Something to consider - with the 85 at 1.4 and focused on a subject 9 feet away you have DOF of 3.5 inches. At 12 feet you have 6 inches. Shooting something as erratic as a 7 year old (I have two boys of my one, one 11 and one 8) with DOF like that is just asking for trouble. Sure, sit 'em down and you can pull that off, but how many times are you really going to be using that 85 wide open on a free range kid? Yes, the 85 is a wonderful lens, but it is a specialist lens. The 70-200, OTOH, is lens that just gets special shots. Of all the lenses I own it would likely be the last one I'd give up.
I had the 70-200 VR and decided to go with the VRII because I wasn't really satisfied with the VR in the earlier version. The VRII has totally blown me away and it has better contrast too. I wouldn't say I'm really skilled at handholding or anything but I can definitely get sharp images (even at 100% crop) handholding at 1/10 of a second zoomed out to 200mm. I've heard some claim they can do at 1/4 of a second. Maybe I could in ideal conditions. Here's an example pic I took when I first got the lens. I was just sitting at my desk and picked it up and did a test totally freehanding not resting my arms or elbows on anything:
pawlowski6132 wrote:
As I think about this, I think it's going to boil down to VR.
For example, I just metered my son standing in strong indoor natural light. At ISO 50, and supposing I had the 85 1.4, and considering the subject (a 7 yo) I would probably not want to hand hold this at a shutter speed slower than1/60 which would require an aperture of 1.4.
If I wanted to shoot with more DOF I would have to drop the shutter speed to 1/30 or 1/15. Not possible for me without a tripod.
If I had the 70-200 I could hand hold down to 1/15. Right?
No, you're missing a bit. Your numbers show that the 85 would shoot 1/60 at f/1.4 while the 70-200 would need 1/15 at f/2.8. VR is usually good for 2-3 stops, so yes... at 70 or 80mm, you can probably get away with 1/15. Most likely, this being film, you can underexpose by a stop and then correct when printing so you can shoot at 1/30. Better yet, creating and managing your light instead of using only available natural light would make this whole conversation go away. Or even using ISO 100 or 200, or a digital camera.
But if you're set on using only available natural light (which is not what I'd do), and you're absolutely stuck like glue to ISO 50 film, the part you're missing is subject movement. A 7-year-old is not going to hold still very easily for 1/60 or 1/15. I shoot kids at 1/200, because they twitch, or squirm, or vibrate... they're simply very energetic creatures and most of the time they'll move a little. They don't freeze, and IMHO you're begging for subject motion blur in your shots.
I strongly suggest you light the venue to get the effect you want, if that's at all possible, or use either film or digital at ISO 200. If you absolutely cannot do either one, or you refuse to do so, then I think you've cornered yourself into using the 85/1.4 @ f/1.4 and underexposing by a little to shoot at 1/60 to 1/100, then correcting in print.
If I weren't considering subject motion, I'd probably still go for the 70-200 just because I like it so much and I'm used to using it. But in your case, probably the 85.
The VRII is easily good for 3 stops and more with good technique.
But yeah, subject motion nixes the benefits of VR but it's great for when I'm doing low-light shooting. Just press the shutter at the right time when the subject is not in motion or use flash to freeze. If I'm shooting portraits I usually am adding light.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
As I think about this, I think it's going to boil down to VR.
For example, I just metered my son standing in strong indoor natural light. At ISO 50, and supposing I had the 85 1.4, and considering the subject (a 7 yo) I would probably not want to hand hold this at a shutter speed slower than1/60 which would require an aperture of 1.4.
If I wanted to shoot with more DOF I would have to drop the shutter speed to 1/30 or 1/15. Not possible for me without a tripod.
If I had the 70-200 I could hand hold down to 1/15. Right?
While you may be able to hand hold a 70-200VR at 1/15 sec, what 7 year old is going to be that still for that long? There's not only camera motion to consider but subject motion.
I've owned: 80-200 AF-S, 70-200 VR1 and 70-200 VRII. I ended up selling all of them eventually and now I'm back to primes and loving it. The weight, size, and bulk of the 70-200's is just not something I want to deal with in what I do. If you're a wedding or event shooter then this lens is almost a must, but for a non-pro like myself, I find that the 85 1.4G is much more enjoyable to use than lugging the big zoom.
I own an F100, and the 85 1.4g, and the 70-200 VR2.... for me, the 85 1.4 spends more time on the F100 than the 70-200. But it's really going to boil down to preference. Mostly I shoot that combo outdoors, and in that case, I find the exposure latitude you get with film lets me get away with shooting wide open for max bokeh even in bright conditions.
If I shot film indoors (I usually don't, normally use digital for that), then *maybe* the VR would be beneficial. Depends what look you're after. VR will help stabilize things that aren't moving, and it's trivial to take 1/4 second exposures at 200mm of inanimate objects without a tripod. But that won't help you freeze the motion of kids, for example.
