Hi! After looking at many samples, I'm thinking of buying one of these two lenses: either the 80-200mm 2.8 (probably the 2-ring version) or the 85mm 1.4. I have a D300s. Right now, the added length of the zoom doesn't matter to me. However, I am (thankfully) starting to get more wedding jobs. The lens I buy, for now, will most be used for portraits. I have no length right now past 85mm (the 16-85 VR lens). Thoughts? Thanks!
PS. I don't think I have to say this, but what I'm mainly looking for is separating subject/background and bokeh, and of course very sharp images. Thanks!
Thanks! Undoubtedly, at some point I'm going to need that extra reach. For now, based on my experience, I would love to just go with the 85. However, I am worried I'll regret it later, and right now I only have money for one or the other (actually the 85 is really pushing it)!! Thanks again!
Get the 85. Less flexibility, but for what you want (bokeh, dissolving the background) nothing else really comes close. I just used my (new to me) copy at a wedding for the first time, and I left my 70-200 in the bag the entire time. The 85 is something special.
The 85/1.4 is a magical lens. It's not as versatile as the zoom range obviously, but as long as you do your part, the lens will not disappoint. If you are not used to shooting shallow DOF stuff, then you will need some time to familiarize yourself with it.
I say go for the 85, or if you think you will be limited, then get the 70-200VR instead, VR is useful for that FL range.
As for me, I will prefer to zoom with my legs but to have in hand 85 /1.4 rather than to carry all day the 80-200 in my hands or my back... I have 70-200 VR for almost two years now and 85 / 1.4 just for one month... but if I will have to renounce to all my lenses and to keep only one, without any doubt I'll keep the prime - definitely 85 / 1.4 is the godess of all lenses.
On the other hands on D300 the reach is the equivalent of 127.5 which is not bad a all...
Saying from a different point of view, the zoom will give you a bigger number of pictures at a good quality when the prime will give maybe less pictures but at a brilliant quality. If I will have to pick for my own wedding, I'll prefer the second option.
My advice is to pick the best quality, which is 85 / 1.4 and later on when your budget will be open for that, purchase directly 70-200 VRII.
mrkon wrote:
I'd get the 80-200 first. The 85 is more of a luxury lens at this point. The 80-200 will get you a lot more framing options and flexibility.
Get the 85 after the 80-200.
+1. I shoot weddings with a 17-55 on my D200. My second lens is an 80-200mm 2.8. While I also have an 85mm 1.8, I have only used it twice for weddings.
With the 80-200 on a tripod you can get several shots without having to get too close (like the kiss shot taken from the center isle to include the officient in the shot). Also, during some ceremonies there are officients who do not want photographers near the alter. I have shot those types of ceremonies from an angle near the alter with my 80-200.
You can shoot an entire wedding (depending on your style) with only two lenses; a 17-55 and an 80-200.
the 80-200 is too heavy. It can only be used with a tripod or in really, really good light, or else its just blur due to the heaviness. My suggestion is the get the 85 1.4, and pick up a cheap 70-300 VR that you can stick on a tripod for ceremony shots when you really do need to get close. I have the 80-200 AF-D and it just does not do the trick for most of what I am trying to accomplish.
80-200 is heavy, but it is one of my sharpest lenses, FOR ME it's a great lens for photographing people - the 85 tends to be too short of a focal length. Dave
JHerr wrote:
the 80-200 is too heavy. It can only be used with a tripod or in really, really good light, or else its just blur due to the heaviness. I have the 80-200 AF-D and it just does not do the trick for most of what I am trying to accomplish.
Thanks everyone for your help. Regarding this response, can anyone confirm? I know it's heavy, but what about blur? If I get this lens, I will mostly be using it for weddings in larger churches - light conditions obviously vary. I know the 70 VR version would be better, but I can't afford it right now. Thanks!
PS. I very rarely use a tripod, and I do not want a lens that will be necessary to have on a tripod during a wedding. If you have a second shooter, I could see that; however, working normally alone, I move around a lot.
