Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

[Quasimodo]

I am about to buy a 85mm, and the 1.2 is out of the question due to the price, and also out of the question are the manual focus only lenses. The Photozone.de rates the Canon very highly, and the Sigma low, while the digital picture gives the Sigma a high score. Buying the Canon is much cheaper.

Has anyone tried both these lenses, and which would you go for?

My use will mainly be portrait on a 5D II.

[pdirestajr]

The Canon 85mm 1.8 is a beautiful lens at a fantastic price.

I've never used the Sigma version, it's more than 2x the price of the Canon. It could be slightly better, people seem to enjoy it, but is it 2x better? I'd rather go with the proven Canon lens (been around for 20 years), and then use that extra cash for something else like a 50mm 1.4!

[Quasimodo]

I actually have the 50 1.4 and I love it.

[woodenpunch]

I have both and the Sigma is far superior, you can really compare the sigma to the canon 85 prime L Glass.

If you on a budget get the Canon, if you want the most bang for the buck get the Sigma!

[paulc]

I treat my 85/1.8 like my former 50/1.8.  That is to say I refuse to use them wide open.  I've got more than enough great ruined by that horrible, horrible purple fringe.  Stopped down a bit though it's untouchable for the price.

[K-amps]

What about going the 135mm F2 route instead?

[mesa]

I owned the Sigma 1.4 about 6 months ago, very sharp lens even wide open, loved the AF speed and bokeh... AF accuracy is another story, for me. I had 3 cameras at the time, AF was spot on with my 5D II, back focus quite a bit on my 7D and was totally unpredictable with my 1D III. I am going to stick with Canon.

[Quasimodo]

Thank you all for your input.

K-Amps. I have the 135, and it is by far my favorite lens, but I feel that I also would like the 85 focal lenght. I borrowed the 1.2 II a couple of weeks, and I thought it was slow, and I found the AF to be a tad nerevous. I have a pretty good stack of L lenses, both primes and zooms. I have never had any other lenses than Canon (with the sole exception of a Tokina 17mm, which was broken when I bought it used on the web;).

[Cptn Rigo]

Thank you all for your input.

K-Amps. I have the 135, and it is by far my favorite lens, but I feel that I also would like the 85 focal lenght. I borrowed the 1.2 II a couple of weeks, and I thought it was slow, and I found the AF to be a tad nerevous. I have a pretty good stack of L lenses, both primes and zooms. I have never had any other lenses than Canon (with the sole exception of a Tokina 17mm, which was broken when I bought it used on the web;).

+1 

The 135 is amazing, a bit long in a crop body but the quality is incredible, I have tried the 85 1.8 and 1.2... the 1.8 its a nice lens, fast focusing and good IQ for the price, the 1.2 its INSANE, even wide open the IQ is marvelous, it focuses slow in comparison, but the bokeh... 

[alfeel]

the sigma is an amazing lens! but make sure to try it, especially for front and back focus at different focusing distances! I had this (incorrigible) problem on mine and fortunately my dealer contacted Sigma for a replacement, and they give me a prefect lens! Sharp as hell (I have testet it against the 85L and @1.4 in the center they are equally sharp, @1.6 they are the same), it focuses fast (not like the super slow 85L, the main problem I had with the 85L) and the bokeh is great (but the 85L is a little better, but not that much better)! btw here some samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfeel/tags/sigma85mmf14exdghsm/

[Quasimodo]

the sigma is an amazing lens! but make sure to try it, especially for front and back focus at different focusing distances! I had this (incorrigible) problem on mine and fortunately my dealer contacted Sigma for a replacement, and they give me a prefect lens! Sharp as hell (I have testet it against the 85L and @1.4 in the center they are equally sharp, @1.6 they are the same), it focuses fast (not like the super slow 85L, the main problem I had with the 85L) and the bokeh is great (but the 85L is a little better, but not that much better)! btw here some samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfeel/tags/sigma85mmf14exdghsm/

Nice shots, and the lens shot was way cool. Everyone in here seems to be posting on flickr... I got my pictures on 500px.

I am bringing my youngest son (8 months old) downtown tomorrow for some shopping. I think I have to stop by the photostore to try both:)

[DJL329]

I treat my 85/1.8 like my former 50/1.8.  That is to say I refuse to use them wide open.  I've got more than enough great ruined by that horrible, horrible purple fringe.  Stopped down a bit though it's untouchable for the price.

Have you tried DxO's Optics Pro to remove the purple fringing?  You can download a 30-day trial from their website.

[aznable]

sigma cost roughly the double of canon a it performs extremly better...it's a no contest

[te4o]

I  bought a Sigma 85/1.4 just last week in addition to my new 135/2. I find the combination very workable. IQ of the sigma is fantastic. It is sharp with a MA of -3. DoF is so flat that I need to be careful how my objects' faces are positioned... Or go to f2.
I tested it against the canon, must admit only with the comparison tool on my 5D3 at the shop but at pixel level and full and found that you wouldn't take the canon if you see the sigma. You would be happy with the canon if you don't see the sigma.

[Quasimodo]

I  bought a Sigma 85/1.4 just last week in addition to my new 135/2. I find the combination very workable. IQ of the sigma is fantastic. It is sharp with a MA of -3. DoF is so flat that I need to be careful how my objects' faces are positioned... Or go to f2.
I tested it against the canon, must admit only with the comparison tool on my 5D3 at the shop but at pixel level and full and found that you wouldn't take the canon if you see the sigma. You would be happy with the canon if you don't see the sigma.

Lol, maybe I should not go to the shop tomorrow:) A stupid question of mine, but the Canon has a filter thread of 58, and the Sigma 77. Does that matter at all? One would intuitively think that more glass would be better?