Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

[Quasimodo]

Thank you all for the input. It has helped a lot.
I went to the store today to test them on my 5D II, and I kind of liked both, although I have to say that the Sigma has some heft to it - nice weight that lies good in the hand, and gave excellent pictures. Both lenses had a very creamy nice bokeh. The problem with green and purple fringing was very evident on the samples I took with the Canon, - see attached pictures.

 

[spinworkxroy]

I guess the 5D3's CA lens correction thing really helps the 85m f1.8 then…
i personally don't use the 85mm much so i couldn't justufy getting the Sigma when i got the 1.8 at about USD300 used and even at 1.8 (which is use very often when i use the lens), i don't get the purple or green tint..I wouldn't say it's a super sharp lens but it's very worth the money and unless you are going to use 85mm alot..i don't see how spending so much more for the Sigma or the 1.2 makes monetary sense

 

[Quasimodo]

Adding also a shot and a 100 percent crop with the Sigma of the guy in the store.

 

[Quasimodo]

I guess the 5D3's CA lens correction thing really helps the 85m f1.8 then…
i personally don't use the 85mm much so i couldn't justufy getting the Sigma when i got the 1.8 at about USD300 used and even at 1.8 (which is use very often when i use the lens), i don't get the purple or green tint..I wouldn't say it's a super sharp lens but it's very worth the money and unless you are going to use 85mm alot..i don't see how spending so much more for the Sigma or the 1.2 makes monetary sense

I've also heard that the 5D III does correct for a lot in the camera. As far as monetary sense or not (this is not my occupation, but I do some small jobs now and then) I think for me all camera expenses are justified for my utter joy of taking pictures. I was shooting a wedding (after the paid photographer had taken the official shots during the ceremony), and I did it as a favour to a friend (I was also a guest). I had brought my 135 F2.0, 70-200 F2.8 II, 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-70 F2.8, and finally my 50 F1.4. Everything was fine, but I sensed that the 135 was too long for many of the shots, and afterwards I felt that 85 would be a good range lens while moving between people.

 

[risc32]

I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding

Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that...
Not that it matters really, as that lens has gotten lots of good press for sharpness, when in focus, and there doesn't seem to be any debating that. Apparently it's easy to make a good 85mm 1.4 lens. One that focuses well seems to be a different story. Brian at the-digital-picture has had problems with LOTS of sigma gear. read his reviews. They always start with something like," i had to go though 4 of these to get one that even focuses repeatedly". he's not alone, the lens rental guy(who probably has much more real data about these things than anyone) and other places have the same problem.
Personally i wouldn't even consider a sigma after the 2months of BS they did to me one time while they had my lens in for focus issues. i mentioned it once before on this site, but they had my lens, and told me they where waiting on a part from japan that was coming over by SHIP, sometime. After they scratched up my new 24mm 1.8 (while also in for major focus issues)and then that other mess, it would have to be one VERY compelling reason for me ever look at them. I was running minolta/sony gear mostly at that point, and as it turned out while sigma was busy wasting my time I got my hands on a 5d and 70-200mm f4IS at a local store, and that was that...

 

[Quasimodo]

I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding

LOL, I hear you. I did not start shooting before the official photographer was done, and I actually had to make a point of it to the groom, pointing out that it would be rude to the professional if I kept shooting over their shoulders

Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that...

I think that might have been the shooters; - me, fault.

 

[wickidwombat]

I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur

 

[Quasimodo]

I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur

I think I am ordering it tomorrow On the photozone.de page they write in the conclusion that: " The amount of bokeh fringing (LoCAs) is on the high side though so you may spot some colored out-of-focus halos in critical situations. ". Someone in here suggested that this might be solved by the use of a good UV filter. In your experience, would an expensive UV filter like one from B&W help with this? And finally, have you had any problem with this, and if so, is it an easy fix in photoshop? (I have the CS5 extended).

 

[Forceflow]

Love my Sigma 85mm 1.4 I would say it's the one lens with the highest IQ and I ven never get enough of it. That said I have not tried the Canon 1.8 in comparison, but from the reviews I read I was confident that the Sigma was simply the better option. So far I have certainly not regretted it.

 

[Radiating]

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.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

 

[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.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site. I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had? I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

 

[elflord]

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site. I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

In terms of both specs and performance, it is in the same category as the manufacturers premium lenses (that would be the "L lens" for Canon). The 85mm f/1.8 is a budget to mid range prime. The 85mm f/1.2 is not even a typical L lens, it's a kind of "super duper fast" L lens. Most other manufacturers have an 85mm f/1.4 lens at the top of their line (and according to lenstip, the Sigma is better than those lenses).

So yes, the Sigma is on a different level to the 85mm f/1.8, it is in the same class as L lenses in general, but the 85mm f/1.2 is a unique lens even among L lenses.

 

[wickidwombat]

I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur

I think I am ordering it tomorrow On the photozone.de page they write in the conclusion that: " The amount of bokeh fringing (LoCAs) is on the high side though so you may spot some colored out-of-focus halos in critical situations. ". Someone in here suggested that this might be solved by the use of a good UV filter. In your experience, would an expensive UV filter like one from B&W help with this? And finally, have you had any problem with this, and if so, is it an easy fix in photoshop? (I have the CS5 extended).

At 1.4 there is some purple fringing in contrasty light however in LR the lens correction clears it right up
and at f2 sharpness is outstanding (its sharper than the 70-200 II is at f2.8) and CA is gone, I use this lens mostly at f2 unless I really want that razor thin DoF or am chasing crazy low light

at f2 this lens is outstanding.

My copy was heavily front focusing and I sent it back and had it recalibrated and now its perfect

my feeling is that wide open the canon f1.2L is unparalleled for sharpness and image quality however its focusing speed is ponderous when shot side by side with the sigma and its 2.5x more expensive bigger and heavier

I chose the sigma for the more snappy preformance mostly and its ability to be used more easily on the run and it's generally a better all round performer.

however if money is no object and you are going to be posing the models more of the time or shooting in controlled light where AF speed isnt an issue then the canon 85 f1.2L II cannot be beaten

 

[Quasimodo]

Thank you all for your kind and insightful input. I have now ordered the Sigma lens. I am looking forward to using it

 

[Radiating]

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.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site.

The lab tests, specifically MTF tests have a lot to do with the real world, they don't tell the whole picture but they are fairly good. The best indication I've found is simply looking at the-digital-picture.com samples. The person running that site seems to have a huge budget and is willing to buy multiple copies of a lens. I have never been dissatisfied with their tests and the visual comparisons are the ultimate word in testing.

Other websites with lower budgets I've found have inaccuracies about 10%-20% of the time whether that be due to technique or getting a bad copy, which is why it's worth checking multiple reviews, especially for third party lenses. For a third party lens I check at least 3 review websites before I come to any conclusion.

I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

You could assume photozone thinks so. Realistically all 85mm lenses are very good. However, the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 just happen to be epic.

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had?

The Canon 85mm 1.2L has a unique corkscrew focus instead of a lever focus which is very very slow. It's supposed to be for shooting models who know how to pose and stand still.

The Sigma 1.4 focuses as fast as the Canon 1.8 but sufferes from calibration issues, if you can microadjust it properly it can do action just fine.

I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

That lens has much better focus speed.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

You have to correct the raw file in DXO and then you can edit it freely. I don't have any experience using any other method.

Hope that helps.

 

[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.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site.

The lab tests, specifically MTF tests have a lot to do with the real world, they don't tell the whole picture but they are fairly good. The best indication I've found is simply looking at the-digital-picture.com samples. The person running that site seems to have a huge budget and is willing to buy multiple copies of a lens. I have never been dissatisfied with their tests and the visual comparisons are the ultimate word in testing.

Other websites with lower budgets I've found have inaccuracies about 10%-20% of the time whether that be due to technique or getting a bad copy, which is why it's worth checking multiple reviews, especially for third party lenses. For a third party lens I check at least 3 review websites before I come to any conclusion.

I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

You could assume photozone thinks so. Realistically all 85mm lenses are very good. However, the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 just happen to be epic.

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had?

The Canon 85mm 1.2L has a unique corkscrew focus instead of a lever focus which is very very slow. It's supposed to be for shooting models who know how to pose and stand still.

The Sigma 1.4 focuses as fast as the Canon 1.8 but sufferes from calibration issues, if you can microadjust it properly it can do action just fine.

I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

That lens has much better focus speed.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

You have to correct the raw file in DXO and then you can edit it freely. I don't have any experience using any other method.

Hope that helps.

Indeed it has The consensus seems to have been that they are all great, but If I could afford the Sigma, that it would offer the best value for money. I ordered it this morning, so I am looking forward to get to know it well

I always read the digitalpicture reviews, but because I am a shallow person I truly enjoy the star system of photozone, something the digpic does not have. That said, I do enjoy them too.

 

[Bosman]

I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding

LOL, I hear you. I did not start shooting before the official photographer was done, and I actually had to make a point of it to the groom, pointing out that it would be rude to the professional if I kept shooting over their shoulders

Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that...

I think that might have been the shooters; - me, fault.

I am a wedding photographer and you not only made a good choice, you saved the photographers photos by not popping up with your camera. People tend to look around when they see other cameras and portraits would be messed up because not everyone would be looking at the actual paid photographer in the portrait photos.
On another note. I don't understand why you would take so much gear to do a friend a favor. Maybe that makes you a good friend.

 

[RLPhoto]

How can these two even be compared? ??? There difference lens speed and difference price ranges.

 

[Quasimodo]

How can these two even be compared? ??? There difference lens speed and difference price ranges.

Well, I got the Siggy now, and I absolutely love it

 

[wickidwombat]

Sigma 1.4 all the way