Announcement

**Hereford_EOS** · 07-09-2013, 08:14

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Hello James and welcome to the forum.

Both the 85mm lenses are good but one (f/1.2) is some �1400 more expensive than the f/1.8.
Comparing the two Canon 85mm prime lenses then I would go with the f/1.8.
The 85mm f/1.8 is �1400 less expensive and on a FF camera is better wide open than the f/1.2.
The f/1.2 is sharpen in the centre but border are not so good until stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 whilst the f/1.8 is sharp across the frame from f/1.8 and even improves a little at f/5.6. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is a far better value for money.
The Sigma f/1.4 is also sharp in the centre but again not so good at the border until stopped down to f/8.
Save some money and get the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens at approx �300 new.

Hope it helps

**briansquibb** · 07-09-2013, 08:53

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

I use the 135f2 and the 85f1.8 - as I use a ff camera the 135 gets used a lot - and excellent. The 85mm is best used at f4+, which to me is not and issue.

Brian

**James Thomas 75** · 07-09-2013, 13:34

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Thanks for the replies both of you.

To be honest if the cost was coming straight from my pocket I'd have chosen the 1.8 hands down over the 85L or Sigma from the amazing images I've seen taken with it.

Thing is though I received a trade offer through a site far better than anyone would give me cash for.
Hence the credit note.

I really can't think of any other focal lengths I want and going with the 1.8 would leave me with around 1500 pound left over :)

I have considered a 35mm too,but I'm unsure as to whether I'd use a focal length that often?

Just to clarify. I'm using a FF body.

**Hereford_EOS** · 07-09-2013, 15:20

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Hi again James
That's a great credit note to have.
How about a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II zoom or maybe the Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS PLUS the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS PLUS the 85mm f/1.8 PLUS Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS

Just throwing some ideas at you.

**tesarver** · 07-09-2013, 16:41

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

I have the Sigma 85. The only issue I found with the lens is it's minimum focus distance. The closest shot w/o cropping the image is from mid chest up. If you want to come in closer for just the head shot, the lens will not focus as your to close.

Other than that it is a very fine lens

Tom

**James Thomas 75** · 07-09-2013, 17:20

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Thanks again for the reply Stephen.

I already have both the 100mm IS and 24-70 Mark 1.
Even though the Mark II 24-70 looks an amazing upgrade,I don't think I'd replace my Mark 1 copy if I were ever to sell it?

I just prefer the look the primes tend to achieve over the zooms I have. Along with the shallower apertures and DOF and such.

I've read in certain opinions that the 85L gives a unique "look" to it's shots. Which is one of the things I really like about the 135 f2.
That will probably be the overall thing for me in whether the other 2 85mm variants can give adequate results in comparison.
If it doesn't compliment my 135 I don't think I'll be content

**James Thomas 75** · 07-09-2013, 17:53

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Originally posted by tesarver View Post

I have the Sigma 85. The only issue I found with the lens is it's minimum focus distance. The closest shot w/o cropping the image is from mid chest up. If you want to come in closer for just the head shot, the lens will not focus as your to close.

Other than that it is a very fine lens

Tom

Thanks Tom. That's interesting to know.
I'll have to check the MFD of the 3 lenses to each other too.

Edit: Seems that the Sigma has a MFD 10cm closer than the 85L.

**DrJon** · 08-09-2013, 21:56

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

I spent an age evaluating 85mm lenses before going for the 85mm f1.2 II and ended up wishing I'd done it much sooner. (I should probably clear all the test pics I took with the three contenders - 1.2 II, 1.8 and Sigma - from my hard drive at some point.) The out-of-focus stuff is wonderful and it's super sharp in the centre from f1.2 on, it is big and heavy though. The Auto-Focus is plenty fast (unlike the mk I) provided you are already in the rough vicinity (so 5-15m, not 2-200). The main down-side is purple fringing of high contrast (black-white) edges that are a bit out of focus. Then again it's never too dark for it!

I rejected the Sigma as I found the purple stuff was there too much of the time, the one I tested wasn't as sharp as I hoped, plus a couple of minor issues. However Bryan seemed to mostly like the one he eventially got:

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

...except he went through three to get a good one and he reports Lens Rentals have seen QA problems too. Bryan did have AF issues too, so maybe that's where some of my lack of sharpness came from.

I rejected the 1.8 as it wasn't that fast compared to f2.8 lenses I already had (100, 70-200 - the latter being stabilised), wasn't as sharp in the centre and the out-of-focus stuff wasn't as nice as the 1.2 (by some way).
The SLRGear test suggests the f1.8's edges are awful above f2.8:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10

...but I suspect they got an iffy one as people seem to like them too much for that. Photozone didn't see that.

Also on the subject of tests SLRGear have the f1.2 as a lot better away from the centre than the f1.8 while Photozone have the 1.8 as better than the 1.2. I'd say take them as informative rather than in an way definitive. I'm very happy with the sharpness of my f1.2 and, as I said, people seem happy with their f1.8s, so I would just check the one you plan to buy and not worry about it.

If you do want to compare sharpness online I'd suggest using Bryan's page:

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Image Quality Comparison

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Image-Quality.aspx

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Image Quality Comparison

as he is pretty good at checking he has good lenses. I'd say on those pics the 1.2 (at 1.4) is significantly better at the edges compared to the 1.8 wide open. You may see it differently. The differences to the Sigma seem harder to work out but the f5.6 branches shot reminds me of the Sigma I tested. Like I said, reviews can prove/disprove all sorts of things, alas...

Note this is just my opinion (with some bonus review links included to suggest I'm not off in another reality) and you may see things completely differently. The 1.2 is a lot of weight to lug around. To close I'd like to suggest a couple of other lenses to perhaps compare the 85s to: 100 f2.8 L (slower but stabilised, really close focusing), 70-200 f2.8 II (also stabilised and can zoom, even heavier though).

**James Thomas 75** · 09-09-2013, 19:56

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Thanks very much for the in-depth reply DrJon.

That'll give me plenty to read through and hopefully make my mind up.

I have access to a 70-200 Mark 1 IS (but don't own it) and also own the 100L,but fancy something a bit faster than the 2 of them to sit alongside my 135.
The more I read into everything the more it's leaning toward the 1.2!

Out of curiosity. Do you find the relatively long MFD much bother on the 85L?

**DrJon** · 10-09-2013, 09:21

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

It's about 0.8m from the front of the lens. It's a little more than I'd like, but its only usually annoyed me when I was taking a test shot of some sort or otherwise using it as it's the lens on the camera rather than the best lens for the job. It depends on what you do whether it's a problem for you (but see the next para). Also a FF camera can happily crop down well if you want to get closer.

BTW the Sigma gets wider (i.e. the focal length decreases) near MFD (this is very common in lenses) so you don't get as close as you would with the Canon at that distance. However it can focus 10cm closer than the 1.2 so it doesn't matter. Actually the Sigma has the same MFD as the Canon f1.8 - although none of these are that good for MFD: 95cm, 85cm, 85cm. If you look at MM the Canon 1.8 also loses less focal length at MFD, the 1.2 is 0.11x, the Sigma 1.2x (so it does get a bit tighter than the Canon due to the extra 10cm winning over the widening) and the 1.8 is 0.13x (so closer to being 85mm than the Sigma at MFD). Whether you care about the 0.1s is up to you.

Someone else complaining about iffy AF on the Sigma, but has good things to say about it too:

[Gear] Sigma 85mm f/1.4 vs. Canon 85mm f/1.2 II comparison 1

http://www.flickr.com/photos/generalstussner/8239094808/

I got some mails and questions about the fast Sigma and Canon 85mm lenses... i.e. which one is better, or which one to get... So i thought i'd post a quick comparison.. maybe i'll post some more [Gear] stuff in the future. First there are some things you have to be aware of, when you look at the images (best in Full Size): - This test doesn't tell the whole story, its just a quick test near the minimal focus distance - The images were processed exactly! the same (no lens corrections, same WB, same minor adjustments) - Taken from a solid tripod, which has not been moved! - Same (artificial) light - Manual Focus with Liveview - Some things cant be measured, like the quality of the bokeh and the rendition of the blur. Here are my overall findings (you can see some of them on the picture above): The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is slightly "warmer" than the Canon. Everything is just a tad more yellowish.. warmer like i said. (Personally i don't like this that much, i also had some trouble getting rid of it in post..) The "colors" of the Canon look a bit better for me. Because of the different construction and it's rear focus, the Sigma reaches it's full 85mm focal length near infinity - The images are a bit "wider" compared to the Canon, especially close to the MFD. But as you can see its not that much and also the Sigma has a closer MFD. Sharpness of both lenses is great, but the Sigma is a tad more contrasty. The Sigma has a bit stronger vignette than the Canon, stopped down 1/3 stop both lenses start to devignette visibly. Field performance (or: how do the lenses perform under normal conditions) The Sigma 85mm has a faster autofocus, about twice as fast as the Canon - if you own a 85 f/1.8, both are pretty slow. As i mentioned some days ago, i had some trouble with the Sigmas autofocus. Generally it worked pretty well (no micro adjustment needed) but sometimes it just missed its target and i couldn't figure out why. It was pretty unreliable and i'm not the only one with that problem... Maybe i got faulty copy? The Canons AF is slower (for Portraits, or shallow DoF stuff, even some sports its fast enough) but very precise, i hadn't had any trouble with it. Both lenses are great and optically (sharpness & contrast) both are very good and which one you should choose just depends on how much money you want to spend and what you want to shoot. For one Canon you can buy 2.5 Sigmas... The Sigmas Bokeh is very good, but the Canons is awesome. On the first glimpse you cant see a huge difference but if you look closer they become more visible. The Canon has sort of a different "look" (hard to describe and measure) to its images, the Bokeh looks like its painted and how smooth the in focus and out of focus areas are melting together is very unique. The subject also seems to "pop" more, almost like a 3D effect. Well, i cant tell you which one you should buy. The Sigma is a great bang for the buck and if its AF works fine you get a great lens! But for me the Canon's unique look and the more reliable AF (which also can be adjusted by the CPS if needed), the 1/3 stops more and the Bokeh rendering is worth the money. Hope i didn't forget anything.. if so, i'll edit the text... I hope i didn't bore you. I promise i wont post technical stuff very often. Oh and as you can see: The Danbos were eager to help! :-)

BTW ephotozine like the 1.2: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ca...s-review-16624
But also say it has very low CA, which may be true but there is a big exception (IMHO) as I mentioned in my previous post. That post was really just explaining my (very lengthy) process to decide on the 1.2 in case it's of use to you, I wasn't suggesting your criteria would be the same. All three of the 85s are good lenses and many people are happy with their copies of all of them.

It's also worth noting that really fast lenses aren't good at getting all the light into the sensor due to the angle it hits at. Canon and Nikon seem to accommodate this by silently upping the ISO for lenses faster than f2.8 without telling you:

Page not found - DXOMARK

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Reviews/F-stop-blues

Page not found - Luminous Landscape

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

But you may not care as the noise difference won't be great on Full Frame. However the effect of this is you aren't getting 0.6 extra stops with the 1.2 over the 1.8, but more like 0.4 (however the Bokeh is still in a different league).

I'll say again - the 1.2 is a light bucket, it's completely usable at 1.2 (I use 1.8 for extra edge sharpness and 2.8 if it's reasonably light and I don't need shallow DoF), it's also very heavy with occasional bonus purple stuff. I often use it as a walk-around lens when it's dull out. I did get a lighter camera bag to reduce the weight on my shoulder though.

I did mention the weight didn't I?

John

P.S. If you get the 1.2 you'll also want some 72mm ND filters for bright days, or a decent variable ND like the Heliopan.

P.P.S. Like I said the AF works okay for me, I had a very high hit rate photographing these Gulls in flight (although looking at the pic the tone curve I used in PP could do with improving, ho hum... it was a quickie for Facebook):

Attached Files

IMG_8399_DXO_tight.jpg (71.2 KB, 48 views)

**MX5** · 10-09-2013, 11:36

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Originally posted by DrJon View Post

Snip ..

It's also worth noting that really fast lenses aren't good at getting all the light into the sensor due to the angle it hits at. Canon and Nikon seem to accommodate this by silently upping the ISO for lenses faster than f2.8 without telling you:

Snip ...

I'd come across this before when I wondered about the T-stops cinema lenses use. But what about Quantum effects

**DrJon** · 10-09-2013, 15:59

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

T-stops are the actual light passed by the lens, f-stops are the theoretical light due to the lens design parameters. For example a 100mm lens with an entrance pupil of 25mm will be f4, but if you measure the light that makes it to the sensor it may be T4.2 or thereabouts.

As far as I know DXO report the T-stop without including the effect of any sensor losses due to angle (as they aren't giving large enough numbers to have included it).

So basically T-stop is what you actually get and f-stop is the marketing (okay, it's true too, just less useful). More elements and less good coatings increase the difference between the two.

I'm not sure Quantum Effects come into it?

**James Thomas 75** · 10-09-2013, 19:11

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Thanks again for the reply and links John.

I'm pretty much sold on the 85L now.

Thanks for the heads up on the ND filters as well. I believe the ones I bought with my 135 are 72mm,so I should be sorted in regards to that.

Seriously considering chopping in my 24-70 as well towards a 35 1.4 after trying a fellow photographers copy in London today. But that's another topic... ;)

**DrJon** · 10-09-2013, 21:19

Re: Canon 85mm 1.2 and Sigma 85mm 1.4. Has anyone owned both?

Sigma 35/1.4 or one of the less good ones?

I have no Sigma lenses, but I think their 35/1.4 beats all the other manufacturers' 35s by a fair margin, except for weatherproofing. Canon need a mk II I think... or a big price reduction. Oh, and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that they won't be reducing the price... In fairness the 35 L does date from 1998. Interestingly Canon filed patents for new 35/1.4 designs in both 2009 and 2010 but no sign of one so far. If anyone's curious:

Analytics for US Patent No. 7944625, Optical system and image pickup apparatus having the same

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7944625

An optical system includes a first lens unit, an aperture stop, and a second lens unit having a positive refractive power. In the optical sy

Human Verification

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-07-02

BTW Canon file a lot of patents:

http://www.latestpatents.com/category/canon/