# Is a 85mm f1.4 needed?



## dlee13 (Apr 9, 2015)

Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story). 

Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.

I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).


----------



## Eldar (Apr 9, 2015)

I have the 100/2.8L IS Macro and the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. I have had a number of 85mm up through the years and it is a favourite focal length of mine. But the 100L is an excellent lens in every way and you have to dig rather deep in your pockets to find anything that can beat it IQ wise. 

As you say the quality you´ll get with an 85/1.4 is the shallow DOF. To me that is key, not only for the bokeh, but also for the ability to get just what I want in focus, in focus, like the eyes of a person. The focal length difference is negligible.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 9, 2015)

Hi dlee13!

I do own and use both Canon lenses, the 100L and the 85/1.8 on FF.
The 100L is almost every time in my bag because of its versatility as macro AND portrait lens. 
That's the reason why my 85 doesn't get a lot of shots. I only take it with me, when I want to make dedicated portrait shots.
I think the 85 is a real steal for its price and delivers fast and accurate AF and a really good IQ, despite some CA. 
But somehow I have the feeling that it lacks something special in the resulting images, so I wouldn't call it my most beloved lens.
That's also the reason why I am also looking forward to a replacement. But an 85L would be oversized.

I also considered the 135/2 because of its famous performance and bokeh. 
But when I tried this focal length (with a zoom) I had the feeling that it was too narrow and you had to step too far back from your target person. But that's personal taste. I would really love the 135/2 for weddings and parties.

So comparing the focal length of 85 and 135 I'd prefer the 85 because it's more versatile. You can get closer to you target getting shorter DOF. You can easily shoot anything between headshots and half figures. 
Apertures at 1.8 or 1.4 are normally enough to get a shallow DOF.

I heard converse opinions about the Sigma 85/1.4. Whilst having a great IQ, better than the Canon 1.8, some complain about AF and focusing issues. 

So please try for yourself whether you prefer the former or later. So I hope I could help you a little bit.


----------



## donn (Apr 9, 2015)

I'm on the same boat as you are about the 85. I have 50A,100L and 135L. I love taking portraits and the gap between my 50 and 100 is covered by my zoom lens. I had been considering having the 85 as part of my gear, I tried loaning out an 85L, the image it provided wide open was a dream even with some CA, also tried the sigma 1.4, it gave wonderful image as well. The 85L is quite expensive and I can't reason out the cost (not a pro photographer). I love the bokeh the 85 gave compared to my 100L. Don't get me wrong, the 100L is a very good glass, i would never let it go.

Am seriously considering the Sigma but holding a bit perhaps a better option will come.


----------



## dlee13 (Apr 9, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have the 100/2.8L IS Macro and the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. I have had a number of 85mm up through the years and it is a favourite focal length of mine. But the 100L is an excellent lens in every way and you have to dig rather deep in your pockets to find anything that can beat it IQ wise.



I am absolutely horrible at using manual focus so as amazing as the Otus is, it would be a waste on me. I definitely agree with everything you've said about the 100L. The amazing IQ it has is one factor that makes me hesitant to get another lens, I know when it comes to sharpness it's on its own level. 



Eldar said:


> As you say the quality you´ll get with an 85/1.4 is the shallow DOF. To me that is key, not only for the bokeh, but also for the ability to get just what I want in focus, in focus, like the eyes of a person. The focal length difference is negligible.



Currently when I do full body portraits I can get a slight shallow DOF but I just want more which I know a 85mm f1.4 can achieve. It' a hard decision since I like to have minimal gear and I don't want to get an 85 just to be disappointed. I may have to rent an 85 for a weekend one time.


Maximilian said:


> Hi dlee13!
> 
> I do own and use both Canon lenses, the 100L and the 85/1.8 on FF.
> The 100L is almost every time in my bag because of its versatility as macro AND portrait lens.
> ...



Hi Maximilian!

The 85mm f1.8 does seem like a good performing lens for it's price, but compared to my 100L and 35mm f2 IS I feel it may leave my a little underwhelmed. I like lenses with great wide open performance which you know the 100L definitely has, but from what I've read the 85 1.8 is better at 2.8 onwards.

I actually use my 100L for portraits/still life than I do for macro. It actually changed my perception on teles altogether. I had always preferred wider lenses even for portraits (I never did headshots) then once I got my 100L and tried stuff like headshots I feel in love! The 85L is way too expensive for me, for that price I think I would rather get the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.



Maximilian said:


> I also considered the 135/2 because of its famous performance and bokeh.
> But when I tried this focal length (with a zoom) I had the feeling that it was too narrow and you had to step too far back from your target person. But that's personal taste. I would really love the 135/2 for weddings and parties.
> 
> So comparing the focal length of 85 and 135 I'd prefer the 85 because it's more versatile. You can get closer to you target getting shorter DOF. You can easily shoot anything between headshots and half figures.
> Apertures at 1.8 or 1.4 are normally enough to get a shallow DOF.



I see a lot of wedding/portrait photographers use the 135 too and it certainly is amazing. As I stated, it's definitely different from the 100L but the thing that pushes me towards a 85 is like you I prefer the better working distance so I definitely agree it may be too long for certain situations. I feel all 3 can easily have their own uses and wouldn't be a waste owning all of them, but for now my budget only suits one. 



Maximilian said:


> I heard converse opinions about the Sigma 85/1.4. Whilst having a great IQ, better than the Canon 1.8, some complain about AF and focusing issues.
> 
> So please try for yourself whether you prefer the former or later. So I hope I could help you a little bit.



Being that I owned two copies of the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX, I know all too well about the focusing issues Sigma lenses can have. I am considering improving my portraits to the point I do some paid work on the side so this is something that worries me, I can't afford focus problems if I'm doing paid work. 

You did help so thanks for your reply 



donn said:


> I'm on the same boat as you are about the 85. I have 50A,100L and 135L. I love taking portraits and the gap between my 50 and 100 is covered by my zoom lens. I had been considering having the 85 as part of my gear, I tried loaning out an 85L, the image it provided wide open was a dream even with some CA, also tried the sigma 1.4, it gave wonderful image as well. The 85L is quite expensive and I can't reason out the cost (not a pro photographer). I love the bokeh the 85 gave compared to my 100L. Don't get me wrong, the 100L is a very good glass, i would never let it go.
> 
> Am seriously considering the Sigma but holding a bit perhaps a better option will come.



I love my 100L too but when it comes to portraits, I would definitely pick the 85L over the 100L. As you said, it's very expensive and you could get a second body with that money. If you know his work, Jake Olsen does amazing portrait work with the 85L so it proves despite the lenses age and CA, it still holds up against the competition. 

Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma. 

This is the portrait I took that made me more interested in portraits and showed me what the 100L can do. It certainly isn't the most perfect of portraits, but it's probably my best portrait to date and what makes me want to get more into the genre.


----------



## gregorywood (Apr 9, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).
> 
> Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.
> 
> I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).



I have both the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. I acquired the Sigma recently and I was on the same fence as you for the last year. What I find is that I simply love the shallow DOF and subject isolation that I get from the 85mm and I can't get that with the 100mm. They both are tools and I have a use for both. I do love the 100mm for macro (obviously) and also for indoor events, outdoor evening and night sports - granted it's not the best tool for action, but it's the best I've got for that at present.

I picked up my Sigma 85mm for $600 used and it looks and works like new - and no focus issues for me on the 6D or the 7D.

Greg


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 9, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).
> 
> Now I know comparing the 135mm to the 100L you would definitely get a more shallow DOF for full body portraits, but would the 85mm f1.4 have that much of an advantage over the 100L assuming the objects in the background are at infinity? I know there is slightly less compression with the 85 so in situations where the background is closer, the 85 can have a more shallow DOF. I have used dofsimulator.net to compare the two but would just like some other opinions.
> 
> I love the images the 100L can produce when it comes to half body or headshots, but I want something that is more suited to full body shots wide open (with the 85 I could work in tighter spaces too).



I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 9, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma.


That's exactly the same to me. I am not willing to run into potential AF issues with 3rd party lenses (of course you can get some with Canon original, too) and I am also not willing to buy those outdated lenses. And therefore my decission is to wait and save the money. 
Two possible cases for me:
- Canon makes a new 85/1.8 withorwithoutIS, then I'll get this one
- Canon waits too long with that until I saved up enough for the 100-400L II that I want, too, but for totally different purposes, of course.

Conclusion:
If you don't like the (old) 85/1.8, if you've already had issues with Sigma AF, stay with your 100L, save the money and wait for the companies to make their moves first before you move. (maybe you have time then to save up until you can get an otus  )


----------



## jd7 (Apr 9, 2015)

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 had a Canon 85 1.8 (actually still have it, haven't sold it yet) and was thinking about a 135L but ended up going with the Sigma 85 1.4. I was looking second-hand and the decision to try the Sigma (as an upgrade to the 85 1.8) was made in part because I saw a decent deal on the Sigma and the only 135Ls I could find seemed a bit expensive (not a huge second-hand market where I am and I wasn't keen to buy sight unseen). Even apart from cost though, part of my thinking about choosing the 84 1.4 rather than 135L was the shorter focal plus f-stop advantage should give something approaching two stops of extra hand-hold-ability, plus should make it a more useful lens for indoor use where you may not be able to step back and/or the light is dim.

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?


----------



## dlee13 (Apr 9, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story).
> ...



Sorry to hear you had problems with yours. I definitely understand there can be problems between copies but if you get one that works well, you'll have one amazing lens! My old Sigma 50 1.4 was great wide open and very accurate too on my 6D but I sold it since I used my 35mm f2 IS more.



Maximilian said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > Even though I want one now, I'm inclined to wait for either a 85 1.8 IS or 85 Art. The worst part about Canon and their lenses is, they are easily capable of matching Sigma's Art quality but so many of their popular FL's (50mm, 85mm, 135mm) are very outdated. Once they update them, we'll have so many great options from both Canon and Sigma.
> ...



A few of my Canon lenses are at -1 AMFA but are always tack sharp and accurate AF. From what I've seen with Sigma lenses the issue is when you have different AFMA values at different distances. With the new Sigma dock it's not as bad for new lenses, but for the older EX lenses there are definitely some concerns. 

I would be inclined to get the 85mm f1.8 even if it doesn't have IS, but it also comes down to the quality of the lenses available  

My issues were mainly on my 550D and after adjusting it using dot tune on my 6D, my 50mm f1.4 was perfect and spot on. But saving till something that matches my needs is definitely a good idea. I think in the mean time I'll try renting the Sigma and 135 and see which I like better, just need the money  haha.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 9, 2015)

jd7 said:


> 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?


Hi jd7! 

Of course you are right with what you say here. 

The 100L is not that great portrait lens. And f2.8 is just where real portrait apertures start to begin. 
But it is a great two in one compromise. 
And I wouldn't call it fair if you compare it to the 135L with its outstanding bokeh, and then complain about exactly that beeing not so good. 
But for a marco lens the 100L performes much more than decent as portrait lens. And this versatility is the reason for me to praise it so much.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 9, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I just sold my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 because it is soft at f/1.4. Why have f/1.4 if you can't use it? Coma was pretty bad, too. I will say AF was fast and accurate on my 6D. The 100L is much better all around and works well enough for me for portraiture.
> ...



I agree with dlee13. Chrysoberyl, did you AFMA your Sigma? I assume you did, but I'm just a bit surprised you thought it was that soft at 1.4.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 9, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



Thanks Maximilian. It sounds like the answer might be just that I'm not interested enough in doing macro photography (I'm happy to look at other people's shots!).


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 9, 2015)

IMO the 100L gets so much love because of it's versatility. Yes you can shoot portraits and macro. But since it is a Tele with such a short minimum focus distance you never feel crammed! If you have a 135 on in a tight space you are limited. With the 100 you can get creative and grab detail shots and close ups. When I have it on my camera it feels more like a zoom lens. And when I'm shooting portraits I am usually at 2.8 anyway because I like my subject's whole face to be in focus, so the 2.8 isn't an issue. IS, weather sealing, and a relatively low price for an "L" also add to it's charm. It's a lot of bang for your buck!


----------



## dlee13 (Apr 9, 2015)

jd7 said:


> 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 had a Canon 85 1.8 (actually still have it, haven't sold it yet) and was thinking about a 135L but ended up going with the Sigma 85 1.4. I was looking second-hand and the decision to try the Sigma (as an upgrade to the 85 1.8) was made in part because I saw a decent deal on the Sigma and the only 135Ls I could find seemed a bit expensive (not a huge second-hand market where I am and I wasn't keen to buy sight unseen). Even apart from cost though, part of my thinking about choosing the 84 1.4 rather than 135L was the shorter focal plus f-stop advantage should give something approaching two stops of extra hand-hold-ability, plus should make it a more useful lens for indoor use where you may not be able to step back and/or the light is dim.
> 
> 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?



For me the attraction to the 100L would definitely be its versatility and general IQ. When it comes to sharpness, the 100L is in a class of its own.For stuff like macro and product shots, it works really well and I personally like its bokeh too. Although you can produce great portraits with it, there are lenses that can do an even better job which is why I'm looking into 85mm options. If I primarily shoot headshots and space isn't an issue, I think the 100L would be enough for me. But for full body portraits and working in tighter spaces, a fast 85mm definitely has the advantage over it. 

Many people buy the 100L as a macro lens that can do other genres, but I bought it more as a still life/product photography lens than can do portraits and macro as well  



pdirestajr said:


> IMO the 100L gets so much love because of it's versatility. Yes you can shoot portraits and macro. But since it is a Tele with such a short minimum focus distance you never feel crammed! If you have a 135 on in a tight space you are limited. With the 100 you can get creative and grab detail shots and close ups. When I have it on my camera it feels more like a zoom lens. And when I'm shooting portraits I am usually at 2.8 anyway because I like my subject's whole face to be in focus, so the 2.8 isn't an issue. IS, weather sealing, and a relatively low price for an "L" also add to it's charm. It's a lot of bang for your buck!



I definitely agree with all this. The 100L is the sharpest lens I've ever used. I actually had to improve my PP skills for skin retouching since this lens brings out more detail than I know what to do with!!


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 9, 2015)

I own and deeply love Sigma's 35mm ART lens and was excited for their rumored 85 ART. I was waiting for that one, but then I had a specific need for 85mm, so I rented the amazing Canon 85 1.2L (yes, generally overpriced, but available for my purposes).

That day of shooting changed my life. I immediately purchased the 85 1.2L and I use it with each client. 

I'm very excited to see what Sigma offers if they ever actually produce their version, but I couldn't justify simply waiting anymore. The Canon was expensive, but since I'm paid for my work, it makes no sense to hold off for an unforseen amount of time for a lens which might be stunning, when there's an amazing one in existence right now. Images produced by that lens have propelled my business forward, and I feel dumb that I put it off for so long, thinking I'd be saving money to wait for Sigma. I was stepping over dollars to pick up nickels.

Whenever Sigma decides to put out an 85 update, I'll check it out and will get it if it's good. My 85 1.2L will likely then either be sold or go to my 16 year old son, who's becoming a pretty dang good photog himself.

#LovingMyEF85L


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 9, 2015)

Thought i would pipe in.... I've got the 100mm 2.8L and the Canon 85mm 1.8. 2 different beats albeit you wouldn't think so... I do professional portraits, boudoir, etc, and almost shoot with the 85 more than the 100mm, silly as that my seem. I have resigned the 100mm to my macro, product, detail shots lens... A few reasons for my decision, when cropped at the same framed shot in camera (keeping in mind the focal distance difference), the 85mm allows me to focus closer to the subject so i'm not so far away, it blurs out background quicker than the 100mm, and is smaller and quicker focusing. Now, i also use my 70-200 F4 IS on occasion when i want to get even closer, or when i want a look i couldn't get otherwise, but alas the DOF isn't what the 85 is, but, sometimes, it doesn't need to be. There are some that knock the 85 1.8 due to CA... to be honest, i've only noticed CA in a handful of shots but nothing uncontrollable or distracting, just something you and I would see, but no one else would. That being said, whenever the rumored 85 1.8 IS comes out, we'll be all over that.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 9, 2015)

jd7 said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



I tested it manually focused. The results weren't terrible, but they weren't sharp, either. I recently read the Lenstip review and apparently that lens also had a sharpness problem at f/1.4. Perhaps there was great variability lens to lens, since some folks feel their copy is sharp.


----------



## dlee13 (Apr 10, 2015)

Beckstoy - the 85L would be a dream to own and anyone who uses it seems to fall in love with it. Being that I'm still a student and don't shoot professionally, it's way too much money for me to spend on it but for you I'm sure it's well worth it  Who knows, Sigma may release a 85 Art that's sharper but may not have that magic bokeh the 85L has!

Awinphoto - to me personally, it's more of the age of the lens that puts me off rather than the CA. I've seen some certainly amazing images with the 85 1.8 but I'm just hesitant to buy it because I prefer to keep one lens for as long as I Can without having to upgrade.




chrysoberyl said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



I had a similar experience with the first copy of my original 50mm f1.4. It was good when shooting in Live View, but otherwise it was very soft wide open and AF was all over the place. I sent it off for calibration and it came back even worse to the point it was unusable all the way down to f4. I had bought that one online and I have a theory the seller was using returned or faulty stock, without proof I won't say any more in case I'm wrong but that whole sale didn't seem legit.


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 10, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> Currently I use my 100L on my 6D as my portrait lens. I don't primarily shoot portraits but I'm getting more and more into them which is why I'm considering getting another lens I could dedicate to portraits. My main choice would be the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX due to its price and IQ (if Canon are to release an updated 85mm f18 then that will be another story). …



I have never used the 100L and I don't know how it compares. But someone gave me a Sigma 85 f1.4 to sell and I could use it briefly for some weeks. The lens is excellent. At f1.4, it is sharper than the 85L MkI at f1.4, and is also better corrected in the edges (perhaps too much for some uses). AF is faster than on the 85L. The glass produces a slightly warmer image, which can easily be corrected in post. I also have the EF 85 f1.8, and I don't know why some have a gripe (maybe it's too cheap?). It produces lovely portraits, is very sharp fully open and the AF is a dream. But my favorite lenses for portraits remain the 85L and the 135L. Those lenses produce a sharp butterly image, with natural colors and an incredible blur quality. Both become also as sharp as it can get when closed a little and are very good for general photography. But the 85L is not easy to master when you shoot it wide open, which is what it was designed for. The DOF works on a feather, or the quarter of an eyelash. When I'm not in the mood to be in love with the model through the camera, I get more keepers with the 85mm f1.8 !


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 9, 2016)

So it is almost 9 months since I started this thread and sadly I still don't an 85mm. I have got tired of waiting for an Art or 85 IS from Canon so end of this month, I will finally be getting the current Sigma 85!

I figure that I rather get the current Sigma and enjoy what is an already amazing lens, than wait for a lens that may not even be released any time soon.


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 9, 2016)

I decided this Christmas I wanted either a 50mm or an 85mm. After having used the 85mm f/1.2L II twice this past summer, I really fell in love with the lens. The only thing that stopped me from really considering it was the astronomical price. 

I had used Canon's 50mm f/1.2 several times before too, and always loved it. The 85mm was on another level though. I managed to find a used 85mm a week ago at a phenomenal price and couldn't resist.

I've looked at Sigma products in the past and, while they have amazing optics these days, their autofocus problems scare me. Even though they are priced much better compared to Canon's offerings, they are still too expensive to have regularly occurring problems. 

The 100mm f/2.8L is a fantastic lens. The 85 f/1.2 II is better for portraits though.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 9, 2016)

R1-7D said:


> I decided this Christmas I wanted either a 50mm or an 85mm. After having used the 85mm f/1.2L II twice this past summer, I really fell in love with the lens. The only thing that stopped me from really considering it was the astronomical price.
> 
> I had used Canon's 50mm f/1.2 several times before too, and always loved it. The 85mm was on another level though. I managed to find a used 85mm a week ago at a phenomenal price and couldn't resist.
> 
> ...



The AF does worry me but my Sigma 50 1.4 was really good on my 6D once it went through AFMA so I'm hoping it's the same for the 85 when I get it. I don't have the disposable income to get the 85mm f1.2L but if I had the money, the 85L would definitely be the lens I'd get!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 9, 2016)

I think with these 85's, it would take quite some time to determine if they have accurate focus. I know myself I'm horrible with holding still so I will have to take a few days to thoroughly test my 85 when I get it before I can say if it is off or not (I'll be using the dot tune method to AFMA since I've found that to be most reliable. 

I wish Canon would at least be faster to update all their lenses, especially old ones like the 85mm f1.8.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 9, 2016)

beckstoy said:


> That day of shooting changed my life. I immediately purchased the 85 1.2L and I use it with each client.
> 
> #LovingMyEF85L



+1, exactly what happened to me. When I bought my brandnew EF 85/1.2 L II I felt a bit sick about the loads of money I spend for such a special lens. But after the first day of shooting (a girl's first school day) I knew that I fell in love with this lens, in particular in combo with my 5D3's very precise AF system. 

If this focal length suits your way of looking, such a fast 85 opens a new world of composition and painting with light. So I'd say it is needed - if it is just right for you. But to be useable in real life such a lens needs a very good AF drive IMO, that's the reason why I never would go for a Zeiss Otus 85. The Zeiss' optical performance is breathtaking, but lab results and real life performance make quite often the essential difference. Despite its sluggy focusing the EF 85/1.2 turned out to be much more useable than I expected, I even use it for street shooting.


----------



## tcphoto (Jan 10, 2016)

I simply do not use AF and like to shoot nearly wide open. I don't want to worry about what point is active in the viewfinder, so I focus manually. I tended to use my 50L but recently added an 85LII and am in love. I used to own a Nikon 85/1.8 back in my film days(F4&F5) and liked it, the 85L is a totally different animal and worth every penny to me and my clients. I've been very happy with buying used gear, I bought my 85L II for $1425.


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 11, 2016)

Thought I would update this with after a very long time, I finally got the Sigma 85mm f1.4!

The quality of the lens is amazing, both build and IQ. I haven't had the chance to use it at a full body distance but the bokeh is certainly beautiful and it definitely has a different look to it compared to the 100L so I'm very happy I got it.

From now on the 85 will be my people lens and the 100L will be macro and product/still life. One thing worth mentioning is I forgot how much light f1.4 really lets in. My fastest lens has been the 35mm f2 for over a year now so going back to f1.4 is like a brand new experience again.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 11, 2016)

I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and I had the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. I sold the Sigma to fund the 100L. The Sigma 85/1.4 offers excellent bokeh and subject isolation, which is something I don't get from the 100L. I am now in the fence waiting for the 85A or a Canon 85/1.8 IS


----------



## kaihp (Feb 11, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I am now in the fence waiting for the 85A or a Canon 85/1.8 IS



Welcome to the fence. Please make yourself comfortable while we continue to wait


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 11, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am now in the fence waiting for the 85A or a Canon 85/1.8 IS
> ...



Just buy the current Sigma 85mm. When something new is released I'll see if if I like it better and if I do, I'll just sell my current 85 and pick up the new one.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 11, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and I had the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. I sold the Sigma to fund the 100L. The Sigma 85/1.4 offers excellent bokeh and subject isolation, which is something I don't get from the 100L. I am now in the fence waiting for the 85A or a Canon 85/1.8 IS



I have the Canon 85 f/1.8 and have been very happy with it. However, I will be wondering if there is/are better lenses, something with a bit more "punch", better micro contrast, less CA, sharpness, etc. AND part of me is going to always want f/1.4. I feel pretty good with my lens as while I agree wide open is lacking a bit, stopping down to f/2 makes a significant difference on my lens.

So, no hurry as I have 85mm covered, but I'm keeping my eyes and ears open to what could be coming out. The Sigma 85mm Art I would think we see this year. I'm also intrigued by the new 85mm Tamron rumor. Those new SP 35 and 45 lenses seem to be pretty excellent. So yes, already some good choices in the 85mm prime for us Canon shooters, and the next year or so should bring a few more.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 11, 2016)

The main reason to buy a large aperture 85mm lens is for the shallow DOF, which makes autofocus accuracy a critical issue.

Considering the autofocus problems that Sigma has had with their Art lenses, I would be very cautious about buying one of their 85 1.4 lenses.

Now if Canon wanted to update the 85 1.8, I would be very interested.


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 11, 2016)

drmikeinpdx said:


> The main reason to buy a large aperture 85mm lens is for the shallow DOF, which makes autofocus accuracy a critical issue.
> 
> Considering the autofocus problems that Sigma has had with their Art lenses, I would be very cautious about buying one of their 85 1.4 lenses.
> 
> Now if Canon wanted to update the 85 1.8, I would be very interested.



That's a strong reason that made me hesitant for so long before buying mine. My 85 is spot on with no AFMA but I would still recommend trying it before you buy it, so definitely buy in store instead of online.


----------



## JoFT (Jun 11, 2016)

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:


[list type=decimal]
[*]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)
[/list]


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 pricing....


----------



## dlee13 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoFT said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm waiting for The Sigma Art to come out to compare with Tamrons lens. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE Lens intreges me though. I may just purchase that one.


----------



## JoFT (Jun 16, 2016)

dlee13 said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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.


----------



## JoFT (Jun 16, 2016)

captainkanji said:


> I'm waiting for The Sigma Art to come out to compare with Tamrons lens. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE Lens intreges me though. I may just purchase that one.




I would recommend to go with the Milvus: it is much better than the older planar.


----------



## canonix (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## dlee13 (Jun 16, 2016)

canonix said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2016)

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 (Jun 16, 2016)

ntt2007 said:


> 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 (Jun 17, 2016)

dlee13 said:


> ntt2007 said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...






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


----------



## Refurb7 (Jun 17, 2016)

dlee13 said:


> ntt2007 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jun 17, 2016)

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 (Jun 17, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > ntt2007 said:
> ...



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 (Jun 17, 2016)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



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 (Jun 18, 2016)

JoFT said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...



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 (Jun 18, 2016)

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 (Jun 18, 2016)

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 (Jun 18, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Jun 18, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 19, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



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 (Jul 15, 2016)

jd7 said:


> 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.


----------

