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



## Ripley (Nov 10, 2014)

I haven't been able to find a decent comparison of these two. On the surface it appears they have nothing in common, but I wonder what the real world reality is when shooting portraiture. Thought the topic might make for an interesting thread. 

I've rented the 50mm Art and it's amazing. I've never shot with the Canon 85mm f1.2.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 10, 2014)

85*L* II if budget is not an issue


----------



## rs (Nov 10, 2014)

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.


----------



## infared (Nov 10, 2014)

Both! :


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 10, 2014)

If you can, wait for the Sigma 85 1.4 Art, which I'm sure will be out sooner rather than later.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 10, 2014)

Ripley said:


> On the surface it appears they have nothing in common, but I wonder what the real world reality is when shooting portraiture. Thought the topic might make for an interesting thread.
> 
> I've rented the 50mm Art and it's amazing. I've never shot with the Canon 85mm f1.2.



You said it. They do have nothing in common besides the fact that they are very fast lenses. 50mm and 85mm are different prime worlds. I have the EF 85/1.2 II and an EF 50/1.4 (of course optically inferior to Sigma's new 50/1.4), and I only use them for similar purposes (portrait, people) when I change with the 50mm also the camera from full frame to crop sensor (in fact, I really stopped doing that). 

Besides those basic facts, there is something magic especially about Canon's 85/1.2, it's all about a hot cocktail of decent sharpness in the center and extremely creamy bokeh (no 85/1.4 can match it). You really have to play with this extreme lens by yourself to understand what I mean: it is like a magic wand that turns the scenery you see and shoot into a painting made with light. You'll either love or hate it. If you consider to test it, make sure you use it with a FF camera that has Canon's latest pro sensor system (5D3 or 1DX). Otherwise you will get into trouble to nail the focus wide open with this paper thin DoF (use one selected AF field only). I think such (AF not MF!) lenses now really come to life with better and better AF systems. You can start using them for non-static settings and get well-controlled results, not just accidental in-focus shots. 

I love my 85/1.2, I even use it sometimes for street. If people don't move fast it works nicely - it focuses slowly but very precisely with my 5D3's AF system. Here's an example I shot with it wide open:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2464553/frankfurt-hopper-style


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

Check out TDP's review of the two:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

Might help...


----------



## OscarPiechowski (Nov 10, 2014)

Hi there here you go 85 1.2 with 5D III my last 2 years with this lens - http://hallor.digart.pl/digarty/
Check my photo of Joe Satriani shooted by 85 - http://hallor.digart.pl/galerie/15975/Joe_Satriani.html


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 10, 2014)

As with all things, depends on what you are shooting. 

I have the 85 mkii and I'm quite fond of it, but it is so slow to focus on moving objects. 

And when you shoot at f1.2, it is a challenge getting your subject in focus...

The 50 will have issues focusing using peripheral points.... But it will have more depth of field.

If you believe in the transitive property, the art's bokeh< the 50mm f1.2<the 85 f1.2 mkii.

I was looking for a comparison as well, but then I got a really good deal on the 85 and that was game over for me.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 10, 2014)

And for what it's worth, I shot a hockey high school game with the 85mm with mixed results, but I liked the images more than the 70-200 mkii... just had a different feel... even if the shots weren't technically perfect...


----------



## distant.star (Nov 10, 2014)

infared said:


> Both! :



Love your ALL IN attitude!!


----------



## Besisika (Nov 10, 2014)

distant.star said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Both! :
> ...


It is not that "ALL IN attitude" though.
As someone said, these are two different lenses.
From the moment you stepped into the prime world, your are ******* to choose, unless ready to buy both.
I don't own the ART but I rented the Canon version to see what is it all about. Now, since I discovered the art of 35mm I will have to find the budget for it; it was a big miss in my arsenal.

I use the 35mm when making a portrait more environmental. It allows you to go inside the event you are shooting like you are part of them. Example: dancing party, street manifestation, vacation portrait, life style, selfie, ...
The 85 is the beginning of telephoto. I use it when going close to my subject in order to focus on her/his feature (eyes, mouth, ...). Compression is the key word. The 35mm will exaggerate the distance between face features. 
Using the 35mm for feature portrait becomes more like an art than portraiture.

I tried to use 50mm before but I hate it, it is in a no man's land. I like emphasizing what I am doing and as a result, I am fully aware of which lens I should use for what purpose; feature-based or environmental.
It is quite ok to use only one of them (I only discovered the 35mm a couple of months ago), but no one will help you choose your taste. Rent both and compare.


----------



## ecka (Nov 10, 2014)

Apple vs tomato 
85L has more oomph.
Next question.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 10, 2014)

ecka said:


> Apple vs tomato
> 85L has more oomph.
> Next question.



It fits depend.. the 50 has no distortion, so if he's stitching panoramics... 

Also... in design.. the 50 is less scary when putting the lens on the body because the rear element is flush with the metal mount.


----------



## CanonNerdy (Nov 10, 2014)

Don't compare both! If you have the money get the 85 F1.2L II
you'll have a difficult time trying to switch over lenses, because it's more than awesome <3


----------



## Ripley (Nov 11, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 85*L* II if budget is not an issue



I can afford the Canon 85mm 1.2, but it would definitely put a significant dent in my photography budget. I rented the 50mm Art and if it weren't for the autofocus inconsistencies I experienced I would have bought it already. If the end result is similar, I'll probably pay extra for slow autofocus over inconsistent autofocus. :-\


----------



## Ripley (Nov 11, 2014)

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


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 11, 2014)

Ripley said:


> 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.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 11, 2014)

OscarPiechowski said:


> Hi there here you go 85 1.2 with 5D III my last 2 years with this lens - http://hallor.digart.pl/digarty/
> Check my photo of Joe Satriani shooted by 85 - http://hallor.digart.pl/galerie/15975/Joe_Satriani.html



Nice images Oscar, I can see you are a real 85/1.2 addict, just like me...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Apple vs tomato
> ...



I never had the idea that anyone could use an 85/1.2 for stitching panoramics - but it might be worth a trial, might be a crazy funny experience.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 11, 2014)

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


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 11, 2014)

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 (Nov 11, 2014)

rs said:


> 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 (Nov 11, 2014)

firephasers said:


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


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 (Nov 11, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> firephasers said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



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 (Nov 11, 2014)

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 (Nov 11, 2014)

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 (Nov 11, 2014)

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 (Nov 11, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> 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 (Nov 11, 2014)

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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 11, 2014)

Hill Benson said:


> 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 (Nov 12, 2014)

Viggo said:


> 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 85*L* II


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 12, 2014)

Viggo said:


> 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 (Nov 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > 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..
> ...



Great shot, gorgeous bokeh!


----------



## Ripley (Nov 12, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > So... who here owns both and can testify? ;D
> ...



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


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 12, 2014)

Ripley said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Ripley said:
> ...



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 (Nov 12, 2014)

Hill Benson said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Hill Benson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2014)

Ripley said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Hill Benson said:
> ...



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 (Nov 15, 2014)

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.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 15, 2014)

sb in ak said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2014)

Viggo said:


> sb in ak said:
> 
> 
> > Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.
> ...



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 (Nov 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > sb in ak said:
> ...



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 (Nov 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> sb in ak said:
> 
> 
> > Decide on the focal length that would better serve your needs and then go from there.
> ...



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 (Nov 16, 2014)

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

Then we need to guess which is which.


----------



## Ripley (Nov 28, 2014)

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.


----------

