I never really thought of 85mm as a replacement for a 70–200. The middle of the 70–200 range in terms of angle of view is about 100mm. From that midpoint, 85mm and 135mm sit roughly the same distance apart. But 135mm arguably makes more sense as a substitute since, in crop mode, it lands close to 200mm equivalent. That might also explain why 105mm often feels like such a natural focal length for many photographers.
The same idea applies to 24–70. The midpoint of that range by angle of view is around 37mm, which is why a 35mm lens tends to be a much more fitting single-prime replacement.
After selling Sony 85/1.8 I have used Batis 135 as my sort of a 70-200mm replacement. I know prime is not a zoom and having that zoom flexibility is more important in tele than around std focal lengths.
Frankly I regret selling the 85mm - it was a modest but very good lens. Now I have Sony 70-200/4 G II on oder, and I am contemplating if I should sell my Batis 135. However, despite being ugly and somewhat clumsy to handle, and not focusing very close, it is optically very good.
Regarding std focal lengths, I use 24-70 quite often but stay mostly around midpoint of the zoom. Sony 35GM and 40G are excellent lenses that I know will take me a long way. Missing the 24mm wide end is sometimes painful... But hey, restrictions make us more creative If I had 24-50mm zoom, I would probably consider it as my travel lens.
After endless experiments and wastage, I’ve now put together (at least I think so currently) my travel kit. 24mm f1.4GM, 50mm f1.2GM and 100mm f2.8GM Macro + TC1.4 and TC2.0. With these I’m covered from 24mm to 200mm (albeit at f5.6 or even f8 as with TC2.0 I’d need to stop down a bit).
You may want to consider the 100mm f2.8 GM Macro with TC2.0, that way you’ll have a great 100mm portrait lens (I have the 85mm f1.4 GMii, and it’s got better bokeh but this is so much more versatile), a great macro lens and a decent 200mm telephoto, although not as convenient as the zoom it’s probably easier to carry.
hasenbein wrote:
The shutter speed was 1/320. So of course with the 70-200 (or any other lens, because you use cameras with IBIS) the photo would have been just as sharp.
freaklikeme wrote:
I love my 70-200GII for bug and small critter hunting. For landscape, it's usable up to about 180, where the resolution takes a nose dive, but it's not perfect for the job even at the shorter settings. I avoid using it for people unless it's on the camera and I want a quick snap.
Maybe for some, but I agree with what @freaklikeme said above. My copy of the 70-200 is not as sharp as my Baits 85 at the 85mm FL (Nor my Batis 135mm @ 135mm FL) .
Steve Spencer wrote:
My travel kit after lots of consideration and trial and error comes down to a 3 lens kit. I start with an ultrawide to wide zoom, then I add a normalish prime, and then I add either a short telephoto prime or a telephoto zoom depending on how much reach I will need on the trip and how much weight I am willing to carry. I find I like the short telephoto prime for portraits better than the telephoto zoom and the prime is lighter which is great for travel. It does limit the reach that the kit is capable of attaining and although cropping can regain some of that reach if I know I would shoot a fair amount at longer focal length then I take the telephoto zoom and put up with the extra weight. So in my case whether I take a lens like an 85mm or a zoom like the 70-200 f/4 depends on what I anticipate shooting on that particular trip and I am glad I have both options. ...Show more →
What is your current lenses that fit this criteria?
Mar 08, 2026 at 03:31 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
darrenhaken wrote:
What is your current lenses that fit this criteria?
I have both Sony and Fuji kits.
My Sony kit was the Sony A7r V (I have sold that now but still have an A7r II) Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4, the Voigtlander 50 f/1.2 SE (sometimes the Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO), and either an adapted Voigtlander 90 f/2.8 APO or the Zeiss Batis 85 f/1.8. The kit with the Voigtlander 50 f/1.2 SE and the Voigtlander 90 f/2.8 APO weighed 1,972g/4.35lbs.
I never got a telezoom for Sony as that tipped the kit to be heavier than I wanted. I thought about it, however, and to do that I would have had to downsize the Sony/Zeiss to the Sony 16-35 f/4 G PZ, and probably would have looked for a smaller 50mm lens (likely the Voigtlander 50 f/1.5 in M mount using the TT artisans adapter which I have) and then added the Sony 70-200 f/4 G Macro. The kit I would have gotten and still might get is the Sony A7r III (over the II and A7C cameras for the better viewfinder), the Sony 16-35 f/4 G PZ, the Voigtlander 50 f/1.5 adapted, and the Sony 70-200 f/4 G II Macro. That kit would weigh 2,082g/4.59 lbs. For me that would be light enough for a travel kit.
On Fuji, which being APS-C allows for a lighter kit, I have the Sigma 10-18 f/2.8, the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO Macro, and the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 OSS. When I really want to go light, I can substitute in the tiny Voigtlander 27 f/2 for the 35, and the Voigtlander 50 f/1.2 for X-mount for the 70-300. With a Fuji XT-5, the Sigma 10-18, and the 27 and 50 Voigtlanders the whole kit weighs just 1,211g/2.67 lbs. I don't often want to sacrifice capabilities to get that light, however, so I take the Sigma 10-18, Voigtlander 35, and Fuji 70-300 kit a lot more often. That kit weighs 1,738g/3.83 lbs and it is not much lighter in practice than the Sony kit described above.
Maybe for some, but I agree with what @freaklikeme@ said above. My copy of the 70-200 is not as sharp as my Baits 85 at the 85mm FL (Nor my Batis 135mm @ 135mm FL) .
At 85, the zoom's taking on quite a bit of astigmatism and coma at the edges and CA throughout. At like apertures, the Batis is incredibly well behaved. 135 is where the zoom comes closest to "prime" performance. Vignetting, CA, astigmatism, and coma are all at their lowest and resolution is at its most even across the frame, regardless of focus distance. Still, there's as well-corrected as the zoom gets and then there's the clarity of the Batis. That's what I'd rather have with me if close focus and lightning fast tracking aren't required.
'I never really thought of 85mm as a replacement for a 70–200.'
Certainly, these are two very different forms of image makers. Very different forms of photography too, fueled by the lens speed difference of ~2 stops, which changes just everything for the stated use cases. Particularly for dusk and night photography.
I suggest you do consider the 85mm EVO and the Sirui 85, both of which will produce very satisfying results for: 'family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light.' I doubt it is even close and the subjects - the ones that move on two legs - will be thankful as well.
Sometimes data helps: 340g for the EVO, 475g for the aging 2015 Tamron Batis, that needs serious distortion help in profiles (3% pin in a short tele!); 800g for the large zoom. $275 for the EVO, $2000 for the zoom.
Two stops more for a lens that handily beats out the Nikon Z 85/1.8 by a healthy margin from f2-f11, which means good cropability, on top of the fine base.
And does it with the aplomb generated by among the best of Chinese HRI glass. Not a difficult choice, and it leaves you $$ (and bag room) to buy another one (or two) (or three) primes. A 700-200 implies a fair degree of usage at 180-200mm. You don't need that for 'family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light.' If you want to photograph people well, use a people-friendly lens, not a bug zoom.
If I had 24-50mm zoom, I would probably consider it as my travel lens.