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

[Quackator]

Have both. The 85L hasn't been used anymore since the ART joined my collection of lenses.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

85L is the best portrait lens in Canon lineup. But, it doesn't get as much use than the 50A because the 50mm focal distance is more practical.
I will be waiting for a new 85 Art since the current one is already really good

 

[firephasers]

If you're thinking of buying either of these lenses to shoot wide open for a narrow DoF, the two really don't compare.

From purely a numbers point of view, the Sigma has a 36mm aperture, while the Canon has a 71mm aperture.

How does the diameter of the aperture make a difference? (I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to technical matters like this. I'm kind of curious to know )

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you're thinking of buying either of these lenses to shoot wide open for a narrow DoF, the two really don't compare.
From purely a numbers point of view, the Sigma has a 36mm aperture, while the Canon has a 71mm aperture.

How does the diameter of the aperture make a difference? (I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to technical matters like this. I'm kind of curious to know )

50mm divided by 1.4 equals 35.7. This is the size of the "hole" through which light enters the lens. Simple as that. 8)

What does it mean? ???

Remove the lens caps (front and trazeira) the 50mm F1.4 lens and look through the front element, to see a "hole" of 35,7mm, in place of the diaphragm. If the lens aperture F2, the hole will be 25mm. If the lens aperture F4, the hole will be 12.5mm. :

The F number (F1.4, F2, F2.8, F4 etc) represents a fraction of the "focal length" and "diaphragm aperture". If you do the math, you'll discover why a 600mm F4 lens is so gigantic, and cost so much. So a lens 85mm F1.2 will have a much larger "hole" (and uses more glass to build) than other lens 50mm F1.4.

To understand why a bigger tele lens can blur the background, compared with wide angle lenses, search more about the "circles of confusion".

 

[jdramirez]

If you're thinking of buying either of these lenses to shoot wide open for a narrow DoF, the two really don't compare.
From purely a numbers point of view, the Sigma has a 36mm aperture, while the Canon has a 71mm aperture.

How does the diameter of the aperture make a difference? (I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to technical matters like this. I'm kind of curious to know )

50mm divided by 1.4 equals 35.7. This is the size of the "hole" through which light enters the lens. Simple as that. 8)

What does it mean? ???

Remove the lens caps (front and trazeira) the 50mm F1.4 lens and look through the front element, to see a "hole" of 35,7mm, in place of the diaphragm. If the lens aperture F2, the hole will be 25mm. If the lens aperture F4, the hole will be 12.5mm. :

The F number (F1.4, F2, F2.8, F4 etc) represents a fraction of the "focal length" and "diaphragm aperture". If you do the math, you'll discover why a 600mm F4 lens is so gigantic, and cost so much. So a lens 85mm F1.2 will have a much larger "hole" (and uses more glass to build) than other lens 50mm F1.4.

To understand why a bigger tele lens can blur the background, compared with wide angle lenses, search more about the "circles of confusion".

I learned about the ratio recently... and it makes me wonder why there aren't more 24mm f/.75 lenses... Sure it might be blurry as f$&k, but still.

 

[Viggo]

I was going to keep my 85 L II when I bought the 50 Art, but for the first time, have had multiple copies of the 85, I started to dislike it, the bending corners, the horrible purple fringing, the slow AF. And found the 50 art to be pretty flawless, and even though I tried to still use the 85 with the nice bokeh, but it just wasn't good enough seeing the ridiculous results from the Sigma wide open. It's my most used lens and along with the 200 f2 I had no more second chances for the 85. Haven't regretted ONE second, and the 50 Art just keeps me happy..

 

[BLFPhoto]

Viggo, I believe you may have just moved the 50 Art up my priority list a couple of notches... I loving my 35 Art more every time I chose it over my 35L for an event.

 

[KBStudio]

I do not own an 85 L II but do a 50 f1.4 ART. Since its purchase, it rarely comes off my Sony A7r which has kind of replaced my Canons. Granted on BIF or quick moving subjects or for that matter anything but Manual Focus. But, the IQ is incredible. For me this out weighs the short comings of AF. Of course it would be nice if Metabones made a better adapter. This is the Major weak link in the above systems performance beyond IQ.

So a long winded, buy the Sigma.

 

[Viggo]

Viggo, I believe you may have just moved the 50 Art up my priority list a couple of notches... I loving my 35 Art more every time I chose it over my 35L for an event.

You will love it. It's not one bad thing about it, I think it's the only lens I have nothing on the "not so good" side. I mean, the 200 is heavy and very expensive even though it's the best lens I have ever tried. But the 50 Art, I have nothing.. Perhaps the outer points sometimes aren't as good in Servo, compared to the 24-70, but it's also two stops less dof..

But make sure you get a copy with consistent AF. I have owned two 35 Art and two 50 Art and only my current 50 Art has a working AF, the other three could not be used for anything at all.. REALLY useless..

 

[Hill Benson]

I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?

I have not used 85mm F1.2 to compare. But, the Sigma 50mm Art has much greater sharpness (wide open) that Canon 50mm F1.2 has.

 

[Dylan777]

I was going to keep my 85 L II when I bought the 50 Art, but for the first time, have had multiple copies of the 85, I started to dislike it, the bending corners, the horrible purple fringing, the slow AF. And found the 50 art to be pretty flawless, and even though I tried to still use the 85 with the nice bokeh, but it just wasn't good enough seeing the ridiculous results from the Sigma wide open. It's my most used lens and along with the 200 f2 I had no more second chances for the 85. Haven't regretted ONE second, and the 50 Art just keeps me happy..

Still in love with my 85L II

 

[Dylan777]

You will love it. It's not one bad thing about it, I think it's the only lens I have nothing on the "not so good" side. I mean, the 200 is heavy and very expensive even though it's the best lens I have ever tried. But the 50 Art, I have nothing.. Perhaps the outer points sometimes aren't as good in Servo, compared to the 24-70, but it's also two stops less dof..

But make sure you get a copy with consistent AF. I have owned two 35 Art and two 50 Art and only my current 50 Art has a working AF, the other three could not be used for anything at all.. REALLY useless..

Indeed and it worths every penny This lens is just too good at f2

 

[Ripley]

I was going to keep my 85 L II when I bought the 50 Art, but for the first time, have had multiple copies of the 85, I started to dislike it, the bending corners, the horrible purple fringing, the slow AF. And found the 50 art to be pretty flawless, and even though I tried to still use the 85 with the nice bokeh, but it just wasn't good enough seeing the ridiculous results from the Sigma wide open. It's my most used lens and along with the 200 f2 I had no more second chances for the 85. Haven't regretted ONE second, and the 50 Art just keeps me happy..

Still in love with my 85L II

Great shot, gorgeous bokeh!

 

[Ripley]

So... who here owns both and can testify? ;D

I'd guess not many. The 85L mkii is a siren. She makes you want to use her... even when it isn't ideal... like me shooting sports with it.

LOL, I think you might be right! I can feel her drawing me in... wallet first.

 

[jdramirez]

So... who here owns both and can testify? ;D

I'd guess not many. The 85L mkii is a siren. She makes you want to use her... even when it isn't ideal... like me shooting sports with it.

LOL, I think you might be right! I can feel her drawing me in... wallet first.

My favorite lenses are/were as follows respective to my other lens in my bag at the time:

50mm f/1.8 > 18-55mm is, 75-300/55-250
100mm f/2.8L > 50 f/1.4, 24-105mm is, 70-200mm f/4L usm
70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii tie with 100mm f/2.8L > 85mm f/1.8, 8.5mm fisheye, 24-105mm
but at present...
the 85L mkii > 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii, 100L, 24-105mm,

I really really love my 100L because it was really really sharp wide open... and the 85L isn't... but it is really pretty...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

This is a pretty accurate representation... there is purple color fringing... which I have to remove in lightroom... it isn't crazy sharp... the thin depth of field means that I know I'm going to lose some shots that I otherwise would have nailed at f/2.8, and at least right now... I dont' care. I'll slap on the 85L and walk bravely into the front because I know there is something special there that I can't get with my other lenses... and I love my other lenses... but I'm under its spell.

I'd encourage you to rent/borrow and 85L mkii... I know we have to sacrafice sharpness, but I'm ok with it... and if it turns out that you are ok with it as well, it makes for a special compliment to one's arsenal.

Quick full disclosure... I was trying to buy the lens used for a while... and Dylan is partly to blame because he picked his up at a VERY nice price and I was of the opinion that if he can get that price... I should be able to come close to it. So I bought one... couldn't sell enough stuff to afford it... cancelled the order... a few months later... bought one... and I found a better price, so I cancelled that order... then the 2nd order didn't arrive... so I was stuck... Then I bought another... again didn't arrive... and then finally I picked one up for under $1200... and it is like new... maybe very very good... but just a gem of a find.

So... that whole effort... it could just be me rationalizing all my effort to get the lens at the price at I wanted...

but I do really love it...

 

[Viggo]

I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?

It's not about the 50 art just being sharper. It's about ca, fringing, distortion, vignetting, and the sharpness of course, and it's a BIG difference. I have many shots with the 50 L and they are so soft, when I use the outer points I can't tell where focus has hit.

The upside of the 50 L is the weather sealing and size, I don't want to mention bokeh as a killer reason to get the 50 L, because the 50 Art is also very very nice in that regard.

 

[Ripley]

I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?

It's not about the 50 art just being sharper. It's about ca, fringing, distortion, vignetting, and the sharpness of course, and it's a BIG difference. I have many shots with the 50 L and they are so soft, when I use the outer points I can't tell where focus has hit.

The upside of the 50 L is the weather sealing and size, I don't want to mention bokeh as a killer reason to get the 50 L, because the 50 Art is also very very nice in that regard.

At this point I haven't even considered the 50L as my understanding is that the 50A is the clear winner in most regards.

 

[Viggo]

I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?

It's not about the 50 art just being sharper. It's about ca, fringing, distortion, vignetting, and the sharpness of course, and it's a BIG difference. I have many shots with the 50 L and they are so soft, when I use the outer points I can't tell where focus has hit.

The upside of the 50 L is the weather sealing and size, I don't want to mention bokeh as a killer reason to get the 50 L, because the 50 Art is also very very nice in that regard.

At this point I haven't even considered the 50L as my understanding is that the 50A is the clear winner in most regards.

To put it this way, I was one of the 50 L's biggest fans and thought it was really cool, but along came the Sigma and its of course a completely different 50mm design, and therefore not small, but who cares? Compared to the 200 I lug around all the time, it's like a feather.

The Canon geek in me is drooling and being overly excited about what if Canon decides to do a retrofocal 50 L II, oh my ;D

 

[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.