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?

 

[helpful]

The Canon is good for small prints and focuses like the wind--in the highest class of fast focus. But it's not useful as a picture-making machine below f/2.8 due to the low sharpness, low contrast, not to mention the purple fringing (I don't really care about that, since it is for the out-of-focus areas--I just care that the in focus areas are extremely sharp, and they are not sharp below f/2.8 ).

There are a lot of inaccurate reviews of the 85mm f/1.8 saying it is sharp, but they're using it in a variety of circumstances shooting on automatic and most of their review photos are f/2.8 or above, lots of f/5.6 shots, etc. For those the 85mm lens is world class. For this reason I own two copies, and two copies of the similar 100mm f/2.0 as well. The same comments apply to the 100mm f/2.0 lens, despite the fact that Ken Rockwell says the 100mm f/2.0 has 5.0/5.0 perfect optics. He is talking about photos that are not near f/2.0.

But when I need those apertures below f/2.8, then the Canon f/1.8 is simply not an option. Occasionally a picture is good enough at f/2.0 that I think there is hope, but it just isn't possible to call it sharp. The fast focusing sometimes makes up for it. To be fair, I made a 20x30" enlargement for someone two weeks ago that was shot at f/2.0 with the Canon f/1.8 lens. It can be done, but it's not pretty.

The Sigma on the other hand is three steps backwards in terms of focusing speed, but that still puts it far ahead of the 85mm f/1.2L in that area. The one problem that I hate about my copy of the Sigma (I've had it for 1.5 years and shot hundreds of events with it) is that it just doesn't do focus tracking properly. It focuses plenty fast enough even to take basketball photos, but it doesn't track movement after focusing, but waits for a moment. So I have to keep my finger off the shutter, and then push it at just the right instant so that when it is locking on it will actually track the motion in order to lock on, and then I get a perfectly focused shot.

It has no trouble locking on to a moving object, but it would be a lot easier if it would keep on tracking it so I didn't keep having to lift my finger up and down. I think there is something messed up with the algorithm in my first lens. I have another one arriving this week (20% off from Amazon with the purchase of a Canon body that I ordered) and I am hoping that it will be different.

Image quality from the Sigma f/1.4 is unbelievably good. That's all there is to say. Some tests have shown that it is better at f/1.4 than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens is at f/5.6.

In theory that's possible since the effect of diffraction is much more negligible at f/1.4, but in lens manufacturing it's pretty hard to make a diffraction limited lens faster than f/5.6. (Diffraction limited means that the lens design is so good that the only factor limiting resolution is diffraction. If this were the case with an f/1.4 lens, then it would have resolution 16 times higher than an f/5.6 lens.)

 

[elflord]

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.

Don't just go by scores alone -- dig deeper. Photozone says "It was about time to get some serious competition (with AF) for the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II. The Sigma lens is capable of matching the performance of its Canon counterpart although it doesn't beat it. "

The Sigma is not comparable to the Canon f/1.8, it is comparable to the f/1.2. You can also see this in the sample pictures on tdp's website -- the Sigma and Canon 85mm f/1.2 are fairly closely matched, and leave the other two (Zeiss and canon 85mm f/1.8) in the dust. lenstip also has a glowing review and suggests that it is better than the top of the line brand lens among the non-Canon brands.

Regarding filter sizes -- there is a slight disadvantage to having a filter size that is different from your other lenses because you can't share filters. Other than that, I wouldn't read too much into it. A faster lens is generally more likely to need a larger front element and hence larger filter size, but as far as performance is concerned the focal length/aperture spec is more relevant. The 85mm f/1.2 is definitely a faster lens and yet it has a smaller filter.

 

[ddl]

I had the Canon 85 1.8 and took it back for the Sigma.

The worst thing about the Sigma is that it focuses slower than the Canon 85 1.8 (but faster than 85 1.2); in every other way (except price!) it is better for me than the Canon 85 1.8.

I couldn't stand the purple and green fringing on my Canon 85 1.8 in high contrast areas of the pictures; the Sigma has some fringing as well but nowhere near as bad as my Canon was.

 

[DJL329]

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?

Not necessarily. The larger front makes it easier for Sigma to create a faster lens; this alone doesn't mean it's a better design. They do the same with their 50mm f/1.4, which is also 77mm. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is 58mm, just like their 85mm f/1.8.

Canon's 85mm f/1.2L II, which is a third of a stop faster than the Sigma, is actually smaller than the Sigma at 72mm.

 

[swrightgfx]

I'd put in a vote for 85/1.8. It is one of, if not the best value lens in the Canon line-up. Yes, it will give you fringing wide-open and a little smaller, but this can be corrected. I disagree with others above who have claimed that this lens is not sharp wide, as I have found it to be usable all the way to 1.8 and very sharp thereafter, though there may be some copy variation, given it is not an L.

The AF is pretty quick, too. For this reason, I usually throw it in the bag with the 35L for streets, which gives me plenty of extra reach without having to run toward my subjects, scaring some of them off and also works well for grabbing the "anomaly in the crowd" shot.