2. Focal range is more effective. If you were shooting a 70-200 at 200mm, in general, it's going to be difficult to communicate with the subject. And, you'll need a lot of room. You may find yourself spending more time in the lower focal range. In that case, might as well just get the 85. For me, even a 135 is too long for most cases.
3. Depending on the glass, but, more likely if you stop down an f1.4 to f2.8, it'll be sharper then a native f2.8. So, if subject and/or wardrobe details are a priority, you'll have more options with the 85.
85, unquestionably. I find the big telezooms obnoxious to use for any prolonged period due to size and weight. (we all like to pretend we are infinitely strong but after hours of shooting a FF body + telezoom will feel like hoisting a horse unless you shoot from a tripod) On top of that, f/2.8 doesn't give you near the depth of field control. Furthermore, it is actually pretty rare that you will be in a situation that you have enough space to make use of the 200mm anyway and even if you have enough space to shoot at 200mm you likely won't want to because the distance makes coaching your subject much harder. 95% of the time you would be shooting portraits between 70mm and 135mm with it. At which point it is just a more expensive, heavier, slower and softer version of the 85mm prime. (or a 105mm prime which is another option for you if you want a bit more tele)
Don't get me wrong, the 70-200mm is an awesome lens and is the staple workhorse for a lot of pros. Its value is versatility. Something you really don't need because you aren't trying to document a fleeting moment. Rather, you are crafting an image very deliberately which means you don't have to be reactive.
Personally I have THREE 85mm primes, and I use each of them individually more often than I use my big telezoom.
I'd get the 85 f1.4. My reasons:
1. It's smaller and lighter.
2. Focal range is more effective. If you were shooting a 70-200 at 200mm, in general, it's going to be difficult to communicate with the subject. And, you'll need a lot of room. You may find yourself spending more time in the lower focal range. In that case, might as well just get the 85. For me, even a 135 is too long for most cases.
3. Depending on the glass, but, more likely if you stop down an f1.4 to f2.8, it'll be sharper then a native f2.8. So, if subject and/or wardrobe details are a priority, you'll have more options with the 85.
4. And, obviously the low-light capability.
Thank you!
85 f1.2
I can go only upto f1.4 because I have a Nikon D850
Thats ok u can go with 85mm
85, unquestionably. I find the big telezooms obnoxious to use for any prolonged period due to size and weight. (we all like to pretend we are infinitely strong but after hours of shooting a FF body + telezoom will feel like hoisting a horse unless you shoot from a tripod) On top of that, f/2.8 doesn't give you near the depth of field control. Furthermore, it is actually pretty rare that you will be in a situation that you have enough space to make use of the 200mm anyway and even if you have enough space to shoot at 200mm you likely won't want to because the distance makes coaching your subject much harder. 95% of the time you would be shooting portraits between 70mm and 135mm with it. At which point it is just a more expensive, heavier, slower and softer version of the 85mm prime. (or a 105mm prime which is another option for you if you want a bit more tele)
Don't get me wrong, the 70-200mm is an awesome lens and is the staple workhorse for a lot of pros. Its value is versatility. Something you really don't need because you aren't trying to document a fleeting moment. Rather, you are crafting an image very deliberately which means you don't have to be reactive.
Personally I have THREE 85mm primes, and I use each of them individually more often than I use my big telezoom.