In this video I compare and contrast the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens at 85mm and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.
I was recently asked if it would be necessary to purchase an 85mm lens if you already own a 70-200mm lens. I thought this was an intriguing question and decided to conduct an experiment. I love testing gear! What would you like to see next?
Tamron: //www.ymcamera.com/tamron-tamron-70-200mm-f-28-di-vc-g2-nikon.html
Sigma: //www.ymcamera.com/sigma-sigma-85mm-f-14-art-nikon.html
Join us in our free, private Facebook community where we learn and flourish together!
I have a very nice 70-200mm. I also have 85mm and 135mm prime lenses because at times I prefer the shooting experience I get from using a prime lens.
That's really the best answer I can give you.
Nikon D850 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
Rexgig0 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,516
Comparative AF Speed.
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
2
Many 70-200mm lenses have fast AF speed, for shooting sports and social events. Many 85mm lenses are built for portrait shooting, and have relatively slow AF speed. Some few 86mm lenses have faster AF. The shooter is best advised to select the lens most applicable to how and what he shoots.
-- hide signature --
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Dabbling with Leica-M is fun, too. I am, certainly, not an expert.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon Coolpix A Leica M Monochrom [Typ 246] +45 more
Smaug01 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,141
It's worth it if you use that focal length a lot
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
3
You didn't say whether your Tamron is a slow one [4-5.6] or fast one [2.8] and what you do with it.
If you shoot a lot of portraits, the prime f/1.8 is worth it. If you shoot that focal length a lot in low light, it is worth it too. I personally would rather have an 85/1.8 than a 50. You can keep a comfortable distance from the subject and still get the nice head & shoulders shots.
There was one National Geographic photographer [I think it was Steve McCurry] doing street photography, and his walk-around kit was two bodies: one with a fast 28 and the other with a fast 90.
-- hide signature --
-Jeremy ********* "Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength."
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS30 Ricoh GR III Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Nikon Z5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +26 more
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
1
It would be for me because 85 or 90mm is my favorite focal length. If I somehow ended up with a FF camera, an 85mm lens would be the first one I bought.
Choose your primes based on your favorite focal lengths, not a formula, an ideal "spread", or some idea of complete "coverage".
-- hide signature --
Instagram: @yardcoyote
Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-Pro1 Pentax K-5 IIs Fujifilm X-M1 +20 more
Re: It's worth it if you use that focal length a lot
In reply to Smaug01 • Oct 30, 2019
Two cameras, two primes is my ideal setup. Mine would be 40/85 or 90, but that's a matter of personal taste and how you see.
-- hide signature --
Instagram: @yardcoyote
Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-Pro1 Pentax K-5 IIs Fujifilm X-M1 +20 more
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
1
Man this is kind of a tough one. I personally don't like 85- kind of in a no-man's land for primes for me. 70-200 is good but either slow or heavy depending on speed. I was going to suggest a 135mm but for Nikon it seems to either be the so-so 135/2 AF-D or the massive 135 ART
So I'd say go with your gut as there's no clear winner here. Surprised Nikon doesn't have a decent native 135 option
Sony a7 III Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 FE
Rexgig0 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,516
Re: 70-200mm, 85mm, 105mm, & 135mm
sportyaccordy wrote:Man this is kind of a tough one. I personally don't like 85- kind of in a no-man's land for primes for me. 70-200 is good but either slow or heavy depending on speed. I was going to suggest a 135mm but for Nikon it seems to either be the so-so 135/2 AF-D or the massive 135 ART
So I'd say go with your gut as there's no clear winner here. Surprised Nikon doesn't have a decent native 135 option
I understand not liking 85mm. I started SLR shooting, as a beginner, with a bag of pre-owned equipment that included a modest Canon XTi/400D, a modest kit zoom, a very modest third-party zoom, and, importantly, a truly excellent Tokina 100/2.8 Macro AT-X lens, and a Canon 580EX Speedlite, which, in its day, was Canon’s best. Since then, I have liked 100mm to 135mm lenses, and did not buy an 85mm prime lens until early 2018, when I became interested in using short telephoto lenses for low-light nature and landscape images.
I bought a pre-owned first-generation Nikkor 70-200/2.8G VR about three years ago, and when using it for images of individual people, have set it at or near 105mm. I do, of course, appreciate the very fast AF, in all of Nikon’s “trinity” zooms; even the older ones can really follow the action. [My only up-to-date “trinity” zoom is the 14-24/2.8G.]
-- hide signature --
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Dabbling with Leica-M is fun, too. I am, certainly, not an expert.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon Coolpix A Leica M Monochrom [Typ 246] +45 more
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
Bassel77 wrote:I have tamron 70 200mm and am thinking to buy nikor 85mm 1.8
Does it worth it
What kind of subjects and what sensor format?
I think of 85 as mostly a portrait length -- toward the short end of the portrait range for full frame, toward the long end for APS.
It's also part of the classic walk-around pair -- an 85 and a wide lens, usually these days a 24 or 28.
One test: Check the EXIF on some of your favorite photos you have made recently and see how many are at or near the 85 range.
Gato
[unknown member] • Regular Member • Posts: 463
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 30, 2019
Why NOT both?
I have the kit zoom with my Z6. That's the 24-70f4
Bought the 85mm 1.8G lens.
Planning on the 70-200f4 Nikkor.
I think this can be easily carried, is quite flexible and lacks only ultimate close-up capability.
What's not to like?
Re: 70 200mm
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 31, 2019
It is not worth it as you did not give a task for this new optic.
I have no reason to see how an extra optic will help you with nothing to work with.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Pentax K-7 Pentax K-3 Panasonic G85 Olympus E-M1 II +3 more
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 31, 2019
1
I shoot nikon dx and have the 85 1.8d and love it but I also have the tokina 100mm 2.8 macro and actually use it more. I love its bokeh and that ability to shoot something close up when needed without changing lenses. Walk through the park and photograph someone on a park bench from 40ft away and turn around and snap a shot of a snail crossing a rotten log all with the one lens. I do not have a 70-200 though so cant compare to that one. I think the nikon version focuses pretty close too though.
Rexgig0 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,516
Re: Tokina 100mm Macro
JasonHawley wrote: ...I also have the tokina 100mm 2.8 macro and actually use it more. I love its bokeh and that ability to shoot something close up when needed without changing lenses. Walk through the park and photograph someone on a park bench from 40ft away and turn around and snap a shot of a snail crossing a rotten log all with the one lens.
The Tokina 100/2.8 Macro does enable one to do lovely work.
Indeed, being able to capture a portrait or social-distance shot, one moment, and a snail, on a log, the next moment, is, indeed, an endearing capability, for a lens to have.
I credit our Tokina Macro for being a significant factor in my quickly becoming very serious about DSLR shooting, when I moved beyond my Sony “bridge” camera. I soon added a weather-sealed, internal-focusing macro lens, to use while on duty, in all weather conditions, but have continued to use the Tokina, for personal shooting.
-- hide signature --
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Dabbling with Leica-M is fun, too. I am, certainly, not an expert.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon Coolpix A Leica M Monochrom [Typ 246] +45 more
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
In reply to Bassel77 • Oct 31, 2019
Bassel77 wrote:I have tamron 70 200mm and am thinking to buy nikor 85mm 1.8
Does it worth it
I'll give my two cents...
I like the Tamron 70-200 for its versatility, but there are times where I'd rather have an 85mm for weight reasons.
If you can afford it, get the 85mm but if you can't the Tamron can also do the job it's just 1.3 stops slower, bigger and heavier. So you're really trading versatility for weight, size and lens speed. But since you're looking to get this in addition to what you have, I'd say go for it. If you have the FTZ, the Tamron 85mm F-mount might also be a good option too, or a used Nikon G lens, if you're OK with using adapted glass.
I'm thinking about getting an 85mm myself but it's not a necessity at this point, and I'm waiting to see if any Black Friday or holiday deals come up too.
Nikon Z5 Nikon Z7 II Nikon Z8 Nikon Zf Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 +6 more
[unknown member] • Regular Member • Posts: 463
Re: 70 200mm vs 85mm 1.8
Good Answer. Sometimes when I leave the house? I put on the 85 1.8 [Z6] and simply
go for it.
007peter • Forum Pro • Posts: 12,934
Easy: 70-200 is better for Event [paid] shoot, 85/1.8 is better for personal uses
In reply to Bassel77 • Nov 6, 2019
2
Bassel77 wrote: I have tamron 70 200mm and am thinking to buy nikor 85mm 1.8
I had both. A canon 70-200 F/2.8 for paid event shooting, so I don't lose out photographic opportunities swapping primes.
But for my personal uses - when I have the TIME to swap lens - I simply prefer using 85/1.8 prime for its [1] superior isolation [2] blur out distracting backgrounds [3] Small & Lightweight = more enjoyable to use.
70-200 /2.8 vs 85/1.8 shouldn't be a Black or White answer. I would say you should own BOTH anyways.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II
Smaug01 • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,141
Re: Easy: 70-200 is better for Event [paid] shoot, 85/1.8 is better for personal uses
In reply to 007peter • Nov 6, 2019
007peter wrote:Bassel77 wrote: I have tamron 70 200mm and am thinking to buy nikor 85mm 1.8I had both. A canon 70-200 F/2.8 for paid event shooting, so I don't lose out photographic opportunities swapping primes.
But for my personal uses - when I have the TIME to swap lens - I simply prefer using 85/1.8 prime for its [1] superior isolation [2] blur out distracting backgrounds [3] Small & Lightweight = more enjoyable to use.
70-200 /2.8 vs 85/1.8 shouldn't be a Black or White answer. I would say you should own BOTH anyways.
This is a pretty reasonable response.
I would also add that if one is not paid, it doesn't need to be a 2.8. If you've got fast primes, a 4-5.6 would be just fine, esp. for daylight.
-- hide signature --
-Jeremy ********* "Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength."
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS30 Ricoh GR III Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Nikon Z5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R +26 more
[unknown member] • Regular Member • Posts: 463
Re: Easy: 70-200 is better for Event [paid] shoot, 85/1.8 is better for personal uses
In reply to 007peter • Nov 16, 2019
1
Yep.
My goal is a 3-lens solution.
24-70 f4 / 85 f1.8 / 70-200 f4
That is a manageable amount of stuff to tote around without needing to hire a Sherpa.
I won't go the extra weigh of 2.8 zooms. Some are just plain HEAVY. Others have enough
focus breathing to render 200mm @ closest focus a 150mm proposition. And besides?
I'm not exactly wealthy. So the 2 grand and change for the Nikkor zoom 2.8 stuff just ain't
gonna happen. And the f4 is perhaps measureably better in a number of critical ways.
When I still had Canon, I used the 24-105 f4 L a LOT. It almost never left my camera. And
in those days my 'prime' was the 50 f1.8 which is a real bargain. Since I had a EOS 1dmk2,
the crop was 1.3 which made the 50 quite near the 85 I prefer.....
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads
Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.
The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.
This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone.
Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos.
OM Digital Solutions has updated its flagship high speed camera just two years after launch. The latest version includes more memory and some performance and handling tweaks.
Latest buying guides
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.