Tue 12-Mar-13 12:48 AM | edited Tue 12-Mar-13 09:42 AM by Vlad_IT
Hi folks: my most used prime lens on D7000 is 35 1.8G, the 50 f1.8 lens is used only dozens of times in the past year and mostly for fun, and the 85 f1/8 lens I bout 2 weeks ago is still in the box and I’m thinking of returning it. It looks like 70-200 is all i need these days. If I’ll pick a second body any time soon it will be coupled with 17-55/18-200 depending on the needs. I'm trying to convince myself if i have room in my photo life for an 85mm at all. Obviously i do not need it, just "want it" and $400 is still money can be used for something else. But it also possible I just not found a good application for it. I'm not into portraits, I have 105 vr for a year now and just purchased 60 micro ... Whee do I fit 85 f1.8 in my setup?
Before i make a final decision on returning it I’d like to ask on your usage of 85 f1/8: for what and how often… Thanks in advance, Vlad
Well if it's still in the box, you won't find out. Take it out and try it, you may be surprised. On DX, this was one of my most used lenses. It's especially good for portraits (better than the 50) but works for many other scenes as well where you want a telephoto effect. f/1.8 will give you a much different look than what the 18-200 can do.
Tue 12-Mar-13 01:25 AM | edited Tue 12-Mar-13 01:26 AM by Scott Spencer
When I was doing portraits it was my go to lens but when I gave up portraiture work I found that I rarely used it. The bokeh was stunning, which I hated to give up, but I simply never really used it as a general lens. I use my 50 f1.8 five times as much as I ever used the 85 f1.8. I sold my 85 f1.8 3 yrs ago and have no regrets.
I had an 85 f1.8 some time back but with the 70-200 f2.8 I gained very little in the change to the 85. In other words, I sold the 85 f1.8 and bought a 1.4. A large price difference I understand in the 1.4 vs 1.8.....but it still was a big difference. So I guess the message would be if you don't have anything in that focal length and near that f 1.8, then give her a go. You'll like the lens. But if you have something of say a 2.8 level in that focal length....I'd pass.
I use it a lot more than I thought I would and not just for portraits. I use it when I need a short tele and don't feel like using my 70-200 f2.8. I also use my 50 f1.8 about equally as my 85 f1.8 Charlie
On my N80 I've used it so far for portraiture - positively stunning, by the way, with the vignetting working perfectly for it.
On my D5100, I use it mostly as a general purpose tele prime. It's significantly lighter than your 70-200, but at a stop and a quarter faster it's much better for low light with high shutter speeds. The lens is a bit long for portraiture on DX, unless you want tight head and shoulder shots, but if you find yourself shooting wide open on your 70-200, you won't go wrong with adding the 85 f/1.8G to your bag as well for when the light level drops.
To be fair, I don't own an f/2.8 zoom, but I have used them (rented) and really appreciate having that aperture on the lens that I own.
From November through February, I have three lenses in my bag: 35 f1.8DX, 50 f1.8G, and 85 f1.8G. I use them for indoor basketball. If I had to assign percentages of use, it would be:
20% 35 f1.8DX 60% 50 f1.8G 20% 85 f1.8G
I have also shot indoor wrestling and hockey a few times this year. I use the 85mm almost exclusively for those sports. It's not quite as flexible as a zoom, but when you need to go to f2, you're SOL with a 70-200 f2.8. And, the lens is almost weightless compared to a fast zoom. I find it focuses fast enough (as opposed to the older 85 f1.8D, which was too slow) for sports, and tracks focus well on a D7000.
That said, after about March, this lens comes out of the bag, and I have almost no other use for it. I shoot portraits with my 35-70 f2.8D, field sports with a 70-300VR, and everything else with my 16-85VR. Occassionally, I'll stick my 24 f2.8D or 35 f1.8G on a body and just walk around with that lightest of setups, but usually, I opt for a slower zoom.
If I didn't shoot indoor sports, I probably wouldn't own this lens, especially at $500. Incidently, if you don't shoot things that move, the older version is just as sharp, better built, and much less espensive. I know, I have that one also. I just haven't gotten around to selling it yet.
>the older version is just as sharp, better >built, and much less espensive.
That wasn't my experience with it. I found the old version to be a bit soft wide open (although stopped down they're both so sharp I can't tell the difference) and more importantly it had significantly worse colour fringing. And the old one was heavier but I found the plastic to be much cheaper feeling than the new one. I prefer the build of the new one to the old one.
In my neck of the woods, the new one is about $35 more than the old one, which isn't even a 10% difference. They're both wonderful lenses but I would pick the new one every time unless I was using an old film body that needed the aperture ring or something like that.
My primary use for that lens has been sporting events with low light; basketball games, night baseball, and track meets that run into the late evening and night.
My grandson's high school basketball games primarily. I try to sit in middle of the court 4-5 rows up (on an end of row) and that allows me to cover entire court for offensive and defensive plays.
The lens is fast and amazing in these low crappy light situations. I am typically shooting shutter speed of 1/250 F4 and Iso around 2000-3200. Obviously I have to crop the pictures to isolate on him but the results are excellent. Everybody looks at me like what can you do with that little lens until they see the results. I'm sure a 85mm f1.4 would be even more amazing but price becomes a factor there
I don't have one, but I want one badly, primarily for shooting concerts. If I can stand right next the stage the 50/1.8 is good, but further away I end up using my 70-300 zoom, which isn't nearly fast enough, and I've noticed that when I look at the zoom after I'm done using it, it's frequently ended up around 85mm (as opposed to 135 or 200).
I have the 85 f/1.8 - D and recently purchased the G version.
I use the 85 combined with the 35 for very low light events where using a flash is either not permissible or distracting. The G version is very fast to focus and quiet.
With wedding season starting mixed with my normal event coverage, I am sure it will get tremendous use. Personally, I look at the 35, 85, and 90 macro as specialty lenses and there are certain shots that I could never get without them. Therefore, although they are only used 20% of the time (combined), without them I could not complete telling the story from the day. (There are times when I use the 85 for portrait work. It is very small and is less 'intimidating' to the subject compared to the 70-200 f/2.8).
The G is a great lens except that it is slow to focus in low light. Otherwise, I would never considered replacing it.
My main two lenses are the 24-120 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8.