Three years ago and still vitally relevant! Thank you Matt

6:43, yep totally looking at her face.

@4:40 the left image is taken at 200 and the right one at 100. Simply look at the background

Just a suggestion. You either need to get a cameramen who understands the basics of composition and not compose center shot like a tourist, or not allow this footage to see the light of day. It kills your credibility when you allow standards to be this low. Makes it hard to see you and your work as professional. Just saying.

that deep throat

Yes, I own both and I do shoot a lot of portrait. You may combat the camera/lens shake with IS/VR/VC or whatever but you can't combat motion blur if you are shooting at 1/60 or slower. Also, like what was covered here, you can create something special with 1.2/1.4. Trust me, you will be shocked to see the difference in background rendering. I use 70-200 mostly but for a dedicated portrait session, 85 wins all the time.

6:57 her face when she finds out the price haha :')

Zoom lenses are more forgiving. I find it harder to have bad photos. Many of them are good photos. Prime lenses require a lot of shots. The awful ones are terrible. However, when you nail a shot with a prime lens, it looks amazing. The clarity of the focus is unmatched in a zoom lens.

Just purchased a rokinon 85mm f1.4 manual focus, the sharpness is amazing. Cost under $300 on amazon

Just for portraiture the 85 mm (1.2, 1.4 or 1.8) is a step up in quality that you can achieve. The isolation and contrast is superb, but 70-200 is also a very good lens, also did some portrait work with it. It's great allrounder, much more you can do than with 85 mm. However just for portrait 85mm is a great lens (on FF and on crop).

It looks like the two images are mixed up at 4:41. the 100mm looks more like the 200mm should look. The Canon 100mm L macro is super too, probably a lot sharper than the 70 - 200.

Hi Matt, you labelled the images incorrectly at 4.39. The 200mm both has a shallower DOF (as per your calculations beforehand) and brings the background elements closer. The model stays the same size because you doubled the focal length and doubled the distance. However, in relation to the background you moved a neglible amount backwards and doubled the lens, effectively magnifying the background (making it appear closer)

oh my god, she is the cutest model ever, i love her!!

0:32 when you go dressed as the lens...

1:50 "...deepthroat it or something..." You just threw it out there. lol

Pretty sure you're getting mixed up with depth of field. With the same framing at 100mm vs 200mm you will have more depth of field at 200mm because the subject is further away. You also had the examples around the wrong way. This is why telephoto lenses can be better for portrait photography because you get more of your subject in sharp focus and less background for better separation.

At 7:35 she is like why the hell does this piece of glass cost 2000 bucks 😂

Hi Matt. At about 4:40 on this video you're comparing 100mm and 200mm shots, but it looks like the shots are swapped. The 100mm shot has the more compressed background like a 200mm would be.

Have to leave a compliment. Probably you are one of the best reviewing lenses. Love the real world approach. That's what counts

It is not the issue of the focal length, but *how the lens was designed*. Those boring 3x zooms have too many optical elements in them; in other words, too much glass, and produce boring and flat images, with zero character. You see one, you see them all. It is visual confectionery. On the other hand, there is visual art. A well-designed prime lens will have less elements, far better optical glass, and may render astonishingly beautiful 3D image, or, enhance some other optical quality of the photograph, like micro-contrast and colour, the way bohkeh is rendered, etc. which lens designer has chosen as a goal. Take a portrait with Leica's 75mm Cron lens, or Pentax's 77mm designed by Jun Hirakawa, and then use 70-200 at 75 or 77 mm; print photographs and you will never touch 70-200 again.

Wait - "that Nikon guy" with a Canon? Good for you!! Welcome to the light side, we have cookies!

I love your model's sense of humor!

I saw you were shooting with Canon 70-200mm lens. For most people Matt Granger says the 70-200mm is best choice. I agree it's more flexible with focal lengths and the narrow field of view works really well for head shots. Plus 70-200 gives the background more compression which I really like. Cannon at 200mm is great for head shots.

Dear Matt! I bought the 70-200 f4, for my NIKON D800 and I LOVE IT!! Also for portraits! I've seen many reviews with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 and some primes (NIKON). The 70-200 f4 came out as TEST WINNER! So I bought it! Btw, I LOVE your work! You inspire me enormously! I check you website (s) every day! Please keep up the GREAT work! You reallllllly inspire me!!!! Best of greetings from the Netherlands (Eindhoven). Vincent Pothuizen

The focal length of the photos in 4:49 were wrongly state,@100mm should be the effect of 200mm and vise versa.

at 4:33 min during shots comparision, 100mm shot has been swapped with 200mm shot. mistake while editing the video

glad you can see the quality is going up!

I made the same choice after owning both 85L ii and 70-200 is II. This is an awesome comparison. Excellent job!!!

Yes Matt is really doing a great job, reinventing tutorials in a slightly different way! Thumbs up big time!

One thing you did not discuss is what is the best type of bokeh Eg the palm trees Where you can make out the palm trees? Or where they are just a blur Which would win a photo competition?

ha ha. love the outtake at the end! have 70-200 2.8 L IS Canon but would still like a 85 if I had the money.

just one point about the relative DoF.. You say they're 'pretty similar' 6cm vs 4cm but that's a 50% difference the way I view it and Very significant ----

since i'm doing video, i just got a Canon 70-200 f.2.8 (non IS) and an Rokinon 85mm T.1.5 (manual focus, cine lens) and i'm very happy with both. The 85mm at T.1.5 (f.1.4) is perfect for interviews (and i guess portraits) when you want to really isolate your subject, meanwhile the 70-200 at 135 or 200mm gives me greater compression and is also great for pictures (since its got autofocus). I'd say get both, you'll find use for it. A cheaper alternative would be the Canon 85 f.1.8 (around $400)

70-200 is a big heavy lens for portraits. The 85 will be a lot less weight and bulk if portraits are your purpose. What about the 24-70mm zoomed all the way in?

Hi Matt. It appears that you switched the images at 4:34. Photo on the left is probably taken at 200mm. Great comparison, though. And perfect timing. I own 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm thinking about purchasing the 85mm 1.4 from Sigma (f/1.2 from Canon is little bit expensive for me).

Enjoyed the video - but the guy with the video camera should stik to soft drinks or get a tripod ;)

It's not about the lens focal length that makes a great portrait, it's the type of portrait and the narrative. If you are shooting beauty, a 180mm-300mm f2.8 is the way to go as it has the right perspective of the face and it's shape, It flattens the perspective. I use a Hasselblad 150mm or a 250mm with an extension tube. 85mm is mainly a 3/4 length portrait lens, basically waist up. nothing closer or there will be distortion on the face, nose etc. Shoot with primes, they are generally, faster sharper and lighter. if it's an environmental portrait, where you want to include the subject in their environment or surroundings, then use 50mm down to 24mm keep the lens level and parallel to walls, doors etc, to limit the distortion as you go wider. I tend to use a 28mm as most of my environmental portraits are indoors in offices or rooms.

son 2 lentes totalmente diferentes, uno tiene la virtud de la luminosidad, pero es fijo y poca construcción que lo hace muy exacto en enfoque. , el otro es un zoom que ahorra movimientos. el boké de las fotografías pueden ser parecidos, en 85 1.8 y 200 2.8, pero sin duda lo que cambia es el fondo de lo desenfocado. en 200, el objeto desenfocado es mas grande que en 85

Matt, at 4:35, the 100mm and 200mm label should be swapped. The photo on the left is shot at 200mm and the one on the right is 100mm because you definitely see a wider angle as shown by more background coverage. Please check your metadata and somehow correct this video.

This was not his best work - obviously too shaky and missed focus. We had a mix up and no one brought stabiliser and this was first time using this camera. We have shot since with his own camera and rig and results are much better. Apologies for this one

Something to concider for portraits is that the 70-200's all come with VR/VC/IS, and you can make up for the lack of light vs a 85 prime with a slower shutter, and still keep sharp shots! This becomes even more of a benifit when you want to keep some DOF in your shots and shoot at say 5.6. I've taken shots as low as 1/6th with the VRII (something I didn't think was possible). While I'd love to have an 85mm, I just can't find a way to justify it.

Matt you rock..Big fan of yours from Ireland! Canon or Nikon, your videos are great. I shoot Canon and still watch all your videos. Keep up the good work man, These guys are just key board warriors, it shouldn't matter what you shoot with, photography is what you make it.

She decided to deep throat it.....hahahahaha that's the best thing you've ever said. I literally fell out of my chair laughing. Quite the difference in that prime. It's on the list :-|

'That Nikon Guy' reviews... Canon lenses? I am confuse.

I find my Nikon 85mm f1.8 the perfect lens. Price, quality, and most important, portability. The lighter my camera, the less fatigue and attention. This allows me to comfortably focus on creativity and interaction with my subjects. For price, results, and weight, f1.8 is a great way to go.

You flip flopped the labels of the 100mm and 200mm photos. The field of view is narrower on the 200mm.

Good comparison. I personally love the 70-200mm, due to its flexibility and find that the 85mm rarely comes out of my bag. My favourite lens though is the Zess 85mm 1.4 Planer T, which for me is the best feeling lens you can buy (though not optically in the same league as the Canon 85mm 1.2 or Nikkor 85mm 1.4) and the lack of AF can mean it take time to focus, even with the in camera manual focus meter. But it feels just a little bit more special than any other lens I have ever used.

An 85mm 1.2 is 2k, that's what I paid for my 70-200 2.8, so you still pay for that extra 2 1/2 stops, in dark areas where you need to freeze action thats very handy, but since the video was talking portraits where the subject is normally still I didn't think it applied. Yes they do different things, I'm just pointing out that the 70-200 has some very useful portrait features that an 85 lacks.

At 4:33 the shots have been reversed. When we looked at them individually the 100mm shot was the one with the two palm trees and the 200mm was the darker one with only one tree.

all you need now is a camera person who can hold the bloody camera still. that aspect of the vid is painful

Like Matt said, compression is the biggest difference besides light gathering capabilities between these two lenses. There is also subject rapport to consider. A 70-200 is a HUGE lens which may be intimidating to your subject whereas a prime might be less scary :). On a side note, this is exactly why I picked up a 60 yo russian rangefinder for my street photography over my D700. People give a totally different reaction based on what kind of camera you are using...which in my case is What's That?

This was the perfect video I needed to make the decision on which one I was going to buy. Now I picked the right one! Thank you!!

One diffrence is, there is a subtle olor-shift and the 70-200mm seems a touch "warmer/ magenta" wheras the 85mm is a touch cooler/ neutral. Assuning that you are on a tripod nd keeping the exact same distance at least (camera angles are a touch off) the 70-200mm has a much more pronounced "flattening" of the perspective. It's an interesting comparison for sure but I generally prefer an 85mm for a 3/4 style portrait and a 100mm for a headshot.

two things. first, it's good you addressed subject magnification wrt to DoF even if you didnt get into it that much. the second is that I cannot agree with your assessment regarding the sharpness / fine detail reproduction of the 70-200 f2.8 gen 2 lenses compared to 85s. The zooms take it at all equivalent apertures. they carry contrast to finer resolutions considerably better. Not that it matters. I would like to see you buy/borrow/rent a 135 APO sonnar and compare it to the 85L for a video.

Who was your DOP today Matt? A little struggle with the AF me thinks... Video> steadycam>manual focus...or a tripod! I'm happy to see you two beautiful creatures on a locked off. (Can I come to Oz and work for you?)

Her face, when she hears the price of the 85mm f1.2 Made me laugh :)

You state: 100mm f2.8 ~1.5m DOF=0.06m. 200mm f2.8 ~3.0m DOF=0.04m. According to my calculations DOF=0.339253... m and 0.339221... m, respectively. The difference between the two DOFs is not that large like in your calculations. Some intermediate results for the 100mm case: Z = 0.0288444 mm d_h = 123917.0080 mm d_n = 1483.2291 mm d_f = 1517.1544 mm Would be curious how you got your results.

Almost all of my favourite portraits I have taken with my 70-200 f2.8 L IS

Compare how Tina acts now to early vids. You can tell she understands and is taking it in.

When shooting a still object if it's within your power and budget always go with a prime lens.

I feel he's missing the point as to why people love the 85mm 1.2 so much. Any 85mm focal length lens that shares the same aperture as the 85mm prime he's holding, will produce a nearly identical photograph with the prime. It doesn't matter if this other lens is another prime, or a zoom lens. Whether one is shooting at 2.8, 3.5, or 4, the results will be similar. People love the 85mm f1.2 because of what results they can achieve at f1.2. Or 1.4, 1.8, or f2. It's the ultra shallow depth of field they want.

nice point

It's a lot easyer to carry a 85mm than a 70-200mm, if you do not need the range, that was one main reason for me getting the 85mm, F1.8 D Nikon.

I have both the 85mm f1.2 and 70-200mm IS II and I think 70-200 is the best when it comes to sharpness, contrast, and speed and I'm not having a problems with the chromatic aberration specially at 200mm unlike the 85mm but I always use the 85mm over the 7-200 at portrait mainly because of the awesomeness of the 1.2 :D

I have been shopping around for a 85mm lens; hopeful I can get mine before Christmas.

I love both lenses equally but as far as best portrait lens for best image I'd go with 85mm it has the best color rendition and sharpness of the two, but for usage for events that are mixed with portrait situations I'd lean towards, the 70-200mm, still great images with the flexibility to re-frame a subject without having to move too much.

For event photography the zoom of the 70-200 is useful. The image quality is good also.

I have a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and I love it.

You're certainly going to get more mileage out of the 70-200. It's a super-useful lens to have. I do own both Nikon lenses however, and I really love the images I get with the 85mm 1.4 despite its relative slow focus speed. Fantastic ratio of smooth bokeh to subject sharpness. I use it whenever I think I can get away without a zoom.

At 4:43 when comparing the 100mm and 200mm pictures; It's pretty evident you've switched the labeling of the images on accident. Oops!

It is said that 135 often misses the focus, I was not advised to buy it, I have the 70-200 2.8 with a stabilizer and happy ochen.No 85 1.2 also really want a very good lens

Can anyone verbalize the difference of bokeh between 85 prime and 70200@85 (both F 2.8)? I didn't see much other than the color rendering and I think Matt didn't specify much about it.

Matt, I think the photos at 100 mm and 200 mm by 70-200 interchanged. From around 4:01 minutes to around 4:46 minutes. Kindly recheck.

Telephoto compression is not what you describe. Telephoto lens compression is a term used to describe the effect where the subject in focus looks like it is cut out and pasted on the blurry background - the depth of the picture is compressed. In other words the background is uniformly out of focus - there are no levels of it. If you take the same picture with a wide lens at the same aperture and then crop both pictures to show the same amount of background the one with the wider lens will give more of a 3D feeling. I hope my explanation makes sense.

I like the 85 mm, but it really takes a while to learn how to handle this lens. The first few shots I got many miss focus just because I was breathing when I press the shutter, the DOF is very shallow. But as soon as I can handle it, the results and the bokeh are so dramatic...

hey the video guy, hold your videocam steady and learn some composition ok?

"Should I not bother with the 85mm?" If you have 2k dollars to burn without breaking the bank, yes. The bokeh you will get from the 85 f/1.2 is absolutely surreal. The 70-200 is already a fantastic lens and much more versatile than the 85mm f/1.2 prime, so don't bother about it unless you have the money to burn. The 85mm has a ridiculously slow autofocus speed, something that can be a deal breaker for moving subjects.

Have you ever used a 135 f1.8 for portraiture? I own one and it's my favorite lens for that purpose (used wide open, of course).

Im not a pro, but I just use 85mm f1.8 on a Nikon FA shooting Fuji Superia, gives that classic warm grainy film look with good skin tones my digitals cant produce.

Now I find myself wanting 2 grand to get a lens like that. That library shot is really cool, love how shallow it is and the bokeh.

wrong, the sensor size changes the bokeh too. It's not just the lens and the maximum aperture. You get a similar dof with a hasselblad 120 F4 (Medium format) than you would get with a 85 F1.8 on a Full Frame camera. In fact I think it's 1.4 but I am not so sure, That said, you will get infinite dof in a small sensor at F5,6 and it is certainly not the case with a D4 or a 5D ... So yes the sensor size changes alot (trust me, i changed from a D300 to a D800 and it's not the same thing at all! :) )

It's to the point where I no longer do portraits with a zoom. Even with a prime, I won't even use autofocus. There are some instances when the ability of defocus comes in handy.

This is a superb video, well structured, interesting, everything. Thanks!

You have to consider that there are not-so-expensive 85s - in the case with Nikon, the current 85 f/1.8 costs around four times less than the current 70-200 f/2.8. There are also third party options - e.g. Samyang 85 f/1.4, which is even cheaper, but it doesn't have AF - that goes further into the notion that each lens has its primary purpose.

at 4:34 I think you accidentally changed the places of titles and pictures (because left one definitely looks like the 200mm and right one like 100mm), not the other way around. Am I correct??

70-200 lens is fantastic but with a version III (3) 2X converter attached, it becomes a very accurate and tack sharp 400 mm lens with very little vignetting. Which I am not worried about really as usually add a bit of vignetting in Photoshop anyway.... Sell your 70-200 on eBay. They are Gold. If you have the version II Canon f:2.8 L series 70-200 EF USM version II like I have, they are worth a fortune. Never lose value. Good luck with the 85 only, if portraits are all you do.

I had a fixed 50mm that I ended up selling because it was hardly getting used. That's just the kind of photography I do. A fixed lens of that focal length doesn't make sense for nature photography. I need the versatility of a zoom, some folks don't. All of that depth of field math just has little meaning to a fan of the zoom lens so maybe this is more for the potrait taker I guess.

my smc takumar 85mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses

what about 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? I mean I'm not one to argue about this but it all just seems effortless with that lens. It feels like that one lens you'd take with you if you had to pick only one while on an adventure. Although it is nearly 2 thousand dollars...

I just got 35 1.4(v2)/ 50 1.2/ 85 1.2 (v2)/ and 70-200 2.8 IS (v2) and omgosh, I'm in heaven and a half!!!!!!!!

85mm lens have the best relation of focal length and f/ number. In the case of Canon 85 f/1.2 we have the most shallowest and affordable depth of field. For me this lens is the king 👑of portrait lenses. Leica Noctilux is very expensive and Canon 50 f/1.0 difficult to find and very expensive.

6:13 she is doing a head to head comparison but the colors got blown out.

The good thing about 85mm f/1.8s is that they let you get a portrait lens for on the cheap while still getting superb optical quality. While a better and more versatile option over all for most people, the 70-200m f/2.8s are way more expensive. For example the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 is approximately $2000 more expensive than the extremely good 85mm f/1.8G.

07:44 “Thanks buddy, feel the same” lol

now this is what i call a great educational video, maths that you added to visual samples are a way to go!

bokeh is measured by aperture and distance of your LENS to your subject and not by sensor size :)

Thank you for a good, straight forward discussion on the lenses.

As far as i understand, ml (millilitres) is a unit of volume and not distance (millimetres). When you say "ml' to any focal length you mean millimetres. I just wonder if thats what you mean?

cual de los dos es el mejor 85mm o el 70-200mm que diferencia hay entre el 70-200mm y 70-300mm muchas gracias por su respuesta

I'm glad I saw this video. I saved me some money not getting the 85mm as I already have the 70-200 f2.8 and I'm not really a portrait photographer. PS. You're pretty cool on 7:45 and awesome on 8:21.