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.

If I were trying to buy one lens to handle both I'd get the 135. If you need something shorter 50mm does the trick.

- trr

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.

Two different lenses for two different kinds of shooting. Neither of those lenses will hurt you as both are excellent.

I use both every wedding and would feel funny without both in my bag.

Thanks all. I figured it would come down to me buying both. Just trying to figure out which first.

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 say go for the 85 first!


Cheers,
Jeff

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.