Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vr2 vs 135mm f2 DC for portraits
- Thread starter hulk2012
- Start date
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
I use a 70-210 F4-5.6 D at the short end... In a portrait situation, you have more control over the lighting, so I don't think the premium for the faster F-stop and VR is worth the cost differences...
but, some of the old guys created exemplary portraits that have become classics with what is the equivalent of rocks and torches...
If you're interested in portraiture... probably better to spend money on good lights rather than faster lenses... JMHO
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 although I'm sure either would work. Between the two you mentioned, I would choose the 70-200mm simply because portraits (the classic head and shoulders type) typically is shot with 85mm-105mm on FX. There is more versatility with a zoom than a prime although primes do have their advantages, too. If you are leaning towards a prime, then I'd suggest looking at either an 85mm (comes in f/1.4 or f/1.8) or a 105mm (comes in f/2 or f/2.8). A 135mm lens would require you stand back even further so you'd need to allow for more distance between you and your subject.
I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8VRII and a Zeiss 135mm f2 manual focus lens. Although the latter is different from the Nikon 135mm f2 DC, the Zeiss lens is a very sharp lens, dare I say sharper than my Nikon lenses.
Due to the focus breathing, the Nikon 70-200mm at 200mm has an equivalent of 135mm. The zoom lens offers greater flexibility when working in a tighter studio place. It is irrelevant when working outdoors.
Here is a recent sample that I took using the zoom lens at 200mm. It's not the best sample but it demonstrate on how it can isolate the subject from the background.
Due to the focus breathing, the Nikon 70-200mm at 200mm has an equivalent of 135mm. The zoom lens offers greater flexibility when working in a tighter studio place. It is irrelevant when working outdoors.
Here is a recent sample that I took using the zoom lens at 200mm. It's not the best sample but it demonstrate on how it can isolate the subject from the background.
That's a nice pic mate but didn't get it quite right
Whats not right about it ?
What u mean 200mm in zoom equivalent to true 135mm
I see, I thought you meant the pic wasn't quite right.
I don't understand what Glenn means by his comment on the zoom equivalent.
He stated it was due to focus breathing. If you aren't familiar with the term focus breathing, you should check it out. Zooms have a tendency to suffer from it.
Focus Breathing (Focal length variation with focus distance)- Bob Atkins Photography
Oh true. I got that. Thanks for the info
rocketman122
Senior Member
IQ is better in the VR2 vs the VR1 I own, but the bad focus breathing is the reason why I wont upgrade to it. I could, but id rather lose the noted loss in IQ over the practicality of cropping tighter.
and cropping is not an option since youre losing rez so what the point.
and cropping is not an option since youre losing rez so what the point.
Thanks for the reference Hark. I was late in providing the clarification since Hulk was not clear about the focus breathing of the VRII zoom lens.
Nothing wrong with that and it is perfectly understandable if you don't want to lose the distance.
I used to own the VRI but later upgraded to the VRII since I was more concerned on the corner sharpness and vignette when used with a full frame camera.
Troll Alert.....Insulting people who try to help you...? Get a grip dude...
This is what I hear when the VR1 is shot wide open..Glen Im in the market for a 70mm-200mm...I really want to stick with fast glass. Im debating between the 70mm-200mm 2.8 VR1 versus the newer 70mm-200mm F4...Decisions..Im aware of the 1 stop difference and lighter weight of the F4...
The disadvantage of the Nikon VR1 were already mentioned including the weight. The f4 VR lens is much lighter, cheaper and is pretty sharp. People who owned both didn't like the performance of the f4 version when it comes to indoor low light scenes where the f4 had a slower AF. Just something to consider. I believe Rick has the f4 lens and maybe Jake. They might be able to chime in.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I don't think this is correct. From what I've read, at certain distances, 200mm might be 190mm.
Read Hark's link at the bottom of the article about the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lens at minimum shooting distance.
The other brand zoom lenses might have a different focus breathing.
Last edited:
For those who want more info, here is a diagram that comes from Thom Hogan. The link for the image as well as the article is below. This image lists 200mm at close focus as being equivalent to 134mm on the Nikon 70-200mm vr ii.
70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan
70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan