Sigma 85 f1.4 vs Canon 85 f1.2 L II

<p>hi,<br>

i'm confused between sigma and canon... 85 1.4 sigma or 85 1.2 II canon... canon one is far more expensive. but is it worth buying?<br>

i own a sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM II, which is half the price of canon 70-200 2.8 and equally good (i'm not going by the reviews, i personally tested both the lenses at canon center) may be i have a really good copy of sigma.<br>

what are your thoughts on this new sigma prime? has anyone tested it against canon?<br>

i'm using a 7d body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I have just received the Sigma and took it for a spin. I am going to cut to the chase. I understand now what others meant when talking about Sigma AF. IT SUCKS. Wide open at MFD and near, it needed +20 MA (maximum on 5DII) and at infinity an near, it needed +13. I am going to post a few test shots later tonight where you will be able to clearly see how bad it's AF is. Tomorrow I am going to test both Sigma and Canon 85L together. But from what I saw so far t looks like 85L has much better bokeh as well.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 85mm 1.8 (from ebay) and its a great portrait lens with nice bokeh. Save some bucks and stay with Canon if you have a Canon camera.</p>

<p>You could also consider a used Canon 85mm f1.2 L original.</p>

<p>Guys, lets stay on topic. If you want to open a new thread about 1.8 feel free to do so. I agree with John about original 1.2. You can find them not really much more expensive than Sigma</p>

<p>As I've often said before about 'normal' f/1.2 lenses, and it applies to the 85mm as well, this is a <em>specialized</em> lens. If you need that f/1.2 aperture, the shallow depth of field, then there is no getting around the real thing.</p>

<p>Many of us who have earlier versions of these lenses, fully recognize that a corresponding 50mm f/2 or f/1.8 may very well be a 'better' lens across the middle of the range. Indeed, we own less exaggerated, less technologically stressed lenses for everyday use.</p>

<p>But when you need f/1.2 (and if you don't know <em>why</em>, then you don't need an f/1.2 lens), there's no substitute. I honestly do think there was more point to it in slow film days, but it still gives a little edge just where it is needed the most, often right out there at the edge of available darkness.<br>

People who buy an f/1.2 lens because it is an L lens or because it's a status symbol, would nearly always be better off with an f/1.4 or even f/1.8.</p>

<p>@ Ilya : please.. please do upload your test pics of canon vs sigma on this thread.. and one more thing do you mean that if i do those Micro Adjustment for AF on my 7d.. the lens would be perfect for me? Apart from AF how are the other aspects of sigma 85 1.4? IQ equally as good as canon?</p>

<p>@ JDM : i didn't get your point.. '<strong>I honestly do think there was more point to it in slow film days, but it still gives a little edge just where it is needed the most, often right out there at the edge of available darkness.' <br /></strong><br>

can you elaborate a little more on that... and if you can be little less technical...<strong> ;) </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>@ JDM : on after thoughts, now that i think of it... i really don't know why i want to buy a 1.2 lens.. only may be because its a status symbol and best in the market... i really need to see the difference between 1.2 and 1.8...</p>

<p>85/1.2Lii is the best lens I've ever had. Zeiss 85/1.4 wasn't special, and that's the case with many of them. The Canon REALLY is awesome.And I try hard not to like Canon:)</p>

<p>Wide open it's so beautiful. And that's against a lot of first-party competition over decades...I can't comment on the Sigma, but I can only imagine the best case is that is does well but has no character, like many third party lenses which also 'perform' very well.</p>

<p><em>Guys, lets stay on topic. If you want to open a new thread about 1.8 feel free to do so.</em></p>

<p>Bhavesh is looking for an 85mm lens and is concerned about cost. Mentioning the 85 f/1.8 is on topic. Note he later said: <em>i really don't know why i want to buy a 1.2 lens.. only may be because its a status symbol and best in the market... i really need to see the difference between 1.2 and 1.8...</em></p>

<p>And on that point, here's a link to Castleman's review of the 85 f/1.2L I and II, and 85 f/1.8, with test images so you can judge the differences directly.</p>

<p>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'm confused between sigma and canon... 85 1.4 sigma or 85 1.2 II canon... canon one is far more expensive. but is it worth buying</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Read the above again and try to get it this time. You know, use gray matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Read the above again and try to get it this time. You know, use gray matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilya, there is nothing within either photo.net posting guidelines, or the "rules" of internet forum etiquette, that requires that we stay strictly within the confines of the original poster's question. There is, however, the requirement that we remain civil to and respectful of one another.</p>

<p>Bhavesh,</p>

<p>If you are in two minds about the 1.2 don't get it, get the Canon 1.8. Use it, see if you like it or if you want or need shallower depth of field, slower focus, a lot more weight and little money in the bank, if you do then sell the 1.8 for a small loss and get the 1.2. There is currently no substitute for the Canon 85 f1.2.</p>

<p>Mark - thanks for covering that before I responded. I might not have been as nice.</p>

<p>Scott - good advice.</p>

<p>I tested the Mk I Canon 85mm and found the Af had real issues so I would be sure to test the MkI Canon before you buy it to ensure you re happy with it. The copy I tested really needed to be fine tuned in manual focus for every shot. Since the Canon 85 F1,8 was 1/4 of the price (of the Mk I lens) and had very good AF I bought it. I would like the F1.2 lens as I have two copies of the old FD85 F1.2 which was my favourite lens but the review from Amateur Photographer was not that positive considering the price. The digital picture allows you to compare the three Canon lenses but not the Sigma<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397</p>

<p>I hadn't realized Ilya had been elevated to a moderator. Silly me.</p>

<p>I just meant that with ISOs now climbing up to 12,000 or so, the slight increase in low light capability over a f/1.4 lens or even a f/1.8 lens doesn't make as much difference as it did when the fastest color slide film was rated at ASA 500.</p>

<p>Remarkable as the performance over the whole range of the <em>newest</em> versions of of f/1.2 lenses are, they are first and foremost f/1.2 lenses.<br>

A lens that does not stretch the optical limits and contradictions so severely can usually perform a little better overall.<br>

If you are going to end up shooting with an f/1.2 lens at f/5.6 or so most of the time, the additional expense and compromises that are part of the nature of the faster lens are hard to justify.</p>

<p>It does make a lovely item of camera porn, however.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>If you don't know why or if you need the 1.2 then save some money and pick up a used 1.8 that way if you do decide that you would need a 1.2 you can probably sell the 1.8 for almost what you paid for it.</p>