85mm

[steliosk]

Hello

Here are my worries:
The 85L is adorable but i'd have to sell my kidney to buy it

so i'm stuck between the EF 85 1.8 and the Sigma 85 1.4

I have a 5D3

i've tested the 1.8, i had absolutely no problem in focusing at 1.8. The sharpness was ok and with a little help in post processing i'm quite satisfied!

The one thing i can't tolerate is the purple/green fringes. The ones that are blended in the bokeh are unfixable

I'm talking about head portraits mostly.
The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.

I was wondering if the Sigma is any better? I need to shot wide open and i don't know which one performs better or should i just stay with 100L 2.8.

phewwwww decisions decisions...

 

[glongstaff]

to be honest I am happy with the EF 85mm f/1.8....I haven't noticed the fringing you state...admittedly not done the studio style portraits but have taken in very trying conditions..heres just a couple of shots taken with the lens at two venues (same band)

 

[RunAndGun]

I have both the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2. The 1.8 is a great lens for the money. If you're looking at the 1.2 to get rid of CA, you'll still have it. But the 1.2 is a great lens period.

 

[Rat]

I love contrast. I hate the 1.8 fringing. Apparently, the 100mm (non-L) is just as bad. Would have gone Sigma but have AF concerns (and sane financial priorities).

 

[steliosk]

well here are some samples at 100% with the Canon 85 1.8
see the frings?

i'm wondering if the Sigma 1.4 is any better

 

[Harv]

This may answer your questions regarding the Sigma.....

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff?start=1

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Steliosk: Your photos do a great job of pointing out the purple fringe in front of the subject. My testing also found green fringing behind the subject.

I found that both went away when I stopped down to about F/2.2 and the bokeh was still enough for my needs. I never notice it in general use. Check out my website if you like. Many of the photos were created with the 85 1.8, I love that lens and use it more than any other.

I'm afraid that if you shoot wide open, all the available 85mm lenses are going to have some color fringing somewhere. Even if one of them is slightly superior according to technical reviews, the copy-to-copy variation and autofocus problems can still be frustrating.

Wish I had a better answer for you!

 

[drmikeinpdx]

OK, on second thought I do have a suggestion... the examples you posted appear to be close-ups, so I'm wondering if maybe you should consider the 100mm macro?

 

[wickidwombat]

at f1.4 the sigma has much less fringing but its still has some (not nearly as bad as the examples you show), by f2 its completely gone though and its razor sharp

 

[verysimplejason]

You just have to stop it down to get rid of the fringing. That's why I love my 100mm F2.8 USM Macro. I didn't notice any fringing @ 2.8, though I don't know why DXO listed it as having a higher LCA than the 85mm...

 

[dirtcastle]

I think this is one of the reasons why the 135mm f/2L is so popular and revered (even though it is significantly longer than the 85 f/1.8. Much of Canon's fast glass will have CA wide open (including the 85L). The 100mm f/2.8L is a damn fine lens, but I don't see it as a substitute for an 85 f/1.2 because, well, f/1.2 is a lot bigger hole than an f/2.8 ). That said, I feel like the 85mm f/1.8 can get the job done most of the time. Just work around the limitations and avoid super high contrast and blowouts. You can also try slight underexposure and using Lightroom to lift shadows and highlights.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm talking about head portraits mostly. The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.

Um, this is a bit off topic (sorry), but I was wondering about getting the very reasonably priced 85/1.8 in combination to my 100L...

... but I somehow doubt this is really necessary, the aperture difference isn't that large and the 100L has IS. For which occasions do you find the 100L too long, or are you set upon getting an even shallower dof than f2.8?

 

[wayno]

I had the Canon 85 1.8 and it's a very good lens but I prefer the Sigma. My copy is tack sharp and focusses just fine. Beautiful detail even wide open. For the relatively minor extra price, I think it's worth it. And both it and the 1.8 are a fair bit faster at AF than the 85L and as such, more useful for some applications.

 

[Niki]

with the 5d mark iii shouldn't have so much fringing

 

[Sporgon]

I'm talking about head portraits mostly. The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.

Um, this is a bit off topic (sorry), but I was wondering about getting the very reasonably priced 85/1.8 in combination to my 100L...

... but I somehow doubt this is really necessary, the aperture difference isn't that large and the 100L has IS. For which occasions do you find the 100L too long, or are you set upon getting an even shallower dof than f2.8?

Personally I think the 85 is too short for tightly cropped head portraits it you want to flatter your model with FF. Even 100 for that matter. This is where the 135 focal length is at its best. But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.

 

[Harv]

I had another thought.....

You could also consider the Canon EF 100 f/2 which is just as sharp as the 85 but shows significantly less fringing. It's a lens many tend to overlook.

 

[steliosk]

I want to thank you all for your answers and your time.

the samples i've posted were taken with 5D3 and 85 1.8
i do have the 100L macro which doesn't suffer from CA but it doesn't melt the background like the 85 1.8

i don't consider buying the 100 f/2 since i have the 100L 2.8.. i think the differences are way too close.

after checking some samples on photozone
the sigma also has CA but it doesn't suffer as the 85 1.8

 

[Marsu42]

But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.

Thanks - can you (or anyone) tell me how the 85/1.8 bokeh compares to the 100L?

The bokeh of the 100L is very plain and even to the point of being boring which makes sense on a macro lens, quite unlike my 70-300L with a much more vivid but not disturbing bokeh, though it's radial on the edges on ff which would be due to the small lens diameter (67mm) and large zoom range.

i do have the 100L macro which doesn't suffer from CA but it doesn't melt the background like the 85 1.8

Are there samples anywhere for the background blur difference in comparable/same images? Since my fastest lens around this focal length currently is f2.8 I have no idea how large the difference is.

 

[Eldar]

There are some attractively priced 135mm f2L lenses on ebay. A bit more expensive than an 85/1.8, but a Lot more quality.

 

[steliosk]

Marsu42

umm i can post some with 85 1.8 at 1.8 and 24-105 at 105 and f/4 if it helps

i took some samples between 1.8 and 2.8 a couple of months ago, but i don't remember if i kept it

the ones with 85mm 1.8 vs 105mm 4.0 are new, just gimmie a sec to post them