hello everyone! I
Printable View
hello everyone! I
The Sigma 85 1.4 is a great lens, no doubt. The 85 1.8 is also, but for the price, the Canon 100 f2 is actually a better choice, IMHO, than the 85 1.8. Depending which body you are using, will depend on which portrait lens to get.
If you have the money, I would suggest the Sigma...it has very nice bokeh, and several people here on the forum have them, but there have been some cases of front or back focusing. It is still worth it, though. Check out Bryan's review of the lens, here..."www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx"
You could always rent one or the other to compare, and make an informed decision afterwards, too..here is an example of it on my 1D4 from when I rented it several months ago...
wide open
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/8611.AI6C3898.jpg[/img]
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/6138.AI6C4143.jpg[/img]
Good Luck
Gregg
Budget? Camera body?
The 85 f/1.8 is a great value. If you really, really want a lens for portraits, and want to save a little money, this is the answer. Very usable at f/1.8, quick AF, great for portraits and sports on either FF or APS-C. I've had excellent results with it on my 7D, especially at 1/125s and faster. It's also great for 7D video.
85 f/1.8 @ f/2.2, ISO 100, 1/400s.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/1024x1024/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/0741.IMG_5F00_6181.jpg[/img]
I also have the 100L Macro. It's a nice portrait lens but is so much more too. Macro is fun. But it's AF is relatively slow, and it doesn't like action shots.
EF 100L Macro, ISO 100, f/4, 1/320s
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/1024x1024/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/6318.IMG_5F00_4710.jpg[/img]
thanks greggf..i
nice samples there kingb...thanks for your suggestion...budget is probably up to sigma
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
I have the 100 f2 and it is a great lens for portraits but is soft at f2 so I use it a f2.8. If you have the money I would go with the 100L
Mark
@CXR..I found some more shots with the sigma 85..here they are...I think you should give it a go.
the first shot is with my 5Dll before I sold it..it is an untouched jpg straight from camera. Focus on the bottom leaves..
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1452.5D2_2600_-Sig-85.jpg[/img]
the next are from my 1D4...
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2626.AI6C3935.jpg[/img]
comparisons at diff f-stops
1.4
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/4375.AI6C3894.jpg[/img]
2.0
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2251.AI6C3895-_2800_Large_2900_.jpg[/img]
2.8
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1307.AI6C3896-_2800_Large_2900_.jpg[/img]
and just another example
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2677.AI6C3903.jpg[/img]
Good luck with your decisions..
Gregg
I've used the 100mm macro and the 85mm f/1.8 but not the 85mm f/1.4, so I'll compare these two only.
I think it comes down to: how important is it to you to shoot at apertures faster than f/2.8? If you want a really fast lens, I think that is the overwhelming consideration, not to mention the fact that the 85 is much cheaper.
On the other hand, my feeling is that the macro is the sharper of the two, and it doublesas a macro lens [:D], plus it has IS. So if price is not a major concern and f/2.8 is fast enough (and it is for many people, esp if you are doing head and shoulders portraits and don't want a crazy thin DOF), then the macro is the clear winner.
If I *only* wanted to do portraits, I think I personally would choose the 85 f/1.8, because I like to shoot at f/2 and faster and because of the lower price. On the other hand,if I had to live with just one of the two for overall usage, I'd pick the macro.
Okay, I said I'd only compare the macro and the 85 f/1.8, but I can't help making one comment about the sigma. After seeing the bokeh comparison in Bryan's review, I actually think I'd choose the 85 f/1.8 over the sigma f/1.4. IMO bokeh is super important for a portrait lens. Again, though, I'm basing that on not very much info (as I say, I've never used the sigma), and lots of people seem to love the sigma.
One more thing just occurred to me: if you
@ greggf - really, really nice set of sample.looks like you got a very good copy of the sigma, seems to be sharp enough & the bokeh is good.
@ jon - thanks man! actually the 100L is in the picture because of the IS and as you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I agree that bokeh is critical. However, one thing worth pointing out is that the Sigma 85/1.4 has 9 rounded aperture blades, whereas the Canon 85/1.8 has 8 blades without rounding. Bryan's example shots don't have any OOF specular highlights in them, but if they did you'd see them showing up as octagons by f/2.8 with the Canon, whereas the Sigma blades don't start showing up until f/4, and are more pleasant even then due to the rounding.
Photozone.de's reviews with both lenses on the 5DII show that the while both lenses have very sharp center performance, the Canon 85/1.8 has better performance away from the center. That doesn't really match up with Bryan's ISO 12233 crops, where the Sigma looks sharper at the edges. I wonder if that's not a result of the oft-reported Sigma QC issues and copy variation, and Bryan got a sharper copy than photozone.de reviewed. Still, note that Bryan states he went through three copies of the Sigma lens, and even the best of the three still has AF issues. That's something to keep in mind if you plan on using AF with the lens (and if you plan on manually focusing, you'll need to use Live View with 10x magnification, or if you want to use the viewfinder, be sure you change out the stock focusing screen for the Eg-S focusing screen).
That is a good point about the shape of the blades, John, though of less importance when the lenses are used close to wide open, as they often will be.
Actually, I don't understand why the f/1.8 looks so much better in Bryan's examples, despite having blades that sound inferior to the sigma. Neither lens has funny bokeh-enhancing correction (that I know of), so I would have thought aperture blades would tell most of the story. But then, there is plenty I don't understand about optics. (I'd love to hear from someone who can explain something of how factors other than shape of aperture blades and spherical under/over correction can bokeh)
This web site seems to be pretty informative: www.bokehtests.com/.../About_Bokeh.html
thanks everyone!!! still deciding though...
Thanks, Daniel.
That is a good site (I think I've read it before). It has a lot of good info, but it doesn't really unconfuse me (I guess that is pretty hard to do [:)]).