Sigma 85 1.4 vs canon 85 1.2
sser
Registered Users Posts: 233 Major grins
debating on which lens to purchase, I have read reviews versus the 2 and the only difference I really found is that shooting in RAW the contrast is a little bit darker on the Sigma (which could be tweaked a little in the camera settings..)
My question is if anyone has the Sigma and has tried both? any advice? For $1000 less is very inciting on the Sigma for sure!
My question is if anyone has the Sigma and has tried both? any advice? For $1000 less is very inciting on the Sigma for sure!
0
Comments
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
From that review, these cautions:
"... 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."
As noted in the review above, LensRentals has this caution:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/lenses/normal-range/sigma-85mm-f1.4-ex-dg-hsm
"We only have a half dozen copies at this point, but I noted it has a tendency to front focus pretty consistently on a number of bodies (not badly and it’s consistent)."
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have looked at the Sigma 85 f1.4 - it is just such a nice focal length, and aperture combination.
I do know using the 85 f1,2 one has to be very, very careful about how they focus to get great results, but when you do, wow!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I have no experience with the Canon 85 mm 1.2, and unless I win the lottery it's highly likely I will evey have first hand knowledge.
I really love what I have been able to do with the Canon 85 mm 1.8 and thought it wouldn't hurt to be able to shoot even wider. The cost of the Canon 85 mm 1.2 is, at least for me, prohibitive. For me the best choice for stepping up quality at the 85 MM focal length seems to be the Sigma.
There is of course Zeiss, and while this is a very high quality option it costs close to 400.00 more than the Sigma all while loosing AF.
I think the choice is Canon 85 1.8 about $400.00 (Great quality for the money, actually great quality at any price) Sigma about $970.00 improved build and improved quality over the Canon 1.8 at the wider apertures. Canon 85 1.2 The gold standard, but at $2100.00 pretty pricey for most of us.
The choice is up to each of us based on out needs / wants and budgets. For me the choice is the Sigma. This will give me the best performance within my budget.
If your a Canon guy and you have not shot very much with primes at this focus length I think you will be amazed with the lowly Canon 85 mm 1.8.
Sam
Unfortunately the zeiss is great but I am a wedding photographer and the MF is not an option for me.
Blog
Hands-down, the Sigma 85 1.4 is a more pleasant lens to use compared to the Canon 85 1.2. The Canon 85 1.2 is just a joke to focus with, on anything less than a 1-series flagship Canon. I'm sorry, but the Canon 5-series and lesser just can NOT consistently autofocus that much glass in any situation tougher than a tripod'ed camera shooting a still life. You're lucky if you nail 1 in 10 shots, at f/1.2 at close distances hand-held.
Oppositely, the Sigma 85 1.4 has still got amazing bokeh, but it at least gives your off-centter focus points a fighting chance . (Or, on a camera like the 7D or a 1-series, basically focus point will rock...)
Of course, to be fair, if you really find yourself in high-action situations more often than portrait situations, then I would prefer to recommend the Canon 85 1.8. It's so much lighter and smaller, it just works better for snappy, consistent focusing.
So, good luck deciding!
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
so basically it all goes down to this example:
say you want to impress a girl and you spend lots of money on a sport car , and you go to some fancy restaurant with your (say) audi R8 (or something like that) : beautiful sporty thing to impress girls (no questions) but then you park and your girl is about to get off the car when a red ferrari parks right next to you (yeah .. they do it in purpose)
upppsssss
here you go
a 1.8 does the same thing , but the 1.2 is the best 85mm ever made , and it comes with a red ring too... red again... (see what I mean?)
/joke over
Perhaps for some, but who are you gona impress? Another photographer? What the heck good is that gona do?
There are real performance differences between each lens. You may not be able to see or appreciate those differences. In that case you would be wasting your money to buy anything but the Canon 85mm 1.8. The good news here is it's a wonderful lens for a heck of a price. To use your example the 1.8 is priced like a compact car with the performance of a lower level sports car.
Some seek to improve on their images and keep bumping the limits. The Sigma is a step up in IQ and a faster lens at that. No red ring or L status. So no status or bling value I guess.
The Canon 85 mm 1.2 is the ultimate and can produce images not possible with the other two lenses we are discussing. If this is your budget, why not? It's way more than a status symbol. It is simply very high quality.
Sam
And btw Sam's selling one
I shot a wedding yesterday and put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 through it's paces.
CON...................Big issue..........AF is not acceptable! Hunts, has trouble even in good light but in lower light very slow and has difficulty locking on. I ended up missing shots because it couldn't lock on. Under the same lighting conditions my Canon 24-105 mm 4.0 had no difficulty at all.
PRO: When it did lock on image quality was very good.
I am going to work with both Adorama who I bought the lens from and Sigma to see if this can be rectified. If this is normal for this lens then I can't use it and I will go back to my Canon 85 mm 1.8. If the AF issue can be resolved I will be happy to keep it and use it.
I will keep you posted!!
Sam
Personally on the Nikon D700 and D7000, I had a pretty good experience with the Sigma 85 1.4. It wasn't as accurate as the Nikon 85 1.4, I believe, (my tests of the two lenses were at least a month apart, unfortunately) ...however it is definitely great when people are holding still or moving at a consistent pace.
All in all, I STILL recommend f/1.8 for anyone who shoots action. You just can't beat f/1.8 for it's great ratio of "aperutre speed VS focusing speed"... F/1.4 and f/1.2 are really ONLY for portraiture where the subjects are holding relatively still. Especially on a Canon 5-series. The 1-series greatly reduces this issue, IMO...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
No worry about flame bait. Each piece of gear has it's strong and weak points. I think I understand the AF limits of the 5D II.
I was / am using it on a 5D II. Under the same conditions my other lenses, 24-105 mm 4.0 and my 70-200 mm 2.8 focused quickly, and normally. I would have a hard time understanding why a 4.0 and 2.8 lens would focus faster than a 1.4 lens.
I have contacted Adorama and Sigma. I will be returning this lens for an exchange. I really want this lens to work. The IQ is very nice. But if I can't use it for weddings and event work I can't see keeping a $1000.00 lense for portrait work only.
I will keep y'all posted.
Sam
Canon's 1.8 doesn't focus fast at all. Neither does the 1.2, and the only remaining Canon, the 1.4, has the old (moderately slow) micro USM. If you want a fast-focusing 50 for Canon, you'll have to buy the Sigma :P
Matt was discussing the Canon 85mm primes. The Canon 85mm, f1.8 USM is very quick to focus.
I agree with you about the Canon 50mm lenses, but you just took this thread on a wild ride.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
totally missed the joke , completely.
I mean not even close.
maybe if you read it again .... ?
1 hint: the title (of my post) may help a lot
2 hint: all the 85mm give pretty much the same pictures for ordinary shoots, from the rokinon manual focus 1.4 to the 1.8 : the 1.2 gives a precise AF and stunning colors , plus gives a breathtaking bokeh (and again the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is relevant but the difference between 1.8 and 1.2 is massive)
3 hint : once you spend a lot of money then .. get the best and get over it. (this was the final one)
a note about the AF of the 1.2: many keep saying that's slow but I suspect that few truly had the chance to actually use it: it's a myth born in the forums: the 1.2 is indeed slow from end-to-end , but once the elements are in place can track like a charm. Is actually fast and extremely precise. the mark II is as fast (or slow end-to-end) as the mark I by the way.
Bottom line- the mid-size primes will usually be the most snappy to focus. It does depend on the TYPE of focus motor, however. Canon cheats and calls everything "USM", but not all USM is created equal. The older type of USM (rod? ring?) is a lot less smooth and snappy. The 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 have the older type of USM, for example. I'm hoping Canon will release new versions of these lenses soon, since Nikon recently did so and they're quite stellar. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yep, size and weight of glass. I think a component is the gearing for the AF motor. One thing to consider is; since this lens ( f/1.2) has such a narrow DOF @ 1.2, it probably needs fine gearing to render that lock-on focus. Hence, slower. otherwise I suspect that simple inertia would cause it to lose it's intended target ( if it were moving too fast).
You don't really make your point well saying how slow it is and then how 'actually" fast it is. For everybody else who lives this side of myth-ville (aka; reality), The Canon 85 f/1.2 is slow. We''ve tried it. It's slow. I rented mine. It is slow, heavey and beautiful.
Either way, to most this is not an acceptable limitation. Which is why I recommend other lenses such as the 85 1.8 for anyone who needs to use the lens for tracking & action most often. As opposed to still portraiture and stuff like that.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Duh. Why was I thinking 50?
well : around 4 years time-frame and a dozen of double spreads and hundreds of smaller sizes on national publications taken with the 85 1.2 shooting pro soccer may give an idea on how "slow" the lens is ... tracking. The shots I take with the 85 1.2 usually happen when I am close to the action or behind or right next to the net and BOY they move fast over there.
The 85 1.2 tracks fast, trust me. And rarely misses the locked target (once locked of course). And let's remember that all the engines (from Nikon to Canon) start tracking from the target locked in the center, and then move to the sensors closest to the target (passing by). That's another "myth" many still don't fully understand (confusing the 45 or 51 sensor-pattern AF with a point-and-shoot camera , just press-da-shutter and go .. not quite! it needs "attentions").
again (and for the last time) let's don't confuse the time that the (huge) elements of the 85 1.2 need to position from end to end with the tracking response: two completely different animals. I understand that the lens is expensive and everything but there are limits to (any) misinformation, don't you agree?
the most used (and popular) lens in sports (mandatory for night events) -the canon 300 2.8 (and now the 400 2.8 for the Nikon D3s) are faster from end to end but once in position give the same percentage of keepers: they too sport huge elements , and all need some degree of "experience" being NOT for casual shooters, none of them.
but the 85 1.2 is ... well .. 1.2 , and that's something special. Needs experience and lots of work to fully understand it (methinks). But once understood it will be like driving a Ferrari after years of driving corolla on a race-track L O L
580 EX II - 430 EX II