First Portrait Lens, Need Suggestions

[neuroanatomist]

seriously have a look at the sigma 85 f1.4
at f2 to f2.8 it is super sharp, blows away even the 70-200 mk2

"Blows away"?  Wombat, you been smoking powdered KR rolled in DxOMark papers again?   

I'd say the Sigma 85/1.4 at f/2.8-4 is pretty similar to the 70-200 II at similar apertures, sharper in the center, not as sharp away from the center. 

Still, 'similar to the 70-200 II' is high praise for any lens, especially one costing what the Sigma 85/1.4 costs.  Definitely worth a look...

[wickidwombat]

seriously have a look at the sigma 85 f1.4
at f2 to f2.8 it is super sharp, blows away even the 70-200 mk2

"Blows away"?  Wombat, you been smoking powdered KR rolled in DxOMark papers again?   

I'd say the Sigma 85/1.4 at f/2.8-4 is pretty similar to the 70-200 II at similar apertures, sharper in the center, not as sharp away from the center. 

Still, 'similar to the 70-200 II' is high praise for any lens, especially one costing what the Sigma 85/1.4 costs.  Definitely worth a look...

I have 2 copys of the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and my sigma 85 f1.4 @ f2 is noticably sharper than either L @85mm and wide open at f2.8 AND thats a whole stop faster.

I'm not saying the L zooms are bad in any way they are fantastic however the sigma 85 is really THAT good
well my copy is anyway after i got it back from sigma after they recalibrated it due to it being heavily front focusing out of the box. I guess this speaks to the questionable QA QC of sigma however they fixed the problem quickly. also the build and manual focus of the sigma is superior to the canon non L lenses
obviously the build of the L lenses is superior in every way though

I AM talking center sharpness here since really at such wide apertures typically the corners and edges are blurred into oblivion due to DoF so largely irrelevent for the shooting of portraits with this lens.

Bang for buck this lens is unbeatable IMO

I really hope their annonced 35 f1.4 is as good!

[RLPhoto]

100mm F/2

[paul13walnut5]

I find 85mm a little too tele for portraits on APS-C.

My Sigma 70mm f2.8 is pretty nice, more like the classic short tele equiv to around 110mm, best set the focus limiter though, as the motor isn't fast (the one weak point of the lens for non-macro use)

Obviously the sigma 85mm is potentially two stops brighter, but you can use the 70mm macro wide open at f2.8, wheras the 85mm may need to be stopped down.

I'm not going to compare my Sigma 70mm to my 70-200 f2.8L as they are quite different propositions financially and ergonomically - and it wasn't your question.

I haven't tried either on my collection of peli-cases either, so of limited scope for comparison elsewhere.

[wsmith96]

I use a T1i and the EF-S 60 macro works well for me.   Many people like the 85mm 1.8.

[xps]

seriously have a look at the sigma 85 f1.4
at f2 to f2.8 it is super sharp, blows away even the 70-200 mk2

"Blows away"?  Wombat, you been smoking powdered KR rolled in DxOMark papers again?   

I

That would bei THE idea! Someone should tell Canon to add a little bit of LE or angel dust into their rubber grips. The we would all be a little bit more happy and satisfied ba the product Canon sells.
It makes happy, believe.

The Canon 100mm 2.8 is an good lens (850€ L, non L half of it) . Sigma EX 1.4 85mm DG HSM too (1000€). Don´t forget about the Canon 2.8 60mm  (450€)or the Sigma EX 2.8 50mm DG (360€).
Maybe you try one of the cheaper macros. So you get "two for one" (macro too).

If you take the Macros, the filter diameter is quite smaller. So the filters are cheaper - if you want to to do so.