject isolation. I would love an 85 or 135, however for what I shoot and the versatility for what I would find myself using the 70-200 wins hands down. The fact I can get a full length body shot at 70mm ans then zoom in for a quick portrait without having to move or crop anything.
Thank you so much. Your opinion is very true considering the larger mirrorless mounts aa far as the aperture/separation performance goes but for my work, I have to shoot in mid-length workspace and to get the absolute best compression from the 70-200, I must be at the tele end which demands more working area which is probably not in my control. Also, the size and the flexibility on a gimbal for hybrid work just leans me more towards the 85. Don't get me wrong, if I have that workspace on my projects, which is mostly weddings, I would love to use a 70-200 and in fact I have used it before but man, does 85 makes it so much easier.
I actually have both lenses because the few times (and those times are very important moments) that I need the extra stops of light the 85 f/1.2 gives me are worth every penny. I shoot a lot of behind-the-scenes in music performances and 9 times out of 10, the f/1.2 on my R5 has become a life saver that I would have NOT been able to capture it with the 70-200. Every photographer has its own specific needs and for those of us who MUST have a fast aperture, the f/1.2 has no competition.
Only real difference is gonna be low light situations really. They clients won't know or care as long as it looks good. I use my rf 50 1.8 and rf 100-400 for portraits.
There are hundreds on videos on this topic on RUclips and honestly, your approach to this topic is the best and the most practical one. I loved your analysis and the way you explained all the parameters for choosing a lens. Thank you for this awesome video. Keep up the good work!
I love it. When I went from DSLR to mirrorless I reluctantly sold my 85, 105, and 135 to buy an RF 70-200 and 9.9 out of 10 times I don’t miss the primes- the .1 times when I do miss them is when I want that overkill bokeh I’d get from 105mm F1.4... When I was using a 5Diii the wider aperture was super important to me because you really noticed the benefits as far as the camera’s focusing confidence and general low light performance, but on the R6 the low light performance is so good that even F4 lenses haven’t given me any problems (practically speaking)- I can stress test them and find simulated scenarios where the difference seems to matter, but in reality F2.8 and even F4 has been great.
The thing I appreciate most about your videos is the tone and pace of your voice. Thank you!! 🙏🏽
You're one of the absolute best photographers and teachers on the planet. I've invested in a lot of your programs. You're certainly correct about the visible results. I've switched from my 70-200 f/2.8 to an 85 f1.8 for weddings. I use a 35 on one camera, and the 85 on the other after watching Neil Redfern's videos. The fatigue and back pain after a wedding lugging the 70-200 on my camera wasn't worth it. It's clear that you're on the money for general portraits, however. Thanks for so much incredible instruction over these past years. You're an amazing resource!
I primarily shoot landscape, but want to shoot more portraits for friends and family. You turned on the light bulb for me to look at compression by showing how it works. The compression with the shot of your baby with the trees is absolutely stunning! Thank you very much!!
I started out with a 70200, but recently did an audit to see which focal lengths I use the most and I’m mostly at 70, 105-135 & 200. The 200 end being my most used for events and street photography. Of course I crop as needed with Sony A7RV, but I wouldn’t think of going to the 100-400 for reach and lose out on f/2.8. Great video!
GLAD I FOUND THIS VIDEO! These days I am shooting a 55-200mm DX ZOOM LENS on my full frame Nikon camera, which is giving me a 85-300mm perspective. You are really helping me!
As many others here I also have both lenses. And this video confirms my choices. I almost always reach for the 70-200. Almost to the point where I'm wondering if I should sell the 85 mm.. (but sometimes I need the extra stops, so I'll keep it)
Best video on the subject! Objective and to the point. Addesses the practical aspects, not the usual way people would approach that very same comparison! Great job, Pye. Keep it up
I have both. Both lenses are capable of creating beautiful background blur. And I used both for beautiful portraits. The 70-200 feels a bit more practical (zoom), but I am in love with the DS magic when used with closeup portraits.
Absolutely agree. The 70-200 is versatile and with a prime level quality (talking about the RF 70-200 f2.8). And all that in a small package. Cant go wrong with that.
But the RF 85 f1.2 DS is a lens on a whole new level. Especially the DS version. If your all in for background blur and bokeh look, I don't think another lens can achieve what this is capable of. Plus it probably a nearly perfect image rendering without any chromatic aberrations or other cons. One reviewer once said its the best lens he ever tested, and that was the non DS version. The 70-200 produces great images, but you can absolutely see the difference in bokeh especially when faced with backgrounds that are not very smooth (daylight with a lot of foliage for example).
@@Seitenwerk I’m getting the DS version next week. Would you highly recommend it over the original RF 85MM 1.2? I do prefer the DS makes the subject pop and background less distracting.
@@xxjsmoothxx8104 you can let us know 🙃
For me you are the most logical photographer on RUclips! And also someone who finally takes the magic out of the RF 85mm/1.2 - rightly so in my opinion! Because the 85mm is simply praised far too much in the sky. For the fact that it is only a portrait focal length....
Therefore, I recommend everyone first look at the RF 50mm/1.2 before buying an "inflexible" focal length! The 50mm can also always stay on the camera since much more universal! :)
You make it 50 vs 85...but its not that at all...they are two focal lengths that each have their own mission, and one cannot replace the other in many instances. I have both RF f1.2 primes and use them equally. As to the arguments of this video, I do not buy it's premises. Looking at one photo and not side by side, just because you might not be able to tell the FL of the lens used does not support his conclusions.
I knew I needed the 70-200mm, but I didn't realize how much more versatile it actually was. I really only needed it for just zoomed-in close ups, but i had no idea that it can function like an 85mm, even at 2.8. Thank you for this!
Love this Pye! Thank you. This helps a lot. Now I have decided to go with the 70-200mm
I have a few primes (20 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 105 2.8 MC) and they're amazing - love them. I'm considering the 70-200 2.8 for all the reasons you mention but I've been overlooking distance to subject, so this was a helpful reminder. I'm concerned I'm overlapping coverage too much but at the same time I feel the 70-200 is a must-have for event coverage.
Thanks for this insightful & informative video!
I have the primes and the zooms. I prefer the look of the primes 100%. The clients don’t. I miss moments switching lenses. For the most part now I use 28-70 and 70-200. The 28-70 has that prime look in a zoom and I get more special moments.
Excellent approach on the subject. I have researched a lot about this. I recently got a 70-200mm but my heart was set on 85mm 1.2 (because of that beautiful blurred background) which is so out of my budget (i am a hobbyist) but I am so happy with my choice. The 70-200 shoots amazing portraits AND is so versatile. On the downside it is very heavy. Neither is cheap but I got a sigma EF + adapter for my rf camera and i love the setup and the overall cost was way better than upgrading to the canon rf
I love this real world comparison. You could have flipped the images and lenses and still proved your point. I own the new Sony 70-200GM II and it really is a zoom prime lens. The old version rarely left my bag because it was so heavy with average image quality. I have been pondering this question ever since that lens arrived. I love my 85mm, and 135mm primes especially in low light but I no longer feel like I'm compromising in any other way. The new 70-200 even gives the king (Sony 135mm GM) a run for it's money. I will still use the 35,85 and 135 for portraits but the 70-200 cannot be beat for an event. I even picked up the new Tamron 35-150 for when I just want a one lens solution with maximum versatility.
Awesome video great info!! I went with the 70-200 no regrets, but as a photographer you are able to see what they do differently. 85 is amazing hands down, awesome go to lens if your walking a good distance thanks again for the insight!!
Thank you for this video. These are the two lenses I've been going back and forth which to purchase. I want both but, I think you helped me with the clear choice for now. The 70-200mm. Thank you!
Summary: We need a 80-150 1.8
16-200mm f/1.4
@@stefanogavosto4452😂😂😂
14-300 F1.1 . It is possible with my invented technique and ideas.
@@tanvirahmedsiddiquee127 mind sharing? Sharing is caring heh
Tamron 35-150 F2-F2.8 is even better.
Lovely photos and great analysis. The main take away I got from this was that the working space distance is the main factor.
I love the 85 but when working I always go for the 70-200
interesting video. I found I have gravitated towards the 50 f1.2 instead of the 85 lately. Closer and more useable inside for portraits.
Dude this was super helpful. I’m in love with that 85 1.2, but I look at the 70-200 and realize how much more versatile it is…
Great video Pye!! I think I've been underrating the versatility of the 70-200. Taking it out today! I'm inspired! Thanks!
Thanks for watching! Which lens do you prefer? The 85mm or the 70-200mm?
70-200mm for me.
I have both the 85mm and 70-200mm and love them both but if I could only have one, I would choose the 70-200mm.
I have both of them and I love them both.
I owe a Canon ef 70-300L IS USM f4-5.6 and it is bloody sharp !
The only other lens which is sharper is my macro 100mm L f2 IS USM, so sharp i cut myself just holding it ! Lol
The 70-300 is very versatile and I use it for portraits, airshows, pets, sports, great lens
I shoot with both and I couldn’t agree more with every point you hit upon. Love the content - you’re one of my greatest sources for accurate and pertinent information. Thanks!
This is so so weird just yesterday I watched every video on this topic and a lot were from years ago and it's beyond strange that y'all just happened to revisit it at the start of my today ... Great content as always
I have both and use it on different occasions…85 and 50 1.8 (Nikon)probably use indoor and 80-200 2.8 out doors. Certainly the background aesthetic is good or better in zooms. Great video Mr. Pye. (Always 😊)
I use a 35-150 mm f/2-2.8 lens for portraits. I call it my "tweener" lens but it has become my go-to lens for portraits and artistic shoots. I see that I'm not the only one that has found this Tamron lens a great utility lens.
ya that seems like it would be nice you get the 35 the 50 and the 85
Nice video, very detailed and well explained!
You said that the extra stops of light are more relevant for portrait shooters, but as and events + portrait photographer myself, I find those 2 extra stops of light way more important when I'm doing weddings that when I'm shooting portraits. Those 2 stops of light allow me to shoot comfortably on difficult situations that would be impossible to shoot with the 70-200. I've gotten many, many shots thank to that extra 2 stops that otherwise I wouldn't be able to get with the 70-200. It's not just that extra light, it's that you can safely use a slower shutter speed too. I've got plenty of great shots at 1/50 that wouldn't be possible with the 70-200.
Also, you usually have way less space to work and you can't easily get the right distance with your subject to work with the 70-200. And the 85 weighs A LOT less, that's also a huge thing when you have to shoot for 10 or 12 hours!
I think all of that makes the 85 a much better option for weddings and events. At least for me.
Just my 2 cents :)
My you should watch the video again as both distance and weight were mentioned
Do you have the 85 f/1.4? 1.8?
As i can read you definitely don`t have the RF85mm 1.2. Because that`s much heavier than the RF70-200 2.8
Hello from the UK, loved the points you made (and your photographs). As you said its hard to tell the difference between them. Space being an issue for me sometimes I go with the 85, but you are right the 70-200 if there is enough space. In low light though, for me there is only one choice really. I did enjoy this, thanks.
You need both! The 85 is faster, less distortion, and forces the photographer to actually move, changing perspective and often the angle. The zoom always has some distortion which software corrects but with loss of quality (minimal - but there), and tends to create a "lazy" photographer. The 85mm I believe is more conducive to the "slow photography" concept. But sometimes nothing but a zoom will do. I require and have both ! Any arguments?
Thank you so much for this lecture. The results which you point out are something that I have always felt. However, over the past decade there has been so much hype about the compression of the 85mm prime lens. I have actually began feeling insecure about not owning a prime lens. Your analysis has confirmed what I have instinctively believed from my beginnings when starting photography.
A comparison I would like to see is the benefits between a full frame lens, and an APS lens on an APS camera. I've heard considerable arguments regarding sharpness.
Working distance matters much of the time, especially indoors. Even the 85mm means standing further back than is possible depending on the situation. So, the answer is, get both lenses ($$$$). Oh, where can I get that microphone so my voice will sound that good?
It's incredible how good the raws look on you, you have the impression that they are already edited.
Hi Pye, yes on mirrorless with lenses designed for mirrorless the surmise is correct. However, as an owner of a D 3000 and a Z6 with a mix of the dslr lenses, two S line lenses and a Jupiter 85mm adapted to work with the Z6 , I must say that the difference between a nikon 70 - 300 vs the 70 - 200mm S lens is massive , but , the Jupiter 85 despite being so much older is a sheer delight in terms of aesthetics. Thanks for a lovely and though provoking talk . Loved it 🥰
What!!! You teach like professor .. I love how detailed you are
It is an interesting discussion. The 70-200 2.8 is next generation, and such it is equally good to 85 mm prime lenses. But let us not forget the new prime lenses are *also* next generation, and should be expected to perform considerably better than what are used to from prime lenses.
I appreciate the time, effort & transparency you put into these videos. Thank you
It's simple if the main concern is composition go for the 70-200 but if sharpness or overall image quality to another level this video still convince me to get a 85mm
You put my mind at peace this morning about trading in my Fuji gear for the cannon r5 or r3 with the 70-200mm
I have both lens but I really like how the rendering and compression is on the 200 mm better than anything, I think it makes people look better
photographers need to take that journey of owning both and realizing which one makes it to the bag when going to the field. i remember when i first started i had about 12 lenses all overlapping each other and now i only stick to 3 and sold the rest.
What lenses did you keep ?
Great as usual Pye👌🏾. I’ve been going back and forth with these two focal lengths.
*Thanks π for your information!*
Very interesting video Py, I have both the 85 and 80 - 200 mm lenses , But I personally prefer the 85mm lens for shooting portraits, because it's physically much easier to handle and at the larger apertures one uses for portraiture produces better defiinition.
P.S. 80 mm on medium format is equivalent to 50mm on 35 mm, it should be a 150 mm lens to give the same angle of view
I was about to critique the video till Pye, who is awesome, brought up the subject distance portion at the end. Well done.
Great shots and speedlight work. I agree with your comments, 70 to 200 is just a better overall lens and the longer range compression is visually more impressive. Only issues as you mention are budget and specific use cases should drive people to the 85mm.
I've got Canon R5 with RF 85 1.2 and I love it, it is great for portraits, but limiting during the events, so now I am wondering if I should get 70-200; or maybe 50 1.2. or even 28-70 f2..🤯
I was skeptical about purchasing previously owned 70-200 2.8 due to cost and it’s utility. I agree 100% with all points mentioned in this video.
70-200 lens is more versatile in terms of usability.
I already have both so I am late for this but it was still informative, the reason is I am able to have the option to do both if needed! keep up the great videos though I love these.
I love watching Pi’s videos, Adorama more videos from Pi please! He’s videos are really easy to understand, it’s the way how he explains it! Thanks Pi 👏
You are just amazing. Always love your work and your videos. You are an inspiration.
Much love to Pye. Video was interesting and insightful.
I have always been a 70-200 girl... It is versatile and the images are always amazing! Excellent video, thanks Pye. :)
I just caught that you used your backpack as a stand weight...genius! LOL
Put that 70-200 vs 85 1.2 which is at equivalent price point. The 85 1.2 will yield much more satisfying results even against 200mm 2.8L. I like that you're being practical. But with the 85 1.2 I can still accurately pick it out from several results. That lens is very distinctive.
This is well explained… thank you bro I love it cus I was wondering as well for the choice between those two beast.
the performance of these new lenses is insane!
I love my RF 70 - 200mm 2.8, I've only owned it.a month and it's already the favourite lens in my bag.
Great comparison! The events/versatility vs portraits/low light part is dope!
Great video! You answered my question on the best distance for the blur effects.
I disagree with the premise of this video. I have both RF f1.2 lenses and once had the 70-200 f2.8, but I sold the zoom because it could not give me the opportunities that the two f1.2 primes could give. The best lenses for portraiture are still the RF 50L f1.2, RF 85L f1.2, and the EF 132L f2...These in fact give the portraitist far more flexibility and opportunities than the 70-200 f2.8 zoom.
I suggest buying both. Since I prefer fast prime lenses, here are the lenses I purchased listed in the order purchased:
85mm f/1.4 (my personal favorite portrait lens)
105mm f/2.5 (similar to the lens used by photographer Tim McCurry to shoot the famous Afghan Girl photo that appeared on the June 1985 National Geographic cover)
135mm f/2 (use primarily for tight head shots)
180mm f/2.8 (use primarily for reportage)
70-200mm f/2.8 (use in my wedding backup kit)
ya thats just to much the rf 70 200 is just amazing making the rest kind of just a pain
Is it possible to get the 85 effect, 105 effect or 135 effect on a 70-200
Why not a tele converter no one says anything about that
loved the audio quality man!! epic!!
Omg. Pye answering my question!
My go to glass is the Sony 70-200 f2.8. And when I shot environmental portraits it’s a beast!
This helped so much. I have been struggling with which lens to purchase. Still want both but will probably go towards the 70-200 initially.
Hello Pye, thank you for this review. I have the RF 70-200 F2.8 as well as a Sigma 85mm F1.4 and found your information on point and useful. I can get great smoothing and bokeh from both. The RF is to me a better lens for the fact in my case because it has image stabilization at the lens.
I have to admit I preferred the look of 70-200. Thank you for the video.
Weird to compare an 80mm on medium format with the 70-200 and 85 on FF. 80mm is much wider than both of those other lenses.
And yes you are doing a good job, wish I had the option to pay you for photography advice.
Yeah great vid, well spoken and very informative, I was about to buy a sigma 85 art, already have the 70-200 IS2, and am now convinced that that's prob a waste of money for the type of photography I like to shoot, most of the time being in wide open nature backdrops.
Always amazing videos and information with you! Thank you!
20 years ago, I had most of Minolta's G (Luxury) lenses.
I had this same issue here. That was long ago but still, my favorite lens was the 70-200 2.8.
85mm's shallow depth was "TOO MUCH UNREAL". On the other side, with right distance with 130mm-200mm range, the background out focusing was much more artistic and realistic, YET MORE THAN ENOUGH BLURRED. I ended up letting go of 85 but Never, not even once regretted.
Great video !! New thoughts now I'am completely used working with my 35, 50 and 85 mm primes (and the 85 is my favorite among them), but I have to say I hardly do events, usually photo settings you have 'all the time' in the world. But especially the photos of the young girl with the 70-200 are really beautiful .....
Very helpful !
Love all the tutorials and pro-tips you share !!!
👍🏼👍🏼🆙
U have done an amazing work bro, thanks for the light... Though I have not used 70 -200mm so much in my photography life, most of the time I used to be with 85mm n it did some great work for me, but for yo guide I have to atleast love working with 70-200mm 👍👍👍👍
I absolutely love my 70-200 but for all day minis or weddings/events I find the 85mm to be so much lighter and easier to manage
just because of the weight of 70-200?
Zoom lens makes you rotate the ring first, then think later. Prime lens makes you think first, then move to position. Prime lens also makes you a keener photographer (or perhaps makes you think you make a mistake buying one). So use primes often to sharpen you skill or yield your super keen skill. And use zoom lens if you are afraid to make mistakes or miss the moments.
Great Video like always, Learning a lot from you!
Pye you should find time to narrate audiobooks. You'll absolutely knock it out of the park!
Fantastic and helpful video! And your daughter is adorable lol
I own the RF 70-200 but I still plan to buy the 85 1.2 because the RF 70-200 struggle a bit in low light situation in which the 85 1.2 will struggle less and achieve better focus and give cleaner images . Plus I love the creamy look with the 85 (Non DS).
Same boat, it’s so dreamy and low light for ceremonies etc
Thank you sir. This was very helpful. I have both and will keep them.
Good video and debate on an issue where the lines are getting pulled closer !
I would love a 85mm f1.8 as for it would be lens envey and I would use it rarely !
Most zooms of 70-200, 70-300 f2.8 or f4 and very good for versatility.
Uses you have a studio with a set environment then a prime would work well. Otherwise the zooms are well more practical.
I learned a lot, thanks !
from Philippines
its called true explanation ...... thank u so much
Great info. Love your videos. Always informative
Great video, great points to consider. I own a 70-200 f2.8 already, nevertheless, I am considering the 85 for closer working distance with couples and studio work. Thanks for your videos from Nicaragua.
I lean to the 85mm. The end result is extraordinary
Now you just made my job harder to get a new lens between these two😩. Thanks for the comparison.
Pye, great video as usual! Can you maybe share your opinion on Tamron 35-150? In my view this might be optimal balance between 85mm and 70-200mm and actually one single lens that could replace both. What do you think? Or what others are thinking - any comment on Tamron would be appreciated!
Love all your work! Keep up the amazing work 👍
I’m after my next RF lens. I love my 24-105 even with subject background separation and distance, I can still get a present out of focus area and subject isolation. I would love an 85 or 135, however for what I shoot and the versatility for what I would find myself using the 70-200 wins hands down. The fact I can get a full length body shot at 70mm ans then zoom in for a quick portrait without having to move or crop anything.
Thank you so much. Your opinion is very true considering the larger mirrorless mounts aa far as the aperture/separation performance goes but for my work, I have to shoot in mid-length workspace and to get the absolute best compression from the 70-200, I must be at the tele end which demands more working area which is probably not in my control. Also, the size and the flexibility on a gimbal for hybrid work just leans me more towards the 85. Don't get me wrong, if I have that workspace on my projects, which is mostly weddings, I would love to use a 70-200 and in fact I have used it before but man, does 85 makes it so much easier.
I actually have both lenses because the few times (and those times are very important moments) that I need the extra stops of light the 85 f/1.2 gives me are worth every penny.
I shoot a lot of behind-the-scenes in music performances and 9 times out of 10, the f/1.2 on my R5 has become a life saver that I would have NOT been able to capture it with the 70-200.
Every photographer has its own specific needs and for those of us who MUST have a fast aperture, the f/1.2 has no competition.
Price and weight are also an important point. A prime is mostly smaller and much more affordable.
This was so helpful, thank you!
Only real difference is gonna be low light situations really. They clients won't know or care as long as it looks good. I use my rf 50 1.8 and rf 100-400 for portraits.
I have been considering the 100 - 400 RF can you give me any advice. I do portrait and landscape photography.
I’m getting the 70 to 200, the 28 to 70, the 14 to 35, the 50 mm L and the 85 mm L.