I see what appears to be some inconsistency in your statements and responses here in this thread. For instance, when Charlie said this:
Charlie wrote in post #18527978
Considering that the sigma 135 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market, it makes the L seem real old. The L aint bad, but the sigma is clearly in a different league. The sigma wide open @ 1.8 feels like the Canon @ f4, it's an incredible optic, and in that sense, I find it a great value. It's a bonafide super optic.
Your response was this:
umphotography wrote in post #18528215
Where are you buying the stuff you are smoking ?
Seriously, Thats about as far out in left field as I have read lately here at POTN
But then you later said this:
umphotography wrote in post #18528288
I have shot both lens side by side. There is no doubt that the Sigma is a bit sharper. It also has a different color and contrast rendering than the 135L.
If I was not a Canon shooter and I did not have a 135L---I would buy the sigma
So it is odd to me that you would state that the Sigma is a bit better, yet tell Charlie that his praise of the Sigma is as far out in left field as anything you have read here on POTN lately.
Then when Charlie quotes Bryan Carnathan:
Charlie wrote in post #18528243
Bryan Carnathan seems to have a similar opinion:" . . . the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens is a "prime" example. Exceptional image quality, including impressive sharpness and negligible distortion, is right at the top of this lens' advantages. Having the f/1.8 aperture at a telephoto focal length can be a game-changer and there is a special wow factor in the background blur this combination creates.
The 135 Art lens brings more than just great image quality – it is the full package. Great looks, quality design ... perhaps the only missing feature is optical stabilization.
The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens is an exceptional portrait photography lens. Even if portraits are not necessarily your thing, this lens may send you seeking portrait opportunities. And, the image quality the 135 Art delivers will cause you to pull it out for any other use you can make 135mm work for. I'm nearly certain that you are going to like this one!"
Your response is:
umphotography wrote in post #18528292
Not True with Bryan Carnathan. Best guy on the net. He tells it like it really is
So Bryan Carnathan says that the Sigma is a "game changer", and has "exceptional image quality", and that it has "a special background blur." And you respond by saying that Bryan is the best guy on the net and that he tells it like it is.
Yet when Charlie gave high praise to the Sigma, you told him he was smoking something and that his comments were way out in left field.
I cannot understand the logic and reason behind your statements, because they seem to contradict one another. I mean, it seems that you are contradicting yourself, which, of course, would be illogical for someone to do. It almost seems as though the way you feel about things flip-flops from one moment to the next.
If you could provide some clarity to these apparent contradictions it would help me, and presumably others, to make more sense out of the posts that you have made in this thread.
"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".