Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 05 Jan 2018 (Friday) 10:24
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon 70-200 F2.8L NON IS VS. Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART

 
xarik
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 05, 2018 10:24 |  #1

Hey all!

I picked up a Canon 85mm F1.2L V2 a little while back and loved it, but sold it because I'm greedy and like having money. Also, the lens just felt too nice for me and made me nervous to break it given it's value. However, the images from that lens made it fell like I was cheating. I hardly had to touch them and they were stupendous. Not the sharpest lens ever, but definitely worth every penny! No I'm looking back and kinda wishing I had it again, but also shot the Sigma 35mm ART and loved images from that and kinda started liking ART lenses.

My simple and basic Q is, would it be a valid move to get rid of my 70-200mm F2.8L NON IS and get an 85mm F1.4 ART? Money isn't really a concern at this point, but I'm moving across the country and don't plan on shooting professionally for a little bit and probably don't need my 70-200 anymore. It's a bit heavy and was mostly used for sports, which I haven't shot for nearly a year now. I pulled it out twice for weddings but primarily used some primes instead. Should I make the move to get rid of my 70-200 and get an 85mm ART or should I look back at the 85L 2?

Sorry if this is vague, just want someone to push me one way or another haha.


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MBB89
Member
240 posts
Joined Jan 2015
Jan 05, 2018 10:34 |  #2

Maybe just get the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f2 (actually a slightly better lens than its little brother).




LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Post has been edited 17 days ago by xarik.
Jan 05, 2018 10:38 as a reply to MBB89's post |  #3

Oddly enough, I had the 85mm F1.8 a while back and loathed it. Lens sucked, way too much CA for me and I couldn't stand it, but loved the F1.2...I don't get it. The CA is worse on the 1.2 I think lol. I've wanted the 100 F2 for a LONG time but they rarely come up for sale and they also rarely are at a price I deem reasonable for the lens. They typically are at like $400 and for a Ultrasonic non L lens, I think that's just too much, they shouldn't be over $300 tbh. I know I'm complaining about $100 when I'm willing to spend $1200 on an 85L V2, but I'm very picky with what I spend. I only got my first 85L V2 because I go tit for $150 less than I thought it was worth and I'd do the same for the ART lens and try to get it around $700 if possible. I've owned my 70-200 for so long that I forget what I paid for it, probably like $700.


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Monkey ­ moss
Senior Member
Monkey moss's Avatar
928 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Bristol, England
Jan 05, 2018 11:48 |  #4

Hi. If you're between a 1.2, and Art, the 70-200, and money isn't too much of an issue, then might as well go full circle and end up on the new Canon 1.4L ;-)a


Jon :cool::oops::D:cry::confused::(:lol:
Gear: 5Diii, 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8 ii, 70-300L, 35mm f2 IS, 85mm 1.8
My Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
FTb
Senior Member
Joined Jun 2014
Post has been edited 16 days ago by FTb with reason 'Correct'.
Jan 05, 2018 15:42 |  #5

xarik wrote in post #18534006 (external link)
Oddly enough, I had the 85mm F1.8 a while back and loathed it. Lens sucked, way too much CA for me and I couldn't stand it, but loved the F1.2...I don't get it. The CA is worse on the 1.2 I think lol.


Some things about lenses that help make beautiful images we haven’t figured out how to measure. The 85mm f1.2 is an amazing, unique lens, warts and all. One of my faves.

And if bokeh is important to you the 100mm isn’t in the same league.



My flickrexternal link
Favorite lenses: Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 70-200L IS II, TS-E 17mm f/4L

LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
James P's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
Jan 05, 2018 16:09 |  #6

I have the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART and I love it. It's heavy, but for shooting people, which I do a lot of, it's outstanding.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 05, 2018 16:27 as a reply to FTb's post |  #7

Bokeh is THE most important thing at that F stop, so that settles that! :) I appreciate your input


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 05, 2018 16:27 as a reply to James P's post |  #8

Have you held the L? THAT is a heavy lens lol. I'm leaning towards that though!


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 05, 2018 16:30 as a reply to Monkey moss's post |  #9

Although money isn't much of an issue, price is still a factor and I can't justify $1600 when I could do the same thing at half the price for the ART. The IS isn't a huge factor to me since I can typically compensate with a faster shutter speed if need be at F1.4. I'd normally say yes, but it hasn't hit the used market and I know once I buy it for $1600 new, it'll be worth $1400 tops the minute I hit "buy"


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2011
Brisbane, Australia
Post has been edited 16 days ago by basketballfreak6.
Jan 05, 2018 17:46 |  #10

hi xarik take this with a grain of salt since i've only had like a short 10 mins with the lens, but had a chance to play with both the new 1.4L IS and ART when i dropped into the camera shop my friend works at

in terms of build both feels top notch and very solid, but i felt the canon balanced better and was nicer to hold overall attached to the 5d4, not because of weight but more the actual physical size and shape of the lens, difference not night and day of course and it could also be the fact that i have smaller hands, the canon obviously also has the advantage of IS (tho weirdly i didn't feel it engage as much as i thought it would, had to check the IS switch was on)

in terms of AF i had to do a quick and dirty AFMA to both the canon and the sigma, but once dialed in both were spot on hitting focus from what i can see, tho i didn't test servo only one shot, both lens were quick to focus but i feel like the canon has the edge here, again talking about the smallest differences tho

image quality wise (where i'd say you're want to be taking it with grain of salt) just off the back of LCD screen i really didn't notice much difference in terms of overall quality of rendering, both lenses produced lovely looking images, bokeh/oof rendering looked great on both, tho when i zoomed in on the LCD it was apparent the sigma had a sharpness advantage here, the canon was sharp and much improved from the 1.2L wide open, but the sigma was bitingly so, in other words when i looked at the canon image zoomed in i feel like i could add a little sharpening in post, whereas the sigma i'd probably be happy leaving it as is, it really is quite incredible

personally i would take the sigma today if i had to choose between the lenses, my personal experiences with my own copy of 50 art and 135 art (2 other incredible lenses, imho) and quick play of the 85 in the shop auto focus is accurate within realms of what i expect of fast primes, don't really notice enough misses to cause concern, image quality to me is a wash between the ART and L so not really a determining factor either, but when it come to price it's about $1000 difference where i am and to be frank i don't know if it's worth the difference just for first party AF (again, the ART's not necessarily any worse/or at all but you can't argue the fact that first party AF will always be preferable) and IS, for what i would use the lens for i feel either lens would easily get me the result i want so it's hard to justify paying that big of a price difference just for the L

YMMV, of course


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
ShadowHillsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Schoharie, NY
Jan 05, 2018 19:15 |  #11

xarik wrote in post #18534306 (external link)
Have you held the L? THAT is a heavy lens lol. I'm leaning towards that though!

The Sigma is almost 4oz heavier than the 1.2 Canon.




LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 06, 2018 19:49 as a reply to basketballfreak6's post |  #12

Flawless response! That's what I'd love to hear :). Pretty much makes my decision. I really wasn't that interested in the Canon version. Most primes will beat most of the zoom lenses in a lot of categories, so I'll assume the 85 ART will be awesome! I'll have to just price check it now to see what's a good deal. Making this whole argument pointless, I'll likely buy it on top of the 70-200 I have and compare side by side.

Xarik


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 06, 2018 19:50 |  #13

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18534468 (external link)
The Sigma is almost 4oz heavier than the 1.2 Canon.

I've heard it balances well. The 85L V2 was pretty darn heavy though. Not unbearable.


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
Gig Harbor, Washington
Jan 07, 2018 08:44 |  #14

85 art is the best lens I have used in years. Love mine

I sold my 70-00 F/2.8. Rarely used it as I prefer primes for most of my portrait needs

24-70 for group shots, primes for couples and individual needs

zooms dont do F/2.0 so end of discussion as far as im concerned

I have one 70-200F4...just in case i need a little extra reach at weddings. it does not have IS so im always above 1/200. Wish I had the IS version as I would use it more

your 70-200F/2.8 is the sharpest lens canon has put out in the 70-200 class. It is outstanding in that department....But No IS makes it a non starter for me. You have to be constantly at F/200 and above with it. additionally, the telephoto compression with that 70-200 is excellent but the art is much much better

Frankly, I would keep the 70-200 for just in case moments. If you need reach you will kick yourself in the butt for not having it


Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
xarik
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
xarik's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 07, 2018 09:34 |  #15

umphotography wrote in post #18535488 (external link)
Frankly, I would keep the 70-200 for just in case moments. If you need reach you will kick yourself in the butt for not having it

You have a point there. This is also the sharpest 70-200 I've ever owned! I will have to give this a shot and see, might end up keeping it or selling it with my 24-105 to get a 24-70 F2.8L V2 wince I've heard those are crazy sharp and I want something good on the wide end too


Bodies: Canon 5D3
Lenses: Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 - Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE - Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L
Extras: 2 Neewer TT520 Speedlites - Manfrotto 3021BPRO and ballhead

Check out my Flickr (external link)!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

790 views & 1 like for this thread
Canon 70-200 F2.8L NON IS VS. Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00106 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is piggitou
979 guests, 514 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017