Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 85L

From thedigitalpicture chart samples, the Sigma at f1.4 outperforms the Canon. Is this actually the case.

While I would like f1.2, I really don't want it if at f1.4 the Sigma beats it as that would be more important to me.

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

Unless you can get some hands on testing yourself with the Sigma, I would go with the Canon lens. There are just too many people having trouble with the Sigma Primes. If you want to play the Sigma lottery and buy online then you may return a few to get an accurately focusing one.

I used to swear by Sigma lens until the QC went in the crapper. Now I swear at them.

Note: Whether or not you shoot at f/1.4 much, if the lens doesn't focus properly at f/1.4 then it isn't going to focus any better at f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/8 and so on.

Some people just dunno how to use a fast prime properly, or expecting to nail focus every single time. Therefore blaming the Sigma....whereas when the same thing happens to a 85L, people will tell you there's a steep learning curve.....

So the 85mm still suffers from the Sigma lottery problem. I know the 35mm is suppose to not have the issues.

kin2son wrote in post #15563135
Some people just dunno how to use a fast prime properly, or expecting to nail focus every single time. Therefore blaming the Sigma....whereas when the same thing happens to a 85L, people will tell you there's a steep learning curve.....

I primarily shoot with primes so I know how to use them and do expect a fair amount of missed focus shots depending on the situation. The problems being reported by the Sigma owners far exceed any complaints by the Canon users.

Photogaz wrote in post #15563142
So the 85mm still suffers from the Sigma lottery problem. I know the 35mm is suppose to not have the issues.

Alongside the "jackhammer" issue some users have reported with this lens, here is a direct quote from the review on the site that you linked to in your first post.

"I have been using the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens a lot over the last few months with a frame count in the thousands. I find this to be a very useful lens - and one I really like to use. When I get an accurately-focused image, I really like the image quality from the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens - it is really nice. But accurate focusing is this lens' definite weakness - getting accurate focus has been an issue."

If you read between the lines of all the sellers on here that "love" the Sigma but are moving up to the Canon 85L f/1.2 then you'll have your answer.

85L I is tested on 1Ds Mark II
Sigma is tested on 1Ds Mark III

Bodies also make a big difference regarding sharpness.

The 85L II is clearly sharper and produces MORE background blur than the Sigma , even at F 1.8(Canon) vs F 1.4(Sigma), considering this review. http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …X-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Quite incredible, tbh

Unsure if it has been ironed out, but from what I gather thesedays Sigma's 85 is one of their best performing primes - including (seemingly) their new 35. It isnt really known for having focus inconsistencies, the AF jackhammer is/was the main problem with it, but it doesnt seem as common anymore, maybe they fixed it on newer versions?

My copy is pin sharp at f1.4 and very accurate. The only time I miss the focus is when I shoot too wide on moving subjects, I haven't noticed any inconsistencies with mine. And because of this, I quite often shoot it around f1.8 or f2 to give me a slight bit of room for error. But when I want to demolish the background, I shoot at f1.4. It's bokeh is beautiful.

Canon's goes to 1.2 (obviously), and is perhaps 2% sharper and 2% better contrast and 2% creamier, and it is said to be "sexier" if you get your jollies on lenses, although Sigma's is still a nice lens aesthetically and is nice to stare down front on - but for what you pay I think the Sigma is far better bang for your buck.

From what I have read/seen, both have CA but Canon's is no less than Sigma's perhaps more, Sigma's is faster to focus (although still not a fast focussing lens), I think I read somewhere Canon's border bokeh balls to out of shape, not so much on the Sig.

You want the best? Get the L.

You happy to settle with 98% of the L for 40% of the price? Sigma's should be in your sights.

Recently added sigma 35/1.4 to my collection. I have to preface this by stating I'm a noob amateur, but of the lenses that I have, at similar aperturers, the L lenses do not perform any better than nonL, canon or 3rd party. As far as sigma, I always buy 3 copies, and keep the best return the rest. I have a few 50mm primes, from canon and sigma, and at similar apertures, can't tell the different. I'm not a pro, don't REALLY know how to look for corner sharpness, CA, vignetting, and any of that other stuff. Althought I have a FF, shoot exclusive with 7D, all the bad stuff that happens in the corners I don't see them.

regards

The Sigma is an excellent, excellent lens and more versatile than the sloooooow 85L. If you're shooting with a camera with an advanced AF system, give the Sigma a try. There are plenty of reports that suggest the lens behaves much better on a camera like the 5D3.

kin2son wrote in post #15563135
Some people just dunno how to use a fast prime properly, or expecting to nail focus every single time. Therefore blaming the Sigma....whereas when the same thing happens to a 85L, people will tell you there's a steep learning curve.....

same with 35L. 50L is somewhat unique where it's focus shift is well documented.

I'd only buy the Sigma if I were able to test the particular sample first. Though the same would go with any expensive lens. There is a lot of sample variation with any lens. Over all the Sigma seems like a great lens with a very nice price. You can get both S85 and S35 for the price of 85L or less.

I've lost too many times in the Sigma lottery to trust them anymore. Even if the Sigma could come open up to 1.2, I wouldn't consider it based purely on MY experiences with their quality control.

Love my sigma 85. It's an amazing lens. I had rented the 85L for weddings and events a few dozen times, but I prefer the sigma because it still makes that "magic look" that the 85L gives with subject separation, but it focuses much faster than the 85L. I also prefer the colors and the look of the bokeh from the sigma. The only thing the 85L does that the sigma doesn't is 1/3 stop of light, which is nice, but not worth dealing with slower AF and paying $1000 for when I love the colors and bokeh and "pop" of the sigma so much.

If you put all the sigma fast primes in order from most AF problems to least AF problems, the list would go: 50 1.4, 30 1.4, 85 1.4, 35 1.4. There is, however, a huge gap between the number of AF problems from the 30 1.4 and the 85 1.4. Also, with the 85 1.4 I've never seen a single case where a person had AF issues and sending it in to sigma didn't fix it.

So, 80+% of the time you'll probably get a perfect copy of the sigma 85 when you buy it, but if you don't, then send it in to sigma and in a week or two you'll have that perfect copy, all for $1000 less than the 85L.


I think the sigma "lottery" consists of people buying used lenses, finding that they have AF issues, and selling them to other people used instead of just sending them in to be calibrated.

For the record, I bought two new sigma lenses, and they were horrible. I live in NY so drove out to Sigma and they calibrated them to the body. Was better, but not perfect and then the focus got worse over time again. I could just have crap luck, but overall when you're reverse engineering technology, there are sure to be issues