Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 85L

I had the sigma 85, sold it to try the 135L, decided I liked the sigma 85 better.

Mine jack hammered right out of the box
Swapped it and its been great ever since!

When I bought it, I was thinking this would just a stepping stone on my way to the 85L... Have not felt the need to step up!

drzenitram wrote in post #15563882
I had the sigma 85, sold it to try the 135L, decided I liked the sigma 85 better.

In this case though, I haven't heard of to many stories of needing to send in a 135L for servicing. They just work everytime, straight out of the box like a good $1000 lens is supposed to.

Sorry to needle you but I see you are a devoted Sigmatonion and coudn't resist.

Now maybe if Sigma could come up with a Sigma 135 f/2.2 for $350 I may put up with sending it off about a 1/2 dozen times to get it right.

Thorrulz wrote in post #15563936
In this case though, I haven't heard of to many stories of needing to send in a 135L for servicing. They just work everytime, straight out of the box like a good $1000 lens is supposed to.

Sorry to needle you but I see you are a devoted Sigmatonion and coudn't resist.

Now maybe if Sigma could come up with a Sigma 135 f/2.2 for $350 I may put up with sending it off about a 1/2 dozen times to get it right.

Actually, earwax that posted just a couple times ago had to replace his 135L at least once, my copy had inconsistent focusing, and we've seen quite a few reports of 135Ls that have problems here recently. Sorry to tell you

I would buy a sigma 135 f2 OS!

TaDa wrote in post #15563453
To each their own . I'm also not crazy about their support. They once took a month to calibrate a 30 1.4 for me. With Canon, I get my stuff back in 2 days with loaner gear if I need it. For ME, the reliability isn't there for me to trust Sigma. For you it obviously is.

I get a 10 year warranty with my Sigma glass. That beats Canon's measly 1 year hands down. Show me anything else these days that stand by their product for 10 years.

drzenitram wrote in post #15563649
And what do you do when your lens is front focusing a slight amount? You MFA it. What does roger recommend doing with any f1.4 or f1.2 lens(including the 85L)? MFA it. There's no difference, then, in what you would do with a sigma 85 vs an 85L. With either lens, you MFA it.

All the sigma bashing that goes on in this forum is ridiculous.

Yep, and the majority never touched a Sigma. Bunch of parrots.

Hogloff wrote in post #15564035
I get a 10 year warranty with my Sigma glass. That beats Canon's measly 1 year hands down. Show me anything else these days that stand by their product for 10 years.

Sad part is the lens may still work in 10 years, but the newer bodies may very well likely not work with the Sigma lens. That's even with rechipping taken into account. Something else to consider when contemplating whether or not your savings is worth it down the road.

Now I'll bet that the EF mount 85L or 135L will still work on the newer bodies in 10 years.

Thorrulz wrote in post #15564073
Sad part is the lens may still work in 10 years, but the newer bodies may very well likely not work with the Sigma lens. That's even with rechipping taken into account. Something else to consider when contemplating whether or not your savings is worth it down the road.

Now I'll bet that the EF mount 85L or 135L will still work on the newer bodies in 10 years.

I have an 8 year old Sigma that was rechipped free of charge. Works like a charm on my 5d2. Again, Internet garbage roams wild.

I'm trying the Sigma again now that I have a 5D3. I've read reports that the new AF and the Siggy play much nicer together, but we shall see. For the record, I've had 2 copies of the Sigma in the past and both inconsistently focus depending on distance to the subject, but with a 5D2. And despite my experiences, I want to try this lens again because the images are just that good. The copy of the Sigma I currently have is incredibly sharp, sharper than my 85/1.8 and is easily on par with my 135L, if not better. Colors and contrast are also better than the 1.8, but not quite as good as the 1.2.

Based on my experience with these two lenses plus the 85/1.8, the internal dialogue using these three lenses has gone something like this:

85L II - C'mon, focus. Be patient, Shu, it'll get there soon, just wait for it. C'mon, focus. Goodness, this is taking forever... Oh, it's getting closer now. Snap! WOW, this is a gorgeous image. Look at the sharpness, colors, contrast ... just beautiful. I better shut off the notifications on my phone, because the Likes on Facebook are going to come fast and furious. That took FOREVER to focus, though...

Sigma 85 - Focus ... Snap! That was reasonably quick to focus, I can definitely live with that. Wait, did it focus on the tree 10 feet behind the bride? Uh, sure did... I wonder what would happen if I stepped in a few feet. Snap! Ah, that's more like and this image is gorgeous! Oh, daddy likes! Ok, let me step back some, maybe the first image was user error. Snap! Nope, stupid f**king lens! Gosh, the image that hit sure is gorgeous, though; love the warm colors and sharpness. Maybe I can just use this lens exclusively inside 20 feet. That's ok for a $900 lens, right?

85/1.8 - Snap! Wait, did I even hit the button to focus? That was seriously fast! Ok, let me chimp ... yep, focus is spot on and the image is nice and crisp. Colors are a little flat, though, and check out all that CA. Let's take anothe - Snap! I don't even have time to think before this thing focuses. Focus is spot on again, image is very sharp. I can totally improve color and contrast in post. Wait, how much does this thing cost again? $300??

Crap, I think I may have talked myself into just keeping the 1.8.

Photogaz wrote in post #15563101
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

There's more to photos than a test chart of sharpness from one source. Rendition, color, bokeh....

I ended up selling the sigma for the L. Why? Low light AF accuracy was significantly better for me which equated to more keepers even at 1.2

Hogloff wrote in post #15564207
I have an 8 year old Sigma that was rechipped free of charge. Works like a charm on my 5d2. Again, Internet garbage roams wild.

But there is no guarantee it will work. Some of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens made as recently as 2005 didn't work with the 7d when it came out a few years ago. Rechipping wasn't an available option either. That's internet fact and unfortunate but true.

If someone cares to trust Sigma enough to take a chance on their reverse engineering to buy their product, so be it. I and others have had lemons and would like a potential buyer to know there is a greater chance of being disappointed with their product.

I would rather go with a combo of the Canon 85 f/1.8 and a Rokinon 85 f/1.4 manual focus lens. That way I take sole responsibility when a shot isn't in focus.

drzenitram wrote in post #15563493
From Roger regarding the sigma 85:

I wouldn't ever buy a lens as fast as the 85L, sigma 85, or 135L if I couldn't micro adjust them, as almost every fast lens I've ever used has required some MFA. Also, I think that you were an outlier with sigma's support. Most of the stories I've heard about their support said that sigma had their lenses a week, some rare cases were 2 weeks, and some were even less than that.

How on earth did you get by when NO camera bodies had a micro adjust feature? I cant imagine...

pyrojim wrote in post #15564518
How on earth did you get by when NO camera bodies had a micro adjust feature? I cant imagine...

Do you have a problem with Roger's quote? He's a very respected lens reviewer as he sees and tests more copies of lenses than most all the other forum dwellers. They weren't my words, but his.

I have never owned a lens as fast as the 85L or sigma 85 while using a body without micro adjust. If I did, I would either hope that the lens required 0 MFA like my sigma 85 and 35, or live with the lens not being as sharp as it could have been or I would have sent the lens and camera body into the manufacturer for calibration.

pyrojim wrote in post #15564518
How on earth did you get by when NO camera bodies had a micro adjust feature? I cant imagine...

I guess I'm one of the fortunate few to not have to micro adjust all of my Canon lens to my Canon body's.

Thorrulz wrote in post #15564549
I guess I'm one of the fortunate few to not have to micro adjust all of my Canon lens to my Canon body's.

You are! My 50 1.8, 35 f2, 24-105L, 35L, 135L, 85 1.8 x2(both of them), 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 ii, and 100 2.8 macro all required micro adjustment.

The only lenses I've ever owned that required none? Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 35 1.4, Sigma 70-200 OS. Surprisingly enough, after all the lenses I've owned and tested, the latter 3 make up 3/5 of my lenses, the other two being a MF samyang wide angle and a russian MF lens with swirly bokeh.