Smart move?

[tolik_p.]

Hi all, I got a 5D mII and a 24-70. I was thinking about selling that lens and getting either a 85L used by adding a couple of hundred,

or getting a sigma 85 1.4, having a few hundred left.

 

Later down the road I would get a 16-35L or a 24L to get the wider side back.

 

But what do you guys think? Canon or sigma? Sigma is getting lots of good reviews around and I would save almost a thousand. Is

the L worth that much more? I've shot the L but not the sigma.

 

I've heard sigma has a lot if bad copies around, but I can always return and get a new copy.

 

Your thoughts would be helpful? Thanks.

[JDMvW]

<p>After I got my 5D, I quickly found that I missed having nothing wider than 24mm, so I got a nice older Sigma 15-30mm for it to match the Sigma 10-20mm on my APS-C cameras. I, personally, couldn't imagine working only with an 85mm lens, however fine. Your mileage may differ, of course. If it were me, I'd keep the 24-70.</p>

<p>I don't think that there are a "lot of bad copies" of Sigma lenses around - there <em>are</em> some people who can't seem to grasp the fact that even "auto"focus requires some intelligence on the viewfinder side of the camera. I've been using Sigma lenses back into the MF days, and they all work fine if you avoid using them (or any other lens) as a hockey puck.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>What are you shooting? Do you really need f1.4? Hard to make any recommendations unless you give some parameters.</p>

[nathangardner]

You're really not even replacing anything. You're giving up 24-70 and getting a prime lens that's not even within that

range. If you already had a 24, 35, and 50 then the 85 may be smart, but giving up a very versatile zoom for a short

tele prime may leave you up in arms in many situations.

[Marcus Ian]

<p>My first instinct is to ask why the 1.4(sig) or 1.2(L)? for that few hundred $$$s by itself you can get an EF 85/1.8 which, while NOT legendary, is pretty darn good.<br>

Giving up the 0-84mm range is going to make it pretty difficult to shoot anything other than 85mm in the duration. Personally, I wouldn't give up the 24-70 until you have something which will give you at least some of it's range. OTOH you have to shoot w/ your gear not me. <br>

I'd go w/ the 85/1.2 over the sigma if you <strong>never</strong> need to focus fast. If you do, you'll miss that shot w/ the L. I've heard that the Sigma's HSM is lickety split fast (*no personal experience*), comparable to the 85/1.8 USM, and a pretty darn good lens overall.</p>

 

[matthijs]

Adding the EF 85/1.8, shooting with that until you're sure you need the extra speed seems the smart move.

 

When you do need the speed you can still sell the 24-70 and the 85/1.8 to fund the 1.2.

[KenPapai]

<p>+1</p>

<p>Keep the 24-70 2.8L and just add the wonderfully excellent EF 85mm 1.8</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>I am not a fan of the Canon lens. It is pretty heavy and AF speed is not that fast. It may be superb for special applications (like concert and lowest light photography), but I don't really need it. However, I am thinking about getting the Sigma lens in the near future when I can afford it (and find a good bargain on the used market).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It makes no sense at all to sell a 24-70 to get a high priced exotic like the 85L. Now if you said you wanted to replace the 24-70 with a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 or 1.8 and the 85/1.8 that would make more sense - you could probably do that at no extra cost too.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>To add a contrarian view to the responses already given, if I were you I wouldn't hesitate in the least to get the EF 85/1.2 L II. There is something very special about Canon's 85/1.2 primes, dating back to the FD 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical and running through the FD 85/1.2 L to its current EF incarnation. What this prime delivers is unrivalled center sharpness from wide open and the most gorgeous bokeh of any 35mm lens. It is, quite simply, the finest "portrait" lens ever made for the 35mm format.</p>

<p>Despite my preceding endorsement, however, I would <em>not</em> sell your 24-70 to fund a purchase of the 85/1.2, since, as many have pointed out, their focal lengths don't even overlap, and the zoom is much more versatile. You'd be better off to wait till you can afford the prime outright, and then to savour its unique optical characteristics.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Rent, rent, rent the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. You will soon appreciate that the lens is more than just a legendary portrait lens. Go fill the frame of your 5D II with a tulip and shoot it at f/1.2. A properly calibrated lens will yield outstanding centre sharpness and unequaled bokeh. But, hang onto your zoom for now until you know what you cannot live without and what needs to go.</p>

[divo]

<p>I echo what others have said: it all depends on your style of photography. I love the 85 1.2L; it is my favorite lens at the moment for abstracts and portraits. On the other hand, for anything involving speed of autofocus, it is the <em>wrong </em>choice entirely!</p>

<p>I also recommend getting your hands on a copy of any lens you are thinking of buying. Even taking pictures inside a store and viewing them on a laptop over a cup of coffee will give important feedback on a lens (image quality and handling) before you purchase it or its rival.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Peter and Devon have given good advice; namely, that you try out a lens before committing to buying it. I've bought many a lens that has languished on my shelf unused, only to be sold later.</p>