Sigma 85mm vs Canon 85L - Interesting Review I found

Price has to pay a factor in everyone's decision. Everything I've read says the image quality out of the two is so similar that it's hard to choose.

Well, for me. It's easy. The Sigma is half the price of the 85L and focuses faster.

1.4 vs. 1.2, that's the only thing that the Canon has going for it.

Both are great lenses, but for the price of the 85L you could buy the 100L and 85/1.4 Sigma.

picturecrazy wrote in post #12395308
If you can handle the 2/3 of a stop less light, the canon 1.8 is SUPERB. I sold my 85L because the 1.8 was so impressive, so small, so quick to focus, so light, and so sharp wide open.

same here. it's amazing what you do if you sell off a $2,000 lens and buy more logical alternatives.
Kudos to your judgment!

pixel_junkie wrote in post #12395141
Nice, I see your hand and I raise you one HERE

For every positive comment for one of the lenses, you can find one for the other ... The point is that people are biased and will try to swing you their way.

Your point is what then? We shouldn't buy anything because whatever one reads about the item is obviously biased?

An informed consumer gathers as much data as possible and makes an informed decision, with an attempt to satisfy their requirements. With regards to the Sigma 85, it is clear that it's performance is close, if not exceeding, that of the 85L. Doubling your lens cost with very little incremental increase in performance just doesn't make sense.

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #12395347
Doubling your lens cost with very little incremental increase in performance just doesn't make sense.

This.

Just doesn't really make sense to get the 85 L right now unless you have a red ring fetish.

I really don't understand how some people can actually think Canon is the only one that can make good lenses and no other company can do the same. Ever.

I have the 85L. I chose it because it was a dream lens... I wanted that lens and no other. Love factor.
But I am totally sure the Sig 85 can be as good as, or even better than it.

From time to time I see some posts praising the 100-400L and that the counterparts (50-500 and 150-500) are far behind. I have the 400L prime and the 150-500. I can tell by experience the 150-500 is a great lens, as good as the 100-400L if not better.

Sigma 50 1.4 is known to be optically better than the Canon.
Come on! The guys from Sigma have the experience and knowledge to make some great lens! Don't get blinded by the red ring!

I would to have loved to get the Sigma over the 85L, but with my experience with Sigma lenses (optically awesome), the AF really sucks. I mean, in low light accuracy drops significantly... My Canon 50 1.8 had better AF in low light then my Sigma 30mm, no contest. I want a lens with really solid AF, and the Canon's are better for that.

I wish the Sigma 85mm did not have AF issues (it has been reported it shares the same issues as other models), as it is so much cheaper. Optically, it looks incredible.

ok, i give in.

If both lenses hit focus and are set at the same aperatures (and you can even throw in the Canon 85mm 1.8) - all shot at say at f2.0 - you will be hard pressed to find a difference.

i state this, even owning the 85L.

there's so much more that goes into an image then the lens used.

subject/light/composit​ion/pp/ect... all of these FAAAAAAAAAAAR outweight the tiny tiny difference between these lenses.

I own the 85L becuase I have a complexity, but the 85mm 1.8 can produce just a stunning as results....

Picturecrazy - and other actual photographers (not pixel peeping, lens testing chart shooters) will openly admit this. I admit this, even owning the 85L.

I find the pixel peeping/lens chart testing crowd get caught up in this stuff the most.

Just make sure your lens is focusing right, and go out and shoot. If your image is great - nobody is going to care what lens you shot it with.

Folks, the Sigma is a $1,000 lens - it better be good. The real bargain is the Canon 85 f/1.8 at $420.

I own the 85L and I'm perfectly happy with it, but I do think it's overpriced at $2150 now - glad I got mine a few years ago when it was $1700.

Interesting topic, I agree about the Sigma being a $1000 lens so I would expect it to be good. I have thought about getting an 85 and from what I have read you seem to get what you pay for. 1.8 good, 1.4 better, 1.2 best. I find with most all lenses you pay a premium for a bit more speed ( 17-40 to 16-35, 50 1.4 to 1.2 etc )

I have used the 85 1.8 and it is very good and honestly probably good enough for me.

The 85mm 1.8 is very good, the Sigma is better, and the L is best. Can't everyone just leave it at that? (I guess not)

Tommydigi wrote in post #12395768
Interesting topic, I agree about the Sigma being a $1000 lens so I would expect it to be good. I have thought about getting an 85 and from what I have read you seem to get what you pay for. 1.8 good, 1.4 better, 1.2 best. I find with most all lenses you pay a premium for a bit more speed ( 17-40 to 16-35, 50 1.4 to 1.2 etc )

I have used the 85 1.8 and it is very good and honestly probably good enough for me.

yup.

wide open it does suffer a little CA, but at 2.0-2.2 its pretty much gone and a great lens overall.

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #12395347
Your point is what then? We shouldn't buy anything because whatever one reads about the item is obviously biased?

No. I only commented in here because I saw that the OP has decided to "buy one of these lenses tomorrow" based on someone's review. My point is that you should test things out for yourself, not listen to what others have to say because everyone is different.

Which one of the two lenses is better I don't know and I don't care, I've made my decision and I'm very comfortable with it. But again, my rational for going the 85L route is very unique to me and my experiences with lenses, may not suit everyone.

Well I went the Sigma route back in February and when it hits, it's fantastic. I did have issues with severe erratic focus issues beyond 10-15 feet and I just got around to sending it in a few days ago. If it can nail focus consistantly beyond 10' like it does in close range, it's a no brainer and a keeper. If it continues to misfocus I might second think about selling it and picking up an 85L. I think this is exactly like the Sigma 50. The biggest complaint was the AF but if you get a good one, you don't let it go and it's an incredible piece of glass.

I think it will still be a few more months and maybe another year before people start accepting it like they do the Sigma 50. You're best bet until then is to find a local shop you can test it out at first before buying and it's easier to trade and get a new copy.

So, this reviewer first mentions under the "good stuff" that "The lens looks cool".

Take it for what it's worth.

I chose canon because of the 85L. But its not really a viable choice for me at the moment. But There's not much I can't do with the 85 1.8 that I can do with the 85L.
I'm interested in the Sigma too, but since my 1.8 suffices.. no reason to "upgrade."