Which? Canon 85mm 1.8 vs Sigma 85mm

I've always been in love with the 85L, but its just too darn expensive. I've been using the 85 1.8 for awhile, but is the Sigma worth the upgrade? Assuming i get a good copy

I will mostly be shooting portraiture and weddings in combination with my 35L (on two bodies).

If you need the f1.4, it is going to be worthit. If you usually shoot above f2, you probably see much difference.

The sigma 85 is a very good lens from the reviews and a worthy challenger to the 85L. Just make sure you are going to use what you pay for - the f1.4

Portraits and weddings? Sigma for sure. The canon 1.8 has faster AF, which can come in handy for sports. But for non sport events, the Sigma's rules supreme due to the better bokeh and sharper image when stooped down.

I own(ed) all 3 of the variants (1.8, Sigma, and 85L) so I can chime in. IMO, the Sigma is def. worth the upgrade. The bokeh is incredibly smooth and the colors/contrast are fantastic. For portraiture, the Sigma is an excellent choice - I highly recommend it.

The Canon 85 f1.8 had too much purple fringing for me, and after 2 bad copies of the Sigma (AF issues), I gave up. Between the 2, I would go for the Canon. If you are shooting full frame, the 100 f2 or the 100 L might compliment the 35 L nicely.

I have the 85/1.8...the pf doesn't rear it's head for me often...depends what you shoot. Mine is also very sharp, wide open. I am not tempted by the other 85's. The Sigma, well, I don't like to play Russian roulette with lenses (will it properly ficus) or the 85L which may be too slow to AF for my use and suffers from pf itself.

I don't particularly like having the background/foreground rendered as complete mush. It's not something I like to shoot very often so the slightly quicker lenses don't hold much appeal to me.

If I didn't already own it, I would probably consider the other 2 but I'm not not sure I would end up with one other than what I have, right now.

I have the 85f1.8 and I am happy with mine. It is sharp, focus is very fast, and I don't need faster than f1.8 in this focal length. It all depends on your needs.
Mine hasn't shown any purple fringing, but I generally avoid shooting into the sun.

1.4 vs 1.8 doesn't concern me so much, but optically is it much better?
enough to warrant a $500-600 difference?

See these:
http://www.slrgear.com …ct.php/product/​154/cat/10
http://www.slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​331/cat/30
If you are shooting at f2.8, I doubt that you will see a difference. At f1.8, the Sigma may be sharper.
My Canon lens is very useful wide open for portraits, but it does get sharper stopping down. Color reproduction may differ - you will have to judge that for yourself. My Canon lenses seem more natural to me, but Sigma lenses take nice photos. I have seen some very nice pictures from their 85f1.4.
If all your camera bodies have microadjust, that might help make the Sigma a good choice.
For me, the price difference wouldn't justify the Sigma. I am happy with the sorts of images I get from the Canon. If you like your lens, the Sigma is a gamble that may or may not be worth the investment of the extra money.

The bokeh on the sigma 85mm 1.4 is NOT smoother then the canon 85mm L 1.2 mkII that is why you pay the extra $$$ for. other then that, the sigma 85mm is an awesome lens.

I took over 250 pictures this weekend with Canon 85 while visiting our local botanical garden and I have noticed maybe one or two pictures with purple-fringes (only after I really looked for it...*hint* pixel-peeping). It was a very bright day and plenty of contrasting scenes.