Is a 85mm f1.4 needed?

[dlee13]

I would wait until the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ART is launched. The Art Series is really fantastic. I am currently using the 35mm ART and am really suprised by the sharp results. Considering the price and quality, I am looking forward to the new lens and hope it will be as great as the ones before. It would be perfect for portrait photography.

I used to want to wait for a new version to be released then I realized it was pointless. The current lens is already amazing, as is the 85L. It's easier to get caught up in the gear side of things but it's better to be out enjoying a lens that already does an outstanding job than sitting around waiting for a lens that hasn't even been confirmed.

 

[ntt2007]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

 

[dlee13]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

I'd they made an 85mm f1.8 IS similar to the 35mm f2 IS would be great, same goes for their 50mm f1.4.

 

[JoFT]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

I'd they made an 85mm f1.8 IS similar to the 35mm f2 IS would be great, same goes for their 50mm f1.4.

If the Image Quality is comparable: that would be awesome!!! (I Do Love the 35mm f2 IS....

 

[Refurb7]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

I'd they made an 85mm f1.8 IS similar to the 35mm f2 IS would be great, same goes for their 50mm f1.4.

I would have been all over a Canon 85 f/1.8 IS because it's exactly what I need. As Canon hasn't made one, I bought Tamron's 85/1.8 VC. It's good!

 

[MrFotoFool]

I bought the Sigma 85 f1.4 maybe three years ago? Very happy with results, though I do not shoot portraits normally. On the rare occasions I have I would use a 70-200 f2.8 but maybe I should try the Sigma based on comments here. My primary use for the Sigma is low light when even f2.8 yields too slow a shutter speed. This was in a dark (lots of forest cover) zoo enclosure shot wide open at f1.4 and ISO 1600 (on a 5D2).

As for focus issues, when I first got it the lens would "hunt" at very close focus distance (worked fine at normal or far distances). I sent it to CRIS Camera Repair for factory warranty and they got it working correctly near and far.

As for sharpness I have no issues. There is some purple fringing on strongly backlit subjects, but since I use it mainly for low light this is rarely an issue.

 

[bluenoser1993]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

I'd they made an 85mm f1.8 IS similar to the 35mm f2 IS would be great, same goes for their 50mm f1.4.

I would have been all over a Canon 85 f/1.8 IS because it's exactly what I need. As Canon hasn't made one, I bought Tamron's 85/1.8 VC. It's good!

Have you used the Tamron much? I looked at it in a store and thought it was pretty impressive. Gave a lot of thought to selling my 135L and getting the new Tamron because it would be a far better focal length for portraits on my 7DII, but in the end I just don't want to give up the versatility of the 135. It meets the requirements for size at stadiums that restrict that, and with a teleconverter it still works quite well for stadium sports on crop.

 

[Refurb7]

I dont know what takes Canon so long for a new 85 1.8. Although I like something small and light like the 1.8 but i want better IQ

I'd they made an 85mm f1.8 IS similar to the 35mm f2 IS would be great, same goes for their 50mm f1.4.

I would have been all over a Canon 85 f/1.8 IS because it's exactly what I need. As Canon hasn't made one, I bought Tamron's 85/1.8 VC. It's good!

Have you used the Tamron much? I looked at it in a store and thought it was pretty impressive. Gave a lot of thought to selling my 135L and getting the new Tamron because it would be a far better focal length for portraits on my 7DII, but in the end I just don't want to give up the versatility of the 135. It meets the requirements for size at stadiums that restrict that, and with a teleconverter it still works quite well for stadium sports on crop.

I've had the lens for 2 months and have used it for weddings and portraits. As far as I can tell, it's a good lens in every way. Its quality matches its price, so it's a little better than the Canon 85/1.8, but not quite as awesome as the Canon 85/1.2L. It focuses like a Canon lens, and the image quality is indistinguishable from a Canon lens. It serves nicely as my "135" on an aps-c camera too, but with the helpful addition of image stabilization. I still have the 135L and have considered selling it, but will likely keep it as it is pretty awesome. For indoors low light, I would rather use the Tamron because it is stabilized. The only "bad" thing about the Tamron is that it is somewhat large and heavy for an 85/1.8. It's not huge, but an 85/1.8 is usually smaller and lighter.

 

[jd7]

85mm f1.4 is a very classical lens on 35mm. I bought my first one somewhat 1984 - a Zeiss Planar for the Contax mount - I still do own this lens.


But this lens type is tricky to use: the DOF is pretty shallow as everybody remarks. This has it ups and downs in using it.


I do own the Sigma 85mm f1.4. It is a sharp lens stopped down to somewhat f2.8 and wide open the shots are useable but not really great. And it suffers from CA (and color fringing - even @f8 on the borders(!)). But the main downside is focusing accuracy. This is painful and you destroy a lot of shots...


The EF 100mm f2.8 L IS USM is a much better choice when it comes to image quality and focusing accuracy. But it does not offer the same DOF -of course. But it adds Macro to the portfolio. It is a very great lens - I love it and does really great portrait as well.


Due to my disappointments of the Sigma I bought the real successor to my old Planar f1.4 85mm: The Milvus 85mm f1.4. And the experience was really great -overall.


The downside of the Milvus:

• weight (and size): a 1.2 kg lens is really hefty
• manual focus (But honestly: more a problem of the canon bodies: the lens has a 270º focusing throw which works really great)
• price (even much cheaper it´s still expensive)

For more informations: here I published some photos about my Milvus experience as well as the comparison to the Sigma:


http://bit.ly/1U2oCnp


...and I still want to give the Canon 85mm f1.2 a try...


For your point: give the Canon 85mm f1.8 a try: it is really good and reasonable in ph

Sounds like you didn't get a very good copy of the Sigma 85mm. Mine is tack sharp even wide open.

I've had it for several months now and I really love this lens. The focus has been spot on, even in indoor lighting which my old 50EX used to struggle with. A few times I've thought that the AF motor was dead since it refused to focus. I realized every single time that I was trying to focus way too close since I'm used to using lenses like the 100L and 35 F2 IS that have a super close MFD.

My original plan was to sell this lens and get the Art version when it's finally released but this lens is so amazing I don't think I'll see a need to upgrade.

I think my copy is not bad - look at the photos in my review. But the Zeiss glass is even better. And the focusing is a known topic - even in the Art series.


As longer I shoot with the Milvus as more I love it's rendering: it's just superb.

For whatever it may be worth, I second dlee13's comment that you must have got a bad Sigma 85 1.4 EX. I regarding mine as much better than merely "usable" at 1.4, and the AF is generally good too.

 

[dlee13]

I took all of these at f1.4, do they seem just usable?

Seasons Change by Daniel Lee, on Flickr

Alex by Daniel Lee, on Flickr

Subiaco Commons by Daniel Lee, on Flickr

One Man Band by Daniel Lee, on Flickr

 

[JoFT]

Dlee13. Useable. Really... ;-)


Great shots. The Sigma is good. And I will not sell it. I use these gear for my kids (my 21year old is using it at her University)


My main concern was CA As well as Autofocus. This is a weird thing. The response for focus confirmation with the Milvus is more accurate and reliable than the autofocus was working on the Sigma....


Here are some Images with the Milvus

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm not at all convinced that the 85/1.8 is mechanically capable of consistent exact focus wide open. It wouldn't surprise me if we see an EF 85/1.8 update that is in a similar spirit to the 50/1.8; that is same optics but in a better, more mechanically accurate body with improved lens coatings.

+1. I eventually sold my copy as I didn't feel that I could ever determine an AFMA value where it consistently focused.

 

[Sporgon]

I'm not at all convinced that the 85/1.8 is mechanically capable of consistent exact focus wide open. It wouldn't surprise me if we see an EF 85/1.8 update that is in a similar spirit to the 50/1.8; that is same optics but in a better, more mechanically accurate body with improved lens coatings.

+1. I eventually sold my copy as I didn't feel that I could ever determine an AFMA value where it consistently focused.

Yes that is exactly what I found - with three different copies over a few years. However the EF 100/2 is a different kettle of fish: it hits the same place every time. The 100 version is simply a better lens. I now think of the 85 as a budget version of the 100.

 

[d]

I'm not at all convinced that the 85/1.8 is mechanically capable of consistent exact focus wide open. It wouldn't surprise me if we see an EF 85/1.8 update that is in a similar spirit to the 50/1.8; that is same optics but in a better, more mechanically accurate body with improved lens coatings.

+1. I eventually sold my copy as I didn't feel that I could ever determine an AFMA value where it consistently focused.

Yes that is exactly what I found - with three different copies over a few years. However the EF 100/2 is a different kettle of fish: it hits the same place every time. The 100 version is simply a better lens. I now think of the 85 as a budget version of the 100.

That's interesting considering how physically similar they are. I would have assumed their AF accuracy and consistency would be the same - they were released within a year of each other, so presumably the technology in the AF system is identical and mechanically there wouldn't be much difference either.

 

[Jerryrigged]

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'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?

Remember, with the 100L, you can focus very closely. At 4-5 feet away, you have a very shallow depth of field and can get some very nice bokeh. Here are just a few I have at hand taken with the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. It is not my primary portrait lens, but very nice.