# Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4



## Quasimodo (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

I actually have the 50 1.4 and I love it.


----------



## woodenpunch (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

What about going the 135mm F2 route instead?


----------



## mesa (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> 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 (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

alfeel said:


> 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 (May 3, 2012)

paulc said:


> 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 (May 3, 2012)

sigma cost roughly the double of canon a it performs extremly better...it's a no contest


----------



## te4o (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

te4o said:


> 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 (May 3, 2012)

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 (May 3, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> 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 (May 4, 2012)

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 (May 4, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> te4o said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 4, 2012)

Thank you all for the input. It has helped a lot. 
I went to the store today to test them on my 5D II, and I kind of liked both, although I have to say that the Sigma has some heft to it - nice weight that lies good in the hand, and gave excellent pictures. Both lenses had a very creamy nice bokeh. The problem with green and purple fringing was very evident on the samples I took with the Canon, - see attached pictures.


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 4, 2012)

I guess the 5D3's CA lens correction thing really helps the 85m f1.8 then…
i personally don't use the 85mm much so i couldn't justufy getting the Sigma when i got the 1.8 at about USD300 used and even at 1.8 (which is use very often when i use the lens), i don't get the purple or green tint..I wouldn't say it's a super sharp lens but it's very worth the money and unless you are going to use 85mm alot..i don't see how spending so much more for the Sigma or the 1.2 makes monetary sense


----------



## Quasimodo (May 4, 2012)

Adding also a shot and a 100 percent crop with the Sigma of the guy in the store.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 4, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I guess the 5D3's CA lens correction thing really helps the 85m f1.8 then…
> i personally don't use the 85mm much so i couldn't justufy getting the Sigma when i got the 1.8 at about USD300 used and even at 1.8 (which is use very often when i use the lens), i don't get the purple or green tint..I wouldn't say it's a super sharp lens but it's very worth the money and unless you are going to use 85mm alot..i don't see how spending so much more for the Sigma or the 1.2 makes monetary sense



I've also heard that the 5D III does correct for a lot in the camera. As far as monetary sense or not (this is not my occupation, but I do some small jobs now and then) I think for me all camera expenses are justified for my utter joy of taking pictures. I was shooting a wedding (after the paid photographer had taken the official shots during the ceremony), and I did it as a favour to a friend (I was also a guest). I had brought my 135 F2.0, 70-200 F2.8 II, 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-70 F2.8, and finally my 50 F1.4. Everything was fine, but I sensed that the 135 was too long for many of the shots, and afterwards I felt that 85 would be a good range lens while moving between people.


----------



## risc32 (May 6, 2012)

I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding  

Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that... 
Not that it matters really, as that lens has gotten lots of good press for sharpness, when in focus, and there doesn't seem to be any debating that. Apparently it's easy to make a good 85mm 1.4 lens. One that focuses well seems to be a different story. Brian at the-digital-picture has had problems with LOTS of sigma gear. read his reviews. They always start with something like," i had to go though 4 of these to get one that even focuses repeatedly". he's not alone, the lens rental guy(who probably has much more real data about these things than anyone) and other places have the same problem. 
Personally i wouldn't even consider a sigma after the 2months of BS they did to me one time while they had my lens in for focus issues. i mentioned it once before on this site, but they had my lens, and told me they where waiting on a part from japan that was coming over by SHIP, sometime. After they scratched up my new 24mm 1.8 (while also in for major focus issues)and then that other mess, it would have to be one VERY compelling reason for me ever look at them. I was running minolta/sony gear mostly at that point, and as it turned out while sigma was busy wasting my time I got my hands on a 5d and 70-200mm f4IS at a local store, and that was that...


----------



## Quasimodo (May 6, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding



LOL, I hear you. I did not start shooting before the official photographer was done, and I actually had to make a point of it to the groom, pointing out that it would be rude to the professional if I kept shooting over their shoulders




risc32 said:


> Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that...



I think that might have been the shooters; - me, fault.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2012)

I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens 
It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur


----------



## Quasimodo (May 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:
 

> I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
> It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur



I think I am ordering it tomorrow On the photozone.de page they write in the conclusion that: " The amount of bokeh fringing (LoCAs) is on the high side though so you may spot some colored out-of-focus halos in critical situations. ". Someone in here suggested that this might be solved by the use of a good UV filter. In your experience, would an expensive UV filter like one from B&W help with this? And finally, have you had any problem with this, and if so, is it an easy fix in photoshop? (I have the CS5 extended).


----------



## Forceflow (May 6, 2012)

Love my Sigma 85mm 1.4 I would say it's the one lens with the highest IQ and I ven never get enough of it. That said I have not tried the Canon 1.8 in comparison, but from the reviews I read I was confident that the Sigma was simply the better option. So far I have certainly not regretted it.


----------



## Radiating (May 6, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> 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.



Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal. 

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II. 

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 6, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site. I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had? I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself. 

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site. I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?



In terms of both specs and performance, it is in the same category as the manufacturers premium lenses (that would be the "L lens" for Canon). The 85mm f/1.8 is a budget to mid range prime. The 85mm f/1.2 is not even a typical L lens, it's a kind of "super duper fast" L lens. Most other manufacturers have an 85mm f/1.4 lens at the top of their line (and according to lenstip, the Sigma is better than those lenses). 

So yes, the Sigma is on a different level to the 85mm f/1.8, it is in the same class as L lenses in general, but the 85mm f/1.2 is a unique lens even among L lenses.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
> ...



At 1.4 there is some purple fringing in contrasty light however in LR the lens correction clears it right up
and at f2 sharpness is outstanding (its sharper than the 70-200 II is at f2.8) and CA is gone, I use this lens mostly at f2 unless I really want that razor thin DoF or am chasing crazy low light

at f2 this lens is outstanding.

My copy was heavily front focusing and I sent it back and had it recalibrated and now its perfect

my feeling is that wide open the canon f1.2L is unparalleled for sharpness and image quality however its focusing speed is ponderous when shot side by side with the sigma and its 2.5x more expensive bigger and heavier

I chose the sigma for the more snappy preformance mostly and its ability to be used more easily on the run and it's generally a better all round performer.

however if money is no object and you are going to be posing the models more of the time or shooting in controlled light where AF speed isnt an issue then the canon 85 f1.2L II cannot be beaten


----------



## Quasimodo (May 7, 2012)

Thank you all for your kind and insightful input. I have now ordered the Sigma lens. I am looking forward to using it


----------



## Radiating (May 7, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



The lab tests, specifically MTF tests have a lot to do with the real world, they don't tell the whole picture but they are fairly good. The best indication I've found is simply looking at the-digital-picture.com samples. The person running that site seems to have a huge budget and is willing to buy multiple copies of a lens. I have never been dissatisfied with their tests and the visual comparisons are the ultimate word in testing.

Other websites with lower budgets I've found have inaccuracies about 10%-20% of the time whether that be due to technique or getting a bad copy, which is why it's worth checking multiple reviews, especially for third party lenses. For a third party lens I check at least 3 review websites before I come to any conclusion.



> I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?



You could assume photozone thinks so. Realistically all 85mm lenses are very good. However, the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 just happen to be epic.



> I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had?



The Canon 85mm 1.2L has a unique corkscrew focus instead of a lever focus which is very very slow. It's supposed to be for shooting models who know how to pose and stand still.

The Sigma 1.4 focuses as fast as the Canon 1.8 but sufferes from calibration issues, if you can microadjust it properly it can do action just fine.



> I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.



That lens has much better focus speed.



> If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?



You have to correct the raw file in DXO and then you can edit it freely. I don't have any experience using any other method. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 7, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



Indeed it has The consensus seems to have been that they are all great, but If I could afford the Sigma, that it would offer the best value for money. I ordered it this morning, so I am looking forward to get to know it well

I always read the digitalpicture reviews, but because I am a shallow person I truly enjoy the star system of photozone, something the digpic does not have. That said, I do enjoy them too.


----------



## Bosman (Jul 9, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding
> ...


I am a wedding photographer and you not only made a good choice, you saved the photographers photos by not popping up with your camera. People tend to look around when they see other cameras and portraits would be messed up because not everyone would be looking at the actual paid photographer in the portrait photos. 
On another note. I don't understand why you would take so much gear to do a friend a favor. Maybe that makes you a good friend.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

How can these two even be compared? ??? There difference lens speed and difference price ranges.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> How can these two even be compared? ??? There difference lens speed and difference price ranges.



Well, I got the Siggy now, and I absolutely love it


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

Sigma 1.4 all the way


----------



## Bosman (Jul 16, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> How can these two even be compared? ??? There difference lens speed and difference price ranges.


The comparison doesn't fit those criteria with the 85L either but the images i have seen comparing the two are making the 85 1.4 sig look better, just be prepared to put up with a lesser build quality. The contrast appears to be better on the sigma, and i hear its a lot faster. he says"I would guess that the Sigma is about twice as fast as the Canon in decent light. After using my Canon 85 1.2 II for a few years now, I have come to accept the fact that it is very slow to focus. "
"While I did not test the Sigma on any moving subjects, I can confidently say that it would beat the Canon hands down when tracking a moving subject."
"I honestly can’t say which one is sharper, which is amazing considering there is something like a $1000 dollar difference in price!"
Check this out.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-85mm-f1-2l-ii/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2012)

Having been bit by Sigma a few times, I am wary of any hype I hear. This seems to apply to this lens as well.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
"As of Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens review time, I have purchased (retail) three and returned two of these lenses. The first lens was consistently front focusing. The second lens was focusing so inconsistently that I wished for the first one back. The third lens is focusing very inconsistently, but does seem to average to the correct focus distance. I cut my losses and kept this copy of the lens "

"Roger at LensRentals.com is having the same problem - at review time, he has a warning posted on his Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens rental page for this lens. "
"The big problem, as I already indicated, is that the lens does not focus accurately, consistently. Accurate focusing is especially important when shooting with the shallow DOF this lens is capable of. My experience with AI Servo focusing was even worse with a very low keeper rate for even moderately fast moving subjects. Over-shooting a scene gave me the one-shot AF results I wanted on most occasions."


----------



## Bosman (Jul 17, 2012)

I claim no fame with the lens but i was thinking of it as a purchase at some point. I havent heard much other than great user reviews across the web and in forums so i guess I'm not sure what to think of your post...I believe you, i just don't know what to think Spokane


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 17, 2012)

mine was consistantly front focusing i sent it back for recalibration it came back a week later and has been spot on nailing it every time, its just an internal programming thing almost a complete non issue IMO


----------



## Bosman (Jul 17, 2012)

I have heard of some copies having spastic focusing however.

I like to check the photography on the net forum. People post way more about lenses in there. There are 298 pages in just that lenses photo archive.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=886651&highlight=Sigma+85+F1.4&page=298


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 17, 2012)

I think i know what you mean about spastic focusing 

in low light if it hunts due to not enough contrast it can sound jittery because it hunts over a very short distance rather than racking the entire focus range like a canon lens hunting
while it can sound a bit wierd it will lock focus sh!tloads faster


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I think i know what you mean about spastic focusing
> 
> in low light if it hunts due to not enough contrast it can sound jittery because it hunts over a very short distance rather than racking the entire focus range like a canon lens hunting
> while it can sound a bit wierd it will lock focus sh!tloads faster



This might be, but I am also starting to wonder whether the body (my 5D II) comes into play here? Here is what I wrote in a different thread here today:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8056.15

Might I ask a question which might seem quite uninformed?

My own camera is a 5D II with grip, and I am also now borrowing the 1Ds III. I have previously borrowed the 85 F1.2L, but then shot it with my 5D II. I had to throw away most of the pictures I shot with that combo (ca. 80%), and that is the reason I went with the 85 F1.4 Sigma instead (that and price of course. I have now also borrowed the 85L, and I am using it on the 1Ds III, and I have an exponential growth in keepers.. This might be because I am getting better at taking shots, but I cannot shake the thought that the combo of the AF on the 1Ds III and the 85L works better than the 5D II and the same lens?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I think i know what you mean about spastic focusing
> ...



Were you using the center point of the 5DII and was the lens MFA'd first? Shooting wide open with outer points on the 5DII will give lower keeper rates than the center point. My old crop camera didn't have MFA and worked decently well with fast lenses. My 5DII needs an adjustment of about +10 on the same lenses. Were you using AI servo or single shot?


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I rarely shoot with I servo (a few times when shooting high speed bikes on a track, and some testing with birds, otherwise I shoot AI Focus as a default (most of my shots are of people and things that hardly move). I have never microadjusted any lens on my camera, and have not seen the need...? That lens is the only one that I have struggled with, but as mentioned above, it works quite well with my borrowed 1Ds III. It could be as you suggest that microadjustment would solve it, and if I were to buy one I would have to do it. However I do not see myself buying one in the near future, since I just got my Siggy 85 1.4 which I am very happy with, and I have set my eyes on the new 24-70, and I would like to replace my 50 1.4 (just got it back from the shop) with the 1.2. Too many cool lenses, and not enough money

As a sidenot, although I love my Siggy 85 1.4, I have to say that the bokeh on the 85 1.2 seems more dreamy, or buttery, and color rendition is brilliant.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 17, 2012)

Regarding AF mode...you wrote that you primarily use Al focus. There are many people that believe this is the worst AF mode to use, and that using it results in far too many oof shots.

I leave my 5d3 on al servo because I shoot a lot of moving subjects, and then I switch to one shot with stationary subjects.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I rarely shoot with I servo (a few times when shooting high speed bikes on a track, and some testing with birds, otherwise I shoot AI Focus as a default (most of my shots are of people and things that hardly move). I have never microadjusted any lens on my camera, and have not seen the need...? That lens is the only one that I have struggled with, but as mentioned above, it works quite well with my borrowed 1Ds III. It could be as you suggest that microadjustment would solve it, and if I were to buy one I would have to do it. However I do not see myself buying one in the near future, since I just got my Siggy 85 1.4 which I am very happy with, and I have set my eyes on the new 24-70, and I would like to replace my 50 1.4 (just got it back from the shop) with the 1.2. Too many cool lenses, and not enough money
> 
> As a sidenot, although I love my Siggy 85 1.4, I have to say that the bokeh on the 85 1.2 seems more dreamy, or buttery, and color rendition is brilliant.



Then it was most likely a MFA issue. The faster the lens, the more important it is. I'd do it for all lenses f/2.8 or faster. It's noticeable especialy if the adjustment is more than 2. My 5DII seems to want every lens around +10.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Regarding AF mode...you wrote that you primarily use Al focus. There are many people that believe this is the worst AF mode to use, and that using it results in far too many oof shots.
> 
> I leave my 5d3 on al servo because I shoot a lot of moving subjects, and then I switch to one shot with stationary subjects.



Thanks for the heads up I will try this. I just read on the differences when I got my camera, and took it at face value. I will try the one shot, and also I will try with the AI servo on still shots to see the effect.

PS: where do you write the gear you have below the line, without having to write it each time?


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Regarding AF mode...you wrote that you primarily use Al focus. There are many people that believe this is the worst AF mode to use, and that using it results in far too many oof shots.
> 
> I leave my 5d3 on al servo because I shoot a lot of moving subjects, and then I switch to one shot with stationary subjects.



I thank you all for your good advice, and a special thank to Northstar for your brilliant advice on not to use the AI Focus. While I still love my Siggy 85 1.4, I have now borrowed the 85L II for a month, and after shooting with One Shot, instead of AI Focus, the keeper rate have had an exponential growth. Here is one I took today of my eldest son with my 5D II and the 85L II (I have as you all see done nothing with the picture, except converting it to jpg and rezised it for web).


----------



## Northstar (Aug 1, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding AF mode...you wrote that you primarily use Al focus. There are many people that believe this is the worst AF mode to use, and that using it results in far too many oof shots.
> ...



Quad...Glad to help! Regarding AI Focus, you would think that with the word "focus" in the description that this setting would get you the best focus...but it surely doesn't...it's far and away the worst setting of the three.

It's really interesting when you think about it....you have this company that spends tens of thousands of hours of time and countless dollars developing and testing their product, and then they put a function in the product (ai focus in this case) that just doesn't work well. It makes you think, they must know right? And if they do know why do they do it? Marketing a camera "feature" is the only answer I can come up with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Regarding AI Focus, you would think that with the word "focus" in the description that this setting would get you the best focus...but it surely doesn't...it's far and away the worst setting of the three.
> 
> It's really interesting when you think about it....you have this company that spends tens of thousands of hours of time and countless dollars developing and testing their product, and then they put a function in the product (ai focus in this case) that just doesn't work well. *It makes you think, they must know right?* And if they do know why do they do it? Marketing a camera "feature" is the only answer I can come up with.



I'm pretty sure they do know. On 1-series bodies, the only options are One Shot and AI Servo.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding AI Focus, you would think that with the word "focus" in the description that this setting would get you the best focus...but it surely doesn't...it's far and away the worst setting of the three.
> ...



interesting...i didn't know that. that makes me believe i'm correct in my assumption about marketing the feature. they believe that marketing that feature(even though it isn't a good feature) eventually results in more profit for canon......even though the user will eventually dislike or become dissapointed in the feature and not use it...or even possibly return the camera.

the thought process in the corporate world, especially product management...sigh.


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Whatever it is, I have now stopped using it  But like you said, not only is it intuitive to use it, it was also listed in several photobooks like the option that would serve me most for the type of pictures I take most. Well, no more.

Like neuro said, I have the 1Ds III that I have borrowed with the 85 1.2, and it does not have the AI Focus option.


----------

