Canon 85mm f1.2 or Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art?

[Viggo]

Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.

The Canon Ls are better portrait lenses than the Sigma Arts IMO. For portraits, you don't want ultimate sharpness. You want great rendering quality. Both the 50L and 85L will give you good rendering quality in spades, though both are sort of prima donna lenses (they will give you some stunning results but are difficult to use). The Sigmas are a little sterile if you ask me, but to each their own. Unfortunately, photography seems to be getting about looking at sharpness figures and not actual photos.

It's easier to decrease sharpness than increase what isn't there...

And sterile and canon has better "rendering quality" could you explain what you mean?

The 200 f2 is a lot like the 50 art, no distortion great color and contrast which combine with no ca makes the subject pop. Low vignetting and great corner sharpness makes it VERY useful for off center composition.

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you. I think the 50 art has a great look to the images and that's not something magic, it's just very very nicely done and very well corrected.

 

[jdramirez]

Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.

The Canon Ls are better portrait lenses than the Sigma Arts IMO. For portraits, you don't want ultimate sharpness. You want great rendering quality. Both the 50L and 85L will give you good rendering quality in spades, though both are sort of prima donna lenses (they will give you some stunning results but are difficult to use). The Sigmas are a little sterile if you ask me, but to each their own. Unfortunately, photography seems to be getting about looking at sharpness figures and not actual photos.

It's easier to decrease sharpness than increase what isn't there...

And sterile and canon has better "rendering quality" could you explain what you mean?

The 200 f2 is a lot like the 50 art, no distortion great color and contrast which combine with no ca makes the subject pop. Low vignetting and great corner sharpness makes it VERY useful for off center composition.

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you. I think the 50 art has a great look to the images and that's not something magic, it's just very very nicely done and very well corrected.

It isn't just sit dof... perspective has a little bit to do with webby 85-135 are considered the portrait range.

I do love sharp images, but I'll give up a little sharpness if the bokeh is just awesome...

 

[Viggo]

Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.

The Canon Ls are better portrait lenses than the Sigma Arts IMO. For portraits, you don't want ultimate sharpness. You want great rendering quality. Both the 50L and 85L will give you good rendering quality in spades, though both are sort of prima donna lenses (they will give you some stunning results but are difficult to use). The Sigmas are a little sterile if you ask me, but to each their own. Unfortunately, photography seems to be getting about looking at sharpness figures and not actual photos.

It's easier to decrease sharpness than increase what isn't there...

And sterile and canon has better "rendering quality" could you explain what you mean?

The 200 f2 is a lot like the 50 art, no distortion great color and contrast which combine with no ca makes the subject pop. Low vignetting and great corner sharpness makes it VERY useful for off center composition.

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you. I think the 50 art has a great look to the images and that's not something magic, it's just very very nicely done and very well corrected.

It isn't just sit dof... perspective has a little bit to do with webby 85-135 are considered the portrait range.

I do love sharp images, but I'll give up a little sharpness if the bokeh is just awesome...

There is no rule saying sharp lenses have crappy bokeh. But I do agree, I love great bokeh and that is important when choosing a lens.

Also, portrait isn't always a headshot. I use every focal length for portraits. I think the 200 is too long for head shots , but superb for looser cropped portraits. The 50 have always been a favorite and I use it at all distances for portrait.

And the 50 art with it's extreme lack of distortion (which I never ever correct in post on any lens) makes it much better suited for portraits than the 50 L.

 

[Ripley]

Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.

The Canon Ls are better portrait lenses than the Sigma Arts IMO. For portraits, you don't want ultimate sharpness. You want great rendering quality. Both the 50L and 85L will give you good rendering quality in spades, though both are sort of prima donna lenses (they will give you some stunning results but are difficult to use). The Sigmas are a little sterile if you ask me, but to each their own. Unfortunately, photography seems to be getting about looking at sharpness figures and not actual photos.

It's easier to decrease sharpness than increase what isn't there...

And sterile and canon has better "rendering quality" could you explain what you mean?

The 200 f2 is a lot like the 50 art, no distortion great color and contrast which combine with no ca makes the subject pop. Low vignetting and great corner sharpness makes it VERY useful for off center composition.

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you. I think the 50 art has a great look to the images and that's not something magic, it's just very very nicely done and very well corrected.

It isn't just sit dof... perspective has a little bit to do with webby 85-135 are considered the portrait range.

I do love sharp images, but I'll give up a little sharpness if the bokeh is just awesome...

There is no rule saying sharp lenses have crappy bokeh. But I do agree, I love great bokeh and that is important when choosing a lens.

Also, portrait isn't always a headshot. I use every focal length for portraits. I think the 200 is too long for head shots , but superb for looser cropped portraits. The 50 have always been a favorite and I use it at all distances for portrait.

And the 50 art with it's extreme lack of distortion (which I never ever correct in post on any lens) makes it much better suited for portraits than the 50 L.

I've never used the 50L but the 50A definitely has less distortion than my 24-70mm ii @ 50mm. The more I look at the comparison photos I shot, the more I think the 50A has a little better color and contrast as well... but it's close.

 

[sb in ak]

Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.

The Canon Ls are better portrait lenses than the Sigma Arts IMO. For portraits, you don't want ultimate sharpness. You want great rendering quality. Both the 50L and 85L will give you good rendering quality in spades, though both are sort of prima donna lenses (they will give you some stunning results but are difficult to use). The Sigmas are a little sterile if you ask me, but to each their own. Unfortunately, photography seems to be getting about looking at sharpness figures and not actual photos.

It's easier to decrease sharpness than increase what isn't there...

And sterile and canon has better "rendering quality" could you explain what you mean?

The 200 f2 is a lot like the 50 art, no distortion great color and contrast which combine with no ca makes the subject pop. Low vignetting and great corner sharpness makes it VERY useful for off center composition.

I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you. I think the 50 art has a great look to the images and that's not something magic, it's just very very nicely done and very well corrected.

This is one of those subjective arguments where nobody wins. Yes, I agree, the Sigma is better corrected, but the importance of that depends on what you're doing--for me it means little. I don't know how to explain it; the Sigma images seem to come off as boring and sterile to me. The 50L and 85L have always imparted interesting character, especially when shot wide open. Dreamscapes, man. Anyways, you either like the images it produces or you don't. As for me, for portraits, I'll would take the 50L over the 50 art, but I'm not into technical stuff as much as I am about making art (ironically, considering the name). The 50L is also smaller, lighter, a little faster, and has weather sealing---all of these things translate into upping my creativity.

 

[jdramirez]

We need a blind taste test... preferably of beautiful women... scantily clothed is optional.

Then we need to guess which is which.

 

[Ripley]

Well, I rented the Canon 85mm f1.2 II this past weekend, and shot nearly 600 photos with it. I can definitely see why people love that lens... I miss it! Shooting at f1.2 is fun but the pictures it renders of people at f2 are even more amazing IMO. The creamy bokeh combined with the stopped down sharpness and mild compression is great. I ran into a few instances of horrific CA, but rarely. The focus ring and hood leave something to be desired but I don't have any complaints regarding the auto focus speed and accuracy... it nails focus. I liked the little extra working distance the 85mm gave me over the 50mm.

If someone was going to give me one lens or the other to shoot portraits with, I would choose the Canon 85mm all day. With that said, I have a Sigma 50mm Art on backorder at Adorama from the Canon Rumors deal this past weekend. The $1k I saved (minimum) is going to go towards lighting.

I hope someone finds this feedback useful.