Canon 85L 1.2 vs Sigma 85 1.4... Has anyone tried both?

[gmrza]

85L users have a trick for focus speed and you should test it in the store. If you pre-focus meaning shoot something in a similar area to your subjects focus is plenty fast for pretty much anything including sports. It's the infinity to near focus thats slow. Also if you focus on something 10 ft away then go to something 15 ft away its still pretty fast. Is it whip fast? No. This lens needs a finer focus thread due to its dof capability. Again, I just shot a wedding with around 2000 images with the 85LII on the 5dm3 and focus or focus speed never became an issue. I used the 85LI back in like 2007/8 and i shot dancing with flash and didn't have issues. Expect to shoot a lot when shooting F2 and larger without flash so i do as a habit. I don't care if i throw away redundant images I just want at least a couple to be perfect. I mainly do it because people look around and blink and make funny faces. I did try some natural light dancing and well at 10,000 iso F1.4 1/60 - 1/100 it was dodgy but the few that work look really cool.

What I have found is that, subjectively, the 85 f/1.2L II seems to focus faster on a 5DIII than on a 5DII.

While this lens does have the downside of slower focusing, there seems to be very little debate about the quality of its out of focus blur.  Where this lens also stands out is in the smoothness of foreground blur - lots of lenses only achieve a smooth background blur while their foreground blur is not nearly as smooth.  (Admittedly in a lot of situations, foreground blur is less of an issue than background blue.)

[turtle]

AF speed is not an issue for the portraits I do with my 85 1.2L II.  For quick work, where the lens is switching from close to distant focus, this lens would not be recommended... but unless shooting sport, how often do you do this? Or animals perhaps, kids playing...

[bchernicoff]

I've owned the 85 L II and sold it for the Sigma. My advice is to buy the Sigma. I'm not sure there is any real difference in image quality. Focusing on the Sigma is so much faster. Also, with a filter on the Sigma, it's more sealed than the Canon if you are worried about dust.

So, for less than half the cost you get faster AF, better build quality, tie image quality, but lose half a stop.

[Bosman]

Have the local camera store you go to hold both lenses for your reviewing, the experience you have will tell you what you need to do.

[K-amps]

I've owned the 85 L II and sold it for the Sigma. My advice is to buy the Sigma. I'm not sure there is any real difference in image quality. Focusing on the Sigma is so much faster. Also, with a filter on the Sigma, it's more sealed than the Canon if you are worried about dust.

So, for less than half the cost you get faster AF, better build quality, tie image quality, but lose half a stop.

With high ISO performance available  ( with e.g. 5dii, 5diii, 1Dsiii, 1Dx) , the effect of large aperture lenses (i.e. half to 1 stop difference of light allowance) has diminished or even been eradicated to a large extent.

That leaves Quantity and Quality of OOF Blur as still one of the major advantages large aperture Primes provide (apart from sharpness etc).

While I have not worked with the Siggy 1.4, I have compared images of it on TDP: and the difference is pretty clear between the 2. If you go here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx about 1/3 of the way down you see a Picture of a Girl taken at different apertures with the 85L and the Siggy 1.4 against a forest/ green background next to a Black cast iron Fence.

I find the Bokeh of the 85L to be better.... but your mileage may vary since Boken is subjective... however

Even the Quantity of OOF blur is more with the 85L at the same aperture. e.g.  Compare the tree trunk blur behind the girl with both lenses at f1.4, the 85L melts it so much more... in fact the 85L at F2 has as much subjective blur as the Siggy does at F1.4... this is where the 85 L shines. I don't know of many lenses that can melt away the background like the 85L....  but you Pay for it 

[Zv]

Buy the first lens you think about when you wake up in the morning.

 

[bchernicoff]

The Digital Picture review with it mouse over comparison images is really useful. If you look at those subtle differences and decide the Canon is worth 2x the cost, then by all means, go for it.

Personally, I would buy the Sigma AND a nice used 135mm f/2L for the same money.

[MK5GTI]

While I have not worked with the Siggy 1.4, I have compared images of it on TDP: and the difference is pretty clear between the 2. If you go here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx about 1/3 of the way down you see a Picture of a Girl taken at different apertures with the 85L and the Siggy 1.4 against a forst/ green background next to a Black cast iron Fence.

I find the Bokeh of the 85L to be better.... but your mileage may vary since Boken is subjective... however

thanks for the link, i find it useful as it compare to other 85mm prime, but, from the Canon L, i can't see any difference between 1.2 vs 1.4.

[Chris Geiger]

Wedding photographer here. I normally do coverage with zooms (24-105, 24-70, 17-40 and 70-200) but am trying to work more with primes for the look. I've tried both the Canon and Sigma 85's and settled on the Sigma. I like the results and mine is just as sharp at f/1.4 as the Canon version I tried with my 5D3's. It's the only non Canon lens I own right now. I am so happy with it, I am considering the 35 1.4 that will be out in November.

In the past I have owned the Canon 50L, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.8. I was not happy with any of those lenses for sharpness  reasons. I borrowed a 50 1.4 Sigma and liked the results. I almost purchased one but have decided I want to use a 35mm/85mm combo for shooting weddings.

One thing I don't like is the filter size. I really wish all my pro lenses would use the same filter size. I like to use ND and Pol filters and it is PITA to deal with the different sizes while shooting.

[bchernicoff]

One thing I don't like is the filter size. I really wish all my pro lenses would use the same filter size. I like to use ND and Pol filters and it is PITA to deal with the different sizes while shooting.

I don't understand. The Sigma 85 uses a 77mm filter, the same as your other lenses. Or are you referring to the smaller filter on the new 35mm?

[Enthusiast]

I did a wedding with a rented 85 1.2 and bought the Sigma after that. The comparision is easy:
 The 85L has a very nice special look but you have a lot of shrap behause the AF is so slow that your subject is leaving  Deep of Field at 1.2 before the AF finished. You get only really good pics and a lot of scrap nothing in between.

The Sigma is much sharper, do have a quick AF and you get much much more pics really good and I get only 10% scrap instead of 60-70% scrap. The look is 90-95% as with the Canon an you need a 1:1 comparison to see a difference.
For wining a a concours I would prefer the Canon, for a wedding or Kids I will always take the Sigma.

I like your approach about filter size. The Sigma 50 1,4 I chosed only to have the same 77mm than all my other lenses. It's very practical while shooting primes to remove the caps from one lens and put it on the removed one immediately. I would use an adapter for the 67>77mm filter for the 35mm Sigma.

[Cptn Rigo]

Even the Quantity of OOF blur is more with the 85L at the same aperture. e.g.  Compare the tree trunk blur behind the girl with both lenses at f1.4, the 85L melts it so much more... in fact the 85L at F2 has as much subjective blur as the Siggy does at F1.4... this is where the 85 L shines. I don't know of many lenses that can melt away the background like the 85L....  but you Pay for it 

+ 1  I already have noticed that.

[Cptn Rigo]

Buy the first lens you think about when you wake up in the morning.

 

   I know!

[Cptn Rigo]

The Digital Picture review with it mouse over comparison images is really useful. If you look at those subtle differences and decide the Canon is worth 2x the cost, then by all means, go for it.

Personally, I would buy the Sigma AND a nice used 135mm f/2L for the same money.

I already have the 135L, that's part of my dilemma 

[Cptn Rigo]

I did a wedding with a rented 85 1.2 and bought the Sigma after that. The comparision is easy:
 The 85L has a very nice special look but you have a lot of shrap behause the AF is so slow that your subject is leaving  Deep of Field at 1.2 before the AF finished. You get only really good pics and a lot of scrap nothing in between.

Interesting... A little of movement and the pic is focused in the ears  :S with all the eyes blurry.

Thanks for pointing this out