Canon 85mm 1.2 or Sigma 85mm 1.4?

[greggf]

I too am waiting for the Sigma. If it has the dreamy quality that my sigma 50 has, it'll be a winner for the price!!! Not to say that the 85 1.2 isn't great, it's just EXPENSIVE!! Trying to save my budget.


Here are 2 pics with the 1.2 taken 2 weeks ago(a friend let me borrow it for the shoot((thanks,Pierre, BTW)). They are both at 1.2, shot on 5D2....let me know what you think. It is a great lens.....edit...the second shot, Houston's hair looks a little weird(I think it was the downsizing!!)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_4783.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_4802.jpg[/img]

[Keith B]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.

I want this lens sooo bad ...along withyour skill using it!!! These photos are awesome!



Denise

Thanks Denise. You are way too kind. The light used was the 36" Photok Soflighter that I always tout. Obviously a lot of ambient comes into play at the wide apertures used.








Gregg


Those are great shots. The first shot is what I was talking about earlier when you back up a little you can really isolate a full length subject.

[Keith B]

Didn't see this before.

Yep, I understand the issue of distance. But, even at 13 feet (more likely a studio situation), it would still make me upset that the ears weren't in focus. I've taken plenty of studio shots with the 85 f/1.8 (mostly stopped down) and have never been disappointed with the sharpness, color, contrast. I get the ears in focus, too. [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img] The price to achieve that is a fraction of the 1.2L, which wouldn't be necessary in a studio-lighting environment.


But, as Mike said, he's not interested in studio shots. Drab environment, poor lighting....I guess it's worth $1700 for that. [img]/emoticons/emotion-18.gif[/img]

I think I understand why people say these things but they still kind of get me.


Well I'll say this and accept the attacks; There is more than an f/stop of light difference between the 1.2 and 1.8. Shoot with the 1.2 sometime. I have seen many of images from the 1.8 cross my desk(top) over the years and they were great but they weren't near the 1.2.


The shots I posted above were shot with studio type light but I still used 1.2-2.0 to achieve a softer look. With the studio light I could have very well shot higher f/stop. In fact I put my 24-70 on so I could wide and tight without changing lenses and both the art director and myself were unenthused after seeing the images shot at the wider apertures. Even the 85 at 2.8 was really different than the 24-70 @70 and 2.8. Bokehs weren't even comparable.


It is nice to have a lens this fast when you get an AD that says "I want that dreamy look like this image I got off istock." It is not good when you tell someone you can't. "Yes I can" is going to bring me a lot of work that will offset the additional $1500. Believe me there are a lot of discernible art directors out there that do see the difference between the 1.8 and the 1.2. And they usually don't like hearing "I can smooth the bokeh out in post."


You don't always shoot at 1.2 but it is a powerful utility even in good light. You never have to make excuses.


I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.


This emperor is pretty happy with his new clothes even if some people can't see them. I know they are there.

[greggf]

Keith,


Thanks for the kind words of the above shots.


And I have to agree with him on the usage of the 85 1.2. during the same photo shoot, I also used the 70-200 2.8ll, and whilst quite awesome at blurring the background, and isolating the subject, it (the 70-200@200), still doesn't have the effect that the 85 does. Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!


That being said.....I am still looking forward to the Sigma 85 1.4. Not a huge diff between 1.2 and 1.4, but I still prefer my Sig 50 to the 50 1.2(and it has had some focus shift), and I am hoping that Sigma has avoided the focusing problems, this time around. My Sig 50 just has a look to it that begs to be duplicated...I believe that this new 85 will, too.

[Keith B]

Keith,


Thanks for the kind words of the above shots.


And I have to agree with him on the usage of the 85 1.2. during the same photo shoot, I also used the 70-200 2.8ll, and whilst quite awesome at blurring the background, and isolating the subject, it (the 70-200@200), still doesn't have the effect that the 85 does. Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!


That being said.....I am still looking forward to the Sigma 85 1.4. Not a huge diff between 1.2 and 1.4, but I still prefer my Sig 50 to the 50 1.2(and it has had some focus shift), and I am hoping that Sigma has avoided the focusing problems, this time around. My Sig 50 just has a look to it that begs to be duplicated...I believe that this new 85 will, too.

Gregg


I have been a fan of the images I have seen come from the Sig 50. Far, far more than the Canon 50 1.4. I owned the Canon and never liked using it. I think if I cave and get another 50mm it will be the Sigma. I like the images I see from the Canon 1.2. It's focusing issues don't concern me too much, I usually have pretty good luck with tough focusing lenses, but owning the 85 1.2, and the 35 1.4 I don't want to spend $1500 to fill that gap.


The Sigma 85 certainly sound interesting and looks really nice. I wouldn't be concerned about the difference between 1.2 and 1.4.

[neuroanatomist]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.

Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!

I hear statements like this quite frequently,and the wonderful shots you both posted (thanks!) back them up rather effectively. That makes me wonder about the rationale for this:

I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.

Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John

[Brendan7]

I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.

Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John

I think what he meant was that for an amateur, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4/f/1.8 isn't a difference big enough to justify the difference in cost (But heck, if you have $1900 and feel like losing it buy the 1.2!!!). But for a pro who needs/is dependent on/could profit easily from the larger aperture, the 1.2 lens becomes a better value.

[Fast Glass]

Also due *probably* from the very shallow DOF off/1.2. But f/1.8 aint exactally deep DOF either. An ameture will think. Geez, and I can't even get the whole face in focus. Even my kit lens can do that![]


Also to make this lens really shine it needs to be on a FF, which most ametures do not have.


John

[Keith B]

I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.

Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John

I think what he meant was that for an amateur, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4/f/1.8 isn't a difference big enough to justify the difference in cost (But heck, if you have $1900 and feel like losing it buy the 1.2!!!). But for a pro who needs/is dependent on/could profit easily from the larger aperture, the 1.2 lens becomes a better value.

Pretty much what Brenden said. I would never tell someone not to get it, but at the same time I hate gushing over how really awesome the lens is and be the factor that throws someone over board to make an investment they won't really reap the benefits of. It has nothing to do with ability just cost justification. I know there are thousands + with more ability than me, I'd never be so bold.


Like A LOT of folks base the quality and value of a lens on sharpness and the 1.8 will definitely give you that. The 1.2 gives you sharpness and a lot of character not found in other lenses (not saying the 1.8 doesn't have any character). If sharpness is all you crave then the 1.2 may be a waste of $1500. A lot of folks have said stopping this lens down to 1.8 is a waste of $1500 but I will tell this lens at f/2 created an unreal dreamy bokeh like I have never seen before. Even f/4 is still unbelievably smooth. The sharpness is undeniably there, but sharpness is what it is. A lens is either sharp or it isn't. The 1.2 is a mind boggling combination of sharpness and buttery softness that can make you brain hurt from sensory overload.


If you have the cash and it won't make you miss a car or mortgage payment. If you have a deep down body need for super shallow DOF and really can see the bokeh difference between the 1.2 and 1.8 at comparable f-stops (it is substantial, but some don't see it), then buy the lens. you won't hate it. I guarantee that.

[Jonathan Huyer]

This forum is very timely, since I just got the lens as a birthday present. I am definitely one lucky guy! Here's a shot from the Calgary Zoo (I love the zoo). I kept the lens at f/1.2 the whole time I was there, since it was so much fun. The only "problem" I encountered was not being able to capture a shot in bright light conditions, because the exposure was requiring a shutter speed faster than the camera limit of 1/8000s (!).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.37.25/IMG_5F00_2132.jpg[/img]