Is a 85mm f1.4 needed?

[dlee13]

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).

Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.

I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).

 

[Eldar]

I have the 100/2.8L IS Macro and the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. I have had a number of 85mm up through the years and it is a favourite focal length of mine. But the 100L is an excellent lens in every way and you have to dig rather deep in your pockets to find anything that can beat it IQ wise.

As you say the quality you´ll get with an 85/1.4 is the shallow DOF. To me that is key, not only for the bokeh, but also for the ability to get just what I want in focus, in focus, like the eyes of a person. The focal length difference is negligible.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi dlee13!

I do own and use both Canon lenses, the 100L and the 85/1.8 on FF.
The 100L is almost every time in my bag because of its versatility as macro AND portrait lens.
That's the reason why my 85 doesn't get a lot of shots. I only take it with me, when I want to make dedicated portrait shots.
I think the 85 is a real steal for its price and delivers fast and accurate AF and a really good IQ, despite some CA.
But somehow I have the feeling that it lacks something special in the resulting images, so I wouldn't call it my most beloved lens.
That's also the reason why I am also looking forward to a replacement. But an 85L would be oversized.

I also considered the 135/2 because of its famous performance and bokeh.
But when I tried this focal length (with a zoom) I had the feeling that it was too narrow and you had to step too far back from your target person. But that's personal taste. I would really love the 135/2 for weddings and parties.

So comparing the focal length of 85 and 135 I'd prefer the 85 because it's more versatile. You can get closer to you target getting shorter DOF. You can easily shoot anything between headshots and half figures.
Apertures at 1.8 or 1.4 are normally enough to get a shallow DOF.

I heard converse opinions about the Sigma 85/1.4. Whilst having a great IQ, better than the Canon 1.8, some complain about AF and focusing issues.

So please try for yourself whether you prefer the former or later. So I hope I could help you a little bit.

 

[donn]

I'm on the same boat as you are about the 85. I have 50A,100L and 135L. I love taking portraits and the gap between my 50 and 100 is covered by my zoom lens. I had been considering having the 85 as part of my gear, I tried loaning out an 85L, the image it provided wide open was a dream even with some CA, also tried the sigma 1.4, it gave wonderful image as well. The 85L is quite expensive and I can't reason out the cost (not a pro photographer). I love the bokeh the 85 gave compared to my 100L. Don't get me wrong, the 100L is a very good glass, i would never let it go.

Am seriously considering the Sigma but holding a bit perhaps a better option will come.

 

[dlee13]

I have the 100/2.8L IS Macro and the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. I have had a number of 85mm up through the years and it is a favourite focal length of mine. But the 100L is an excellent lens in every way and you have to dig rather deep in your pockets to find anything that can beat it IQ wise.

I am absolutely horrible at using manual focus so as amazing as the Otus is, it would be a waste on me. I definitely agree with everything you've said about the 100L. The amazing IQ it has is one factor that makes me hesitant to get another lens, I know when it comes to sharpness it's on its own level.

As you say the quality you´ll get with an 85/1.4 is the shallow DOF. To me that is key, not only for the bokeh, but also for the ability to get just what I want in focus, in focus, like the eyes of a person. The focal length difference is negligible.

Currently when I do full body portraits I can get a slight shallow DOF but I just want more which I know a 85mm f1.4 can achieve. It' a hard decision since I like to have minimal gear and I don't want to get an 85 just to be disappointed. I may have to rent an 85 for a weekend one time.

Hi dlee13!

I do own and use both Canon lenses, the 100L and the 85/1.8 on FF.
The 100L is almost every time in my bag because of its versatility as macro AND portrait lens.
That's the reason why my 85 doesn't get a lot of shots. I only take it with me, when I want to make dedicated portrait shots.
I think the 85 is a real steal for its price and delivers fast and accurate AF and a really good IQ, despite some CA.
But somehow I have the feeling that it lacks something special in the resulting images, so I wouldn't call it my most beloved lens.
That's also the reason why I am also looking forward to a replacement. But an 85L would be oversized.

Hi Maximilian!

The 85mm f1.8 does seem like a good performing lens for it's price, but compared to my 100L and 35mm f2 IS I feel it may leave my a little underwhelmed. I like lenses with great wide open performance which you know the 100L definitely has, but from what I've read the 85 1.8 is better at 2.8 onwards.

I actually use my 100L for portraits/still life than I do for macro. It actually changed my perception on teles altogether. I had always preferred wider lenses even for portraits (I never did headshots) then once I got my 100L and tried stuff like headshots I feel in love! The 85L is way too expensive for me, for that price I think I would rather get the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.

I also considered the 135/2 because of its famous performance and bokeh.
But when I tried this focal length (with a zoom) I had the feeling that it was too narrow and you had to step too far back from your target person. But that's personal taste. I would really love the 135/2 for weddings and parties.

So comparing the focal length of 85 and 135 I'd prefer the 85 because it's more versatile. You can get closer to you target getting shorter DOF. You can easily shoot anything between headshots and half figures.
Apertures at 1.8 or 1.4 are normally enough to get a shallow DOF.

I see a lot of wedding/portrait photographers use the 135 too and it certainly is amazing. As I stated, it's definitely different from the 100L but the thing that pushes me towards a 85 is like you I prefer the better working distance so I definitely agree it may be too long for certain situations. I feel all 3 can easily have their own uses and wouldn't be a waste owning all of them, but for now my budget only suits one.

I heard converse opinions about the Sigma 85/1.4. Whilst having a great IQ, better than the Canon 1.8, some complain about AF and focusing issues.

So please try for yourself whether you prefer the former or later. So I hope I could help you a little bit.

Being that I owned two copies of the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX, I know all too well about the focusing issues Sigma lenses can have. I am considering improving my portraits to the point I do some paid work on the side so this is something that worries me, I can't afford focus problems if I'm doing paid work.

You did help so thanks for your reply

I'm on the same boat as you are about the 85. I have 50A,100L and 135L. I love taking portraits and the gap between my 50 and 100 is covered by my zoom lens. I had been considering having the 85 as part of my gear, I tried loaning out an 85L, the image it provided wide open was a dream even with some CA, also tried the sigma 1.4, it gave wonderful image as well. The 85L is quite expensive and I can't reason out the cost (not a pro photographer). I love the bokeh the 85 gave compared to my 100L. Don't get me wrong, the 100L is a very good glass, i would never let it go.

Am seriously considering the Sigma but holding a bit perhaps a better option will come.

I love my 100L too but when it comes to portraits, I would definitely pick the 85L over the 100L. As you said, it's very expensive and you could get a second body with that money. If you know his work, Jake Olsen does amazing portrait work with the 85L so it proves despite the lenses age and CA, it still holds up against the competition.

Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma.

This is the portrait I took that made me more interested in portraits and showed me what the 100L can do. It certainly isn't the most perfect of portraits, but it's probably my best portrait to date and what makes me want to get more into the genre.

 

[gregorywood]

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).

Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.

I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).

I have both the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. I acquired the Sigma recently and I was on the same fence as you for the last year. What I find is that I simply love the shallow DOF and subject isolation that I get from the 85mm and I can't get that with the 100mm. They both are tools and I have a use for both. I do love the 100mm for macro (obviously) and also for indoor events, outdoor evening and night sports - granted it's not the best tool for action, but it's the best I've got for that at present.

I picked up my Sigma 85mm for $600 used and it looks and works like new - and no focus issues for me on the 6D or the 7D.

Greg

 

[chrysoberyl]

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).

Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.

I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).

I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.

 

[Maximilian]

Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma.

That's exactly the same to me. I am not willing to run into potential AF issues with 3rd party lenses (of course you can get some with Canon original, too) and I am also not willing to buy those outdated lenses. And therefore my decission is to wait and save the money.
Two possible cases for me:
- Canon makes a new 85/1.8 withorwithoutIS, then I'll get this one
- Canon waits too long with that until I saved up enough for the 100-400L II that I want, too, but for totally different purposes, of course.

Conclusion:
If you don't like the (old) 85/1.8, if you've already had issues with Sigma AF, stay with your 100L, save the money and wait for the companies to make their moves first before you move. (maybe you have time then to save up until you can get an otus )

 

[jd7]

I don't have the 100L but I recently picked up a second-hand Sigma 85 1.4. I haven't had a chance to use it that much yet (sadly!) but so far I'm really liking it! Basically, I would echo Gregorywood's post above. I think the IQ is great, and (touch wood) the AF has seemed pretty good so far.

I had a Canon 85 1.8 (actually still have it, haven't sold it yet) and was thinking about a 135L but ended up going with the Sigma 85 1.4. I was looking second-hand and the decision to try the Sigma (as an upgrade to the 85 1.8) was made in part because I saw a decent deal on the Sigma and the only 135Ls I could find seemed a bit expensive (not a huge second-hand market where I am and I wasn't keen to buy sight unseen). Even apart from cost though, part of my thinking about choosing the 84 1.4 rather than 135L was the shorter focal plus f-stop advantage should give something approaching two stops of extra hand-hold-ability, plus should make it a more useful lens for indoor use where you may not be able to step back and/or the light is dim.

I've used a 100L once and it was fine (and doing a bit of macro was fun), but unless you want the macro capability I've never really understood why so many people praise it as much as they do. I don't mean that to be provocative, I'd just really like to understand! At that focal length a max f-stop of 2.8 just doesn't seem exciting for a prime lens (although I admit the IS and weather-sealing are attractions), and I don't feel like I've seen photos with the 100L which have a character and bokeh which catches your attention in the way that, say, some photos with the 135L can do. Anyway, maybe if I used the 100L for a while I'd start to understand its charm?

 

[dlee13]

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).

Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.

I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).

I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.

Sorry to hear you had problems with yours. I definitely understand there can be problems between copies but if you get one that works well, you'll have one amazing lens! My old Sigma 50 1.4 was great wide open and very accurate too on my 6D but I sold it since I used my 35mm f2 IS more.

Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma.

That's exactly the same to me. I am not willing to run into potential AF issues with 3rd party lenses (of course you can get some with Canon original, too) and I am also not willing to buy those outdated lenses. And therefore my decission is to wait and save the money.
Two possible cases for me:
- Canon makes a new 85/1.8 withorwithoutIS, then I'll get this one
- Canon waits too long with that until I saved up enough for the 100-400L II that I want, too, but for totally different purposes, of course.

Conclusion:
If you don't like the (old) 85/1.8, if you've already had issues with Sigma AF, stay with your 100L, save the money and wait for the companies to make their moves first before you move. (maybe you have time then to save up until you can get an otus )

A few of my Canon lenses are at -1 AMFA but are always tack sharp and accurate AF. From what I've seen with Sigma lenses the issue is when you have different AFMA values at different distances. With the new Sigma dock it's not as bad for new lenses, but for the older EX lenses there are definitely some concerns.

I would be inclined to get the 85mm f1.8 even if it doesn't have IS, but it also comes down to the quality of the lenses available

My issues were mainly on my 550D and after adjusting it using dot tune on my 6D, my 50mm f1.4 was perfect and spot on. But saving till something that matches my needs is definitely a good idea. I think in the mean time I'll try renting the Sigma and 135 and see which I like better, just need the money haha.

 

[Maximilian]

I've used a 100L once and it was fine (and doing a bit of macro was fun), but unless you want the macro capability I've never really understood why so many people praise it as much as they do. I don't mean that to be provocative, I'd just really like to understand! At that focal length a max f-stop of 2.8 just doesn't seem exciting for a prime lens (although I admit the IS and weather-sealing are attractions), and I don't feel like I've seen photos with the 100L which have a character and bokeh which catches your attention in the way that, say, some photos with the 135L can do. Anyway, maybe if I used the 100L for a while I'd start to understand its charm?

Hi jd7!

Of course you are right with what you say here.

The 100L is not that great portrait lens. And f2.8 is just where real portrait apertures start to begin.
But it is a great two in one compromise.
And I wouldn't call it fair if you compare it to the 135L with its outstanding bokeh, and then complain about exactly that beeing not so good.
But for a marco lens the 100L performes much more than decent as portrait lens. And this versatility is the reason for me to praise it so much.

 

[jd7]

I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.

Sorry to hear you had problems with yours. I definitely understand there can be problems between copies but if you get one that works well, you'll have one amazing lens! My old Sigma 50 1.4 was great wide open and very accurate too on my 6D but I sold it since I used my 35mm f2 IS more.

I agree with dlee13. Chrysoberyl, did you AFMA your Sigma? I assume you did, but I'm just a bit surprised you thought it was that soft at 1.4.

 

[jd7]

I've used a 100L once and it was fine (and doing a bit of macro was fun), but unless you want the macro capability I've never really understood why so many people praise it as much as they do. I don't mean that to be provocative, I'd just really like to understand! At that focal length a max f-stop of 2.8 just doesn't seem exciting for a prime lens (although I admit the IS and weather-sealing are attractions), and I don't feel like I've seen photos with the 100L which have a character and bokeh which catches your attention in the way that, say, some photos with the 135L can do. Anyway, maybe if I used the 100L for a while I'd start to understand its charm?

Hi jd7!

Of course you are right with what you say here.

The 100L is not that great portrait lens. And f2.8 is just where real portrait apertures start to begin.
But it is a great two in one compromise.
And I wouldn't call it fair if you compare it to the 135L with its outstanding bokeh, and then complain about exactly that beeing not so good.
But for a marco lens the 100L performes much more than decent as portrait lens. And this versatility is the reason for me to praise it so much.

Thanks Maximilian. It sounds like the answer might be just that I'm not interested enough in doing macro photography (I'm happy to look at other people's shots!).

 

[pdirestajr]

IMO the 100L gets so much love because of it's versatility. Yes you can shoot portraits and macro. But since it is a Tele with such a short minimum focus distance you never feel crammed! If you have a 135 on in a tight space you are limited. With the 100 you can get creative and grab detail shots and close ups. When I have it on my camera it feels more like a zoom lens. And when I'm shooting portraits I am usually at 2.8 anyway because I like my subject's whole face to be in focus, so the 2.8 isn't an issue. IS, weather sealing, and a relatively low price for an "L" also add to it's charm. It's a lot of bang for your buck!

 

[dlee13]

I don't have the 100L but I recently picked up a second-hand Sigma 85 1.4. I haven't had a chance to use it that much yet (sadly!) but so far I'm really liking it! Basically, I would echo Gregorywood's post above. I think the IQ is great, and (touch wood) the AF has seemed pretty good so far.

I had a Canon 85 1.8 (actually still have it, haven't sold it yet) and was thinking about a 135L but ended up going with the Sigma 85 1.4. I was looking second-hand and the decision to try the Sigma (as an upgrade to the 85 1.8) was made in part because I saw a decent deal on the Sigma and the only 135Ls I could find seemed a bit expensive (not a huge second-hand market where I am and I wasn't keen to buy sight unseen). Even apart from cost though, part of my thinking about choosing the 84 1.4 rather than 135L was the shorter focal plus f-stop advantage should give something approaching two stops of extra hand-hold-ability, plus should make it a more useful lens for indoor use where you may not be able to step back and/or the light is dim.

I've used a 100L once and it was fine (and doing a bit of macro was fun), but unless you want the macro capability I've never really understood why so many people praise it as much as they do. I don't mean that to be provocative, I'd just really like to understand! At that focal length a max f-stop of 2.8 just doesn't seem exciting for a prime lens (although I admit the IS and weather-sealing are attractions), and I don't feel like I've seen photos with the 100L which have a character and bokeh which catches your attention in the way that, say, some photos with the 135L can do. Anyway, maybe if I used the 100L for a while I'd start to understand its charm?

For me the attraction to the 100L would definitely be its versatility and general IQ. When it comes to sharpness, the 100L is in a class of its own.For stuff like macro and product shots, it works really well and I personally like its bokeh too. Although you can produce great portraits with it, there are lenses that can do an even better job which is why I'm looking into 85mm options. If I primarily shoot headshots and space isn't an issue, I think the 100L would be enough for me. But for full body portraits and working in tighter spaces, a fast 85mm definitely has the advantage over it.

Many people buy the 100L as a macro lens that can do other genres, but I bought it more as a still life/product photography lens than can do portraits and macro as well

IMO the 100L gets so much love because of it's versatility. Yes you can shoot portraits and macro. But since it is a Tele with such a short minimum focus distance you never feel crammed! If you have a 135 on in a tight space you are limited. With the 100 you can get creative and grab detail shots and close ups. When I have it on my camera it feels more like a zoom lens. And when I'm shooting portraits I am usually at 2.8 anyway because I like my subject's whole face to be in focus, so the 2.8 isn't an issue. IS, weather sealing, and a relatively low price for an "L" also add to it's charm. It's a lot of bang for your buck!

I definitely agree with all this. The 100L is the sharpest lens I've ever used. I actually had to improve my PP skills for skin retouching since this lens brings out more detail than I know what to do with!!

 

[beckstoy]

I own and deeply love Sigma's 35mm ART lens and was excited for their rumored 85 ART. I was waiting for that one, but then I had a specific need for 85mm, so I rented the amazing Canon 85 1.2L (yes, generally overpriced, but available for my purposes).

That day of shooting changed my life. I immediately purchased the 85 1.2L and I use it with each client.

I'm very excited to see what Sigma offers if they ever actually produce their version, but I couldn't justify simply waiting anymore. The Canon was expensive, but since I'm paid for my work, it makes no sense to hold off for an unforseen amount of time for a lens which might be stunning, when there's an amazing one in existence right now. Images produced by that lens have propelled my business forward, and I feel dumb that I put it off for so long, thinking I'd be saving money to wait for Sigma. I was stepping over dollars to pick up nickels.

Whenever Sigma decides to put out an 85 update, I'll check it out and will get it if it's good. My 85 1.2L will likely then either be sold or go to my 16 year old son, who's becoming a pretty dang good photog himself.

#LovingMyEF85L

 

[awinphoto]

Thought i would pipe in.... I've got the 100mm 2.8L and the Canon 85mm 1.8. 2 different beats albeit you wouldn't think so... I do professional portraits, boudoir, etc, and almost shoot with the 85 more than the 100mm, silly as that my seem. I have resigned the 100mm to my macro, product, detail shots lens... A few reasons for my decision, when cropped at the same framed shot in camera (keeping in mind the focal distance difference), the 85mm allows me to focus closer to the subject so i'm not so far away, it blurs out background quicker than the 100mm, and is smaller and quicker focusing. Now, i also use my 70-200 F4 IS on occasion when i want to get even closer, or when i want a look i couldn't get otherwise, but alas the DOF isn't what the 85 is, but, sometimes, it doesn't need to be. There are some that knock the 85 1.8 due to CA... to be honest, i've only noticed CA in a handful of shots but nothing uncontrollable or distracting, just something you and I would see, but no one else would. That being said, whenever the rumored 85 1.8 IS comes out, we'll be all over that.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.

Sorry to hear you had problems with yours. I definitely understand there can be problems between copies but if you get one that works well, you'll have one amazing lens! My old Sigma 50 1.4 was great wide open and very accurate too on my 6D but I sold it since I used my 35mm f2 IS more.

I agree with dlee13. Chrysoberyl, did you AFMA your Sigma? I assume you did, but I'm just a bit surprised you thought it was that soft at 1.4.

I tested it manually focused. The results weren't terrible, but they weren't sharp, either. I recently read the Lenstip review and apparently that lens also had a sharpness problem at f/1.4. Perhaps there was great variability lens to lens, since some folks feel their copy is sharp.

 

[dlee13]

Beckstoy - the 85L would be a dream to own and anyone who uses it seems to fall in love with it. Being that I'm still a student and don't shoot professionally, it's way too much money for me to spend on it but for you I'm sure it's well worth it Who knows, Sigma may release a 85 Art that's sharper but may not have that magic bokeh the 85L has!

Awinphoto - to me personally, it's more of the age of the lens that puts me off rather than the CA. I've seen some certainly amazing images with the 85 1.8 but I'm just hesitant to buy it because I prefer to keep one lens for as long as I Can without having to upgrade.

I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.

Sorry to hear you had problems with yours. I definitely understand there can be problems between copies but if you get one that works well, you'll have one amazing lens! My old Sigma 50 1.4 was great wide open and very accurate too on my 6D but I sold it since I used my 35mm f2 IS more.

I agree with dlee13. Chrysoberyl, did you AFMA your Sigma? I assume you did, but I'm just a bit surprised you thought it was that soft at 1.4.

I tested it manually focused. The results weren't terrible, but they weren't sharp, either. I recently read the Lenstip review and apparently that lens also had a sharpness problem at f/1.4. Perhaps there was great variability lens to lens, since some folks feel their copy is sharp.

I had a similar experience with the first copy of my original 50mm f1.4. It was good when shooting in Live View, but otherwise it was very soft wide open and AF was all over the place. I sent it off for calibration and it came back even worse to the point it was unusable all the way down to f4. I had bought that one online and I have a theory the seller was using returned or faulty stock, without proof I won't say any more in case I'm wrong but that whole sale didn't seem legit.

 

[tiredofstitching]

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story). …

I have never used the 100L and I don't know how it compares. But someone gave me a Sigma 85 f1.4 to sell and I could use it briefly for some weeks. The lens is excellent. At f1.4, it is sharper than the 85L MkI at f1.4, and is also better corrected in the edges (perhaps too much for some uses). AF is faster than on the 85L. The glass produces a slightly warmer image, which can easily be corrected in post. I also have the EF 85 f1.8, and I don't know why some have a gripe (maybe it's too cheap?). It produces lovely portraits, is very sharp fully open and the AF is a dream. But my favorite lenses for portraits remain the 85L and the 135L. Those lenses produce a sharp butterly image, with natural colors and an incredible blur quality. Both become also as sharp as it can get when closed a little and are very good for general photography. But the 85L is not easy to master when you shoot it wide open, which is what it was designed for. The DOF works on a feather, or the quarter of an eyelash. When I'm not in the mood to be in love with the model through the camera, I get more keepers with the 85mm f1.8 !