Need your opinion - Sigma 85 or 135L?

Haha you guys going at each other again.

I ain't surprised but

Sirrith wrote in post #16071108
Why not just use your 100L as a portrait lens as well as a macro lens?

No, because I have 70-200II

The 100L is no better than the zoom apart from weight and size.

Don't get me wrong I think the zoom is great, but as said there's certain quality with either of these primes that the zoom can't quite match, maybe I'm just a sucker of shallow dof and the (almost) 3D-like separation

Sirrith wrote in post #16071180

Originally Posted by TheLensGuy
Never used 135L, but all I can say is stay away from Sigma 85. It's probably the most inconsistent lens ever made in terms of focus.

This is probably the most ignorant post I've read all

He strikes again, with his anti Sigma antics.


I haven't owned 135L, but from what I see I'm not sure that it really offers any thing better than the 70-200, so I feel the 85 would give you the best point of difference.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be arrogant or aggressive, just stating my own experiences. Of all the Sigma lenses I have used over the years, the 85mm was, by far, the worst one. It was just a horrible lens. We can argue here day and night about the 35mm or even the 50mm, but the 85mm is just horrible - no contest. I won't even consider it when it comes to comparing 85mm lenses with the 85L II.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16071247
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be arrogant or aggressive, just stating my own experiences. ....

Ok!?!
---------------

To Kin2son. I know you've thought of this in your head, but which FL (or lens) do you use/fancy the most? Go for that.

I would go for the 135L, but that is because I've heard it is faster focusing than the S85 (I've never used), and there are times when I need the speed. That is me, not you - you might not need the speed (or the S85 might focus as fast).

I went the 85mm f/1.8 (I know you don't like that lens) as a compromise. When I want primes, I'll take the 85 or the 100L with the 35L and the 135L, but I will almost never take both. I consider the 85mm or 100mm close enough to switch out. Which I take depends on if I think I need to get close (100L), or if I need speed (aperture and AF - 85). Too bad for me there is no 70/80mm f/2.8 macro with stabilization for Canon. Currently I could/would not justify a high priced 85 (S or L) and the 100L while owning the 135L.

Hopefully that didn't just ramble and it helps.

You've owned both of these lens so why are you asking strangers of what they would do. You have direct experience with these lens...surely you can make a better decision than some unknown on the net.

Sirrith wrote in post #16071180
This is probably the most ignorant post I've read all week.

Clearly you don't read many posts of his...

Oops did I say that out loud?

Hogloff wrote in post #16071318
You've owned both of these lens so why are you asking strangers of what they would do. You have direct experience with these lens...surely you can make a better decision than some unknown on the net.

Although logically you make a lot of sence, I can still see the need to ask the question for assurance reasons.

Focal lengths excluded from the debate, the 135L is hands down a better overall performer than the Sigma 85. Focusing, colors and bokeh quality are all in favor of the Canon. There is a reason why the 135L thread on here is one of, if not the most active and updated.

Only you will really know though which focal length works best for your type of photography though.

Also had the 85.8. Hated it. If I were you I'd pick up the Sigma. I rather be closer to my subjects, and you seemed to be happy with one.

jimewall wrote in post #16071314
I would go for the 135L, but that is because I've heard it is faster focusing than the S85 (I've never used), and there are times when I need the speed. That is me, not you - you might not need the speed (or the S85 might focus as fast).

I've used my sigma 85 to shoot indoor highschool basketball, and its AF speed was plenty fast for that.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16071382
Focal lengths excluded from the debate, the 135L is hands down a better overall performer than the Sigma 85. Focusing, colors and bokeh quality are all in favor of the Canon. There is a reason why the 135L thread on here is one of, if not the most active and updated.

Only you will really know though which focal length works best for your type of photography though.

Thor, that's just really not true. If anything, the performance difference between the 135L and Sigma 85 is debatable, neither one is "hands down" better than the other, not even close. My Sigma 85 doesn't focus as fast as my 135L did, but the difference is negligible and the 85 focused more accurately and more consistently. The colors are different, but that's not to say that either is better. Both lenses provide very high quality color saturation. The story is the same with the bokeh. Personally, I prefer the bokeh of the 85, that's one of the main reasons I sold the 135L and went back to the sigma 85. Bokeh quality is always subjective, always.

So no, there is no "hands down better" lens here. As an owner of both lenses, I chose the sigma 85.

kin2son wrote in post #16071191
No, because I have 70-200II

The 100L is no better than the zoom apart from weight and size.

Don't get me wrong I think the zoom is great, but as said there's certain quality with either of these primes that the zoom can't quite match, maybe I'm just a sucker of shallow dof and the (almost) 3D-like separation

In that case, since you've owned both, I agree with Hogloff, you should decide yourself

If it were me, I'd probably go 135L because I've been dying to try it out properly and I do like the 135mm focal length a lot.

FEChariot wrote in post #16071338
Clearly you don't read many posts of his...

I just haven't read many posts this week

I'd get the Sigma 85. The 135L is great but I never used it again after I got the 70-200 II. The Siggy 85 offers something different than 70-200 II : 2 stop faster. Plus the focal length is more versatile than 135L.

Only question is that you 've got Siggy 35, 50 already, I wonder with the addition of the 85, one of 50 and 85 will probably not get used much.

drzenitram wrote in post #16071426
I've used my sigma 85 to shoot indoor highschool basketball, and its AF speed was plenty fast for that.

Thor, that's just really not true. If anything, the performance difference between the 135L and Sigma 85 is debatable, neither one is "hands down" better than the other, not even close. My Sigma 85 doesn't focus as fast as my 135L did, but the difference is negligible and the 85 focused more accurately and more consistently. The colors are different, but that's not to say that either is better. Both lenses provide very high quality color saturation. The story is the same with the bokeh. Personally, I prefer the bokeh of the 85, that's one of the main reasons I sold the 135L and went back to the sigma 85. Bokeh quality is always subjective, always.

So no, there is no "hands down better" lens here. As an owner of both lenses, I chose the sigma 85.

The 135L is faster, more accurate and more consistent in focusing than the Sigma 85. That's a very important edge right there for the 135L. I tried out the Sigma 85 in store and it could only come up with a 1 in 3 in focus hit rate at f/2. The 135L is made to be used wide open and not closed down as many other lens need to be to attain desirable sharpness. I would have hated to see what the keeper rate would have been for the Sigma at f/1.4.

While you or others may prefer the colors or the bokeh of the Sigma, it is a strength of the 135L and many more individuals do prefer the Canons more natural saturated colors.

I still believe though it comes down to the focal length to which the OP prefers though as to deciding which lens would best suit them.

I am find that for kids 85mm is better focal length than 135mm. Once I got 85mm f1.4, I sold my 135L just like when I sold my previous 135L after getting 70-200mm f2.8 IS II.

If you can swing it, 85L.