Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 or Sigma 85mm f/1.4?

AF reliability on the Sigma 85 is in a different class than the 50. I have had no issues whatsoever with the 85. It is not what I would call lightning fast, in fact compared to my 70-200 it is slow but still quite a lot faster than the 85L I tried out. The colours and contrast are great. I always reckon Sigma can be a bit richer or warmer than the Canon equivalent. I have both the 50 & 85 and even though my second copy of the 50 is good I still wish it was as accurate every time as the 85. When I say as accurate the 85 has never missed, where the 50 is still a bit hit & miss in low light or when there is a very poor contrast difference. Build quality on the 85 is good, as is sharpness sooc. I do very little PP with it on the 5D2. It is my favourite lens to use when I shoot people.

Maverique wrote in post #14908065
What's focus shift?

The plane of focus is different at f/2 through about f/4 than it is wide open at f/1.4. You focus at f/1.4 but shoot at f/2.8 and the actual focus plain is further away from you than what you see at f/1.4.

It happens with ALL planar lenses (Zeiss 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Canon 50 f/1.4, 50L, Sigma 50 f/1.4) and is an issue only at close focus distances.

The Sigma performs better at closer focus distances <1.5m. It renders bokeh differently as well so it depends on your preferences as to which you prefer. The zeiss is sharper and I like it's color rendering over the sigma and of course there's that micro contrast and 3d effect that is typical of Zeiss lenses. You really have to try both out to see which suits you but it sounds like the Zeiss is the one that you want.

Hehe... is that so obvious? Yea, I'd like to get the Zeiss. I also have the Distagon 35 f/2 and I was planning to get more ZE glass.
Nevertheless, the debate will remain open until I'll get my hands on the Sigma. I've tested extensively the Zeiss and I'm loving it (McDonalds reference unintended), but that's half of the story. In the meantime, I'm eager to hear as many opinions as possible.

I have the Zeiss 35 F2 and the Sigma 85 1.4. I've never tried the zeiss 85, but not sure I'd want to either. DoF is too narrow at 85/1.4 and i know my keeper rate would go down. My sigma needed +4 and focuses great. I love the images I get from it. Here is one from yesterday:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/groyar/78674965​64/

Had the sigma 85. IQ was really good, but it missed focus more often than I would like. I returned it because overall the value just wasn't there compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8

I would compare the Rokinon 85 1.4 if you are ok with manual focus.

I am good with manual focus only with confirmation chips. But I would not add a confirmation chip myself to a lens, as necessary with the Rokinon / Samyang. I want it factory-built

Reporting back here. I bought the Sigma. Here are the several reasons for that, maybe it will serve someone having the same dillemma:
- it is sharper than Zeiss wide open
- it has very little CA (ZE was a pain in the behind in this matter)
- it has superb AF - even tracking worked very well on 5D2, with central point
- colors are great - not exactly as good as Zeiss, but very close

I had the Zeiss for several days and I put it to all kinds of tests. The last day I shot some agricultural activities, people moving at slow pace or not moving at all. Even the slightest of movement can ruin your shot on MF. You lose important time to rotating the extremely-long-throw focus ring trying to adjust the focus, instead on concentrating on creative aspects, composition and others. It just didn't work for me. I lost enough good shots because of this to make the ZE a no-no for me. I'm still loving the colors, though.

Thank you all for your input.

thanks for the feedback! and best of luck with your new lens

Thanks mate. Cheers!