Need help deciding: Canon EF 100mm f/2 - Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG

I want to purchase a portrait lens but can not decide between these two lenses:
Canon EF 100mm f/2
Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG

These will be used on a Canon 6D. I know about the specs of the two lenses and the Canon would allow a bit more tight portrait shots but the Sigma is a f1.4 lens, although that is not always an advantage with such a shallow DOF.

I have read enough reviews and looked at example photo's for both lenses in the POTN lens sample photo archive.

But I would really like to hear some user advise from members using these lenses and why one or the other lens would better fit my intended use (considering my camera).
Thank you.

Have you considered 100L? Apart for being excellent for portraiture it doubles very well for a macro too!

Thank you for the suggestion, but I really have not interest in macro photography at all.

Between the two I'd go with the Sigma, because I absolutely love the way it renders.

Sigma 85 f/1.4

Sigma 85 hands down....these 2 aren't even on the same class tbh.

Sigma

Two different price points. There isn't any differing opinion on which is better.

The Sigma is a great lens. The 100 is an average lens. If you need 100mm, the 85 can't shoot at that.

Pick your focal length first.

plasticmotif wrote in post #15845364
Two different price points. There isn't any differing opinion on which is better.

The Sigma is a great lens. The 100 is an average lens. If you need 100mm, the 85 can't shoot at that.

Pick your focal length first.

That is true, but I do not "need" the 100mm more than an 85mm. I can use both focal lengths easily. But in this case I will go with the Sigma, it is the better lens and within my budget.

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Just sold my Canon 85mm as I never used it but choosing between those 2 & affording either one I'd go Sigma.

I use the Canon 100mm f/2 regularly as my portrait lens on a 5D and 1DMkIV. I find that it's a perfect focal length for portraits, and f/2 is fantastic for shallow depth of field. I personally, think 85mm is too short for portraits, although I can see how some people would like it for full body shots with shallow depth of field. Considering the huge difference in price, I think the Canon is a no-brainer.

The two you have mentioned arent really in the same price bracket - if these are your two options, I'd make your choice based on budget...you'll get what you pay for.

You may also consider the 135L, a fantastic long portrait lens.

MNUplander wrote in post #15845932
The two you have mentioned arent really in the same price bracket - if these are your two options, I'd make your choice based on budget...you'll get what you pay for.

You may also consider the 135L, a fantastic long portrait lens.

Agreed. The Sigma is a great lens if you can afford it. Otherwise, the Canon is a great budget lens that gives up nothing in quality or performance. Mine has paid for itself many times over with the jobs I've done with it.

The Sigma 85 is a great lens, if you can get a copy with consistent AF.

Unfortunately, I went through two bad copies and gave up.

Sigma weighs 719grams, Canon only 420 grams.
Sigma is 300 grams better!

(I have the 100mm f/2, it is a no nonsense lens that does what it is supposed. The 100 mm IS L macro again is absolutely magnificent even for non-macro stuff. There is some magic there...)