Just curious if anyone out opts for the Nikon 85 1.4 over the 70-200. I am on the fence about which one to buy as I shoot all primes now exept my current Tamron 70-200 which is up for sale. Any experience with this will help. Thanks!
I own both an 85 1.2 and the 70-200 on the Canon side, and honestly feel that neither is a substitute for the other. A combination of zooms and primes is ultimately the most reliable setup, as it has built in redundancy and gives you options.
While I'm not a fan of zooms, the 70-200 or 80-200 is crucial for western Christian weddings when shooting from the back of the church. Aside from this application, it's never useful to me. So, I just rent it as needed.
I have the Nikon versions of both of these. I got the 85 1.4 first. Glad I did, otherwise I may never have known it's true goodness I couldn't shoot without my 70-200 now. You say you shoot mainly primes. Are you selling the Tamron for any particular reason? Do you have anything close to the 85? To be honest, if I I could only have 2 lenses, they'd be the 24-70 and the 70-200, but I don't use primes all that much. BUT thank God I can have more then 2
I'm selling the Tamron because although it produces some great images, the autofocus is less than stellar in low light which for weddings in a church is almost 100% of the time. I'm leaning in the 85 or even the 105DC direction and saving my pennies for the 70-200 later.
I couldn't shoot without my 70-200 now. You say you shoot mainly primes. Are you selling the Tamron for any particular reason? Do you have anything close to the 85? To be honest, if I I could only have 2 lenses, they'd be the 24-70 and the 70-200, but I don't use primes all that much. BUT thank God I can have more then 2 