Canon 200mm F2 IS vs Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art sneak peak

Just a quick sample. Very difficult matching focus point with these two lenses. I'll have to do a proper test outside in some good light and on a tripod. I took samples of areas that were close. Consider this kinda a preview

yes i screwed up on peek in the title. I believe the focus points are just a smidge off but again I'll have to do manual focus on these to get them truly perfect. It's difficult considering how shallow they are.

100% crops

And a continuation alignment of the two...

Interesting comparison. The 200L still holds its own against newer competition

Interesting also how the exif data show "24/1.4 II @ 85mm" for the Sigma shot.

Being a non-apochromatic lens, I would be surprised if the Sigma were sharper in the plane of focus.

Pekka hasn't gotten around to adding the Art into the database. You'll notice the 5D4 that Talley shot with isn't shown either

Canon 200 is the clear winner especially into corners. But I was surprised by how well the sigma did being a 1.4 glass.

Not a good test at all

Take the 200L outside and do a 1/2 body portrait v/s the 85mm 1.4

as a matter of fact take a 135L out as well. shoot a client with a 1/2 body shot with all 3 lens and you will clearly see why a 200L costs $5000.00

200L is in a league of its own. 135L is a close 2nd. 85's are the next spot for the majority of us

umphotography wrote in post #18198984
Not a good test at all

Take the 200L outside and do a 1/2 body portrait v/s the 85mm 1.4

as a matter of fact take a 135L out as well. shoot a client with a 1/2 body shot with all 3 lens and you will clearly see why a 200L costs $5000.00

200L is in a league of its own. 135L is a close 2nd. 85's are the next spot for the majority of us

Find me a UA or newer 135 for 650 and your wish is my command. I'd be glad to perform this.

...but your talking about the overall look, contrast, bokeh etc... and I get it. The 200L is above and beyond. This was just a simple central sharpness vs one of canons best.

Thats all Oh... I wish I could shoot clients but for me I'm just a dad with a camera. I shoot my kids and somewhere in between I get to shoot other stuff when I get the chance. ... mostly coffee mugs and corndog boxes

200L is insanely good. Just the look of the first image has a special feel to it.

You get what you pay for I guess.

Gotta say, the fact you have to compare the 85 Art to a lens almost 5 times its price speaks volumes. But I agree with umphotography, try to find a human and take it outside.

blooninja wrote in post #18199530
Gotta say, the fact you have to compare the 85 Art to a lens almost 5 times its price speaks volumes. But I agree with umphotography, try to find a human and take it outside.

Will do

umphotography wrote in post #18198984
200L is in a league of its own. 135L is a close 2nd. 85's are the next spot for the majority of us

I have owned these 3 lenses now for 4+ years and I totally agree.
I have done a review of the 200L in this forum if anyone is interested.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1410501

blooninja wrote in post #18199530
Gotta say, the fact you have to compare the 85 Art to a lens almost 5 times its price speaks volumes. But I agree with umphotography, try to find a human and take it outside.

Just a quick shot....

And a fuller size of each.

Again not really fair to compare 85mm to the 200mm since the tele lens will bring the background closer but I get what your wanting.