sigma 85 mm 1.4 vs canon 85mm 1.2 v2 ??? what should i do ?
387098
I really happy with these lens Its great for the price and the performance in my opinion, The canon 1.2 i had used it but for me its slow to focus and the price to high i looks nice the size of the glass but no way i will get that lens if you have the money then its a different story
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
387100
I have rented both of them. Compared the results. No difference. Save yourself a grand and buy the Sigma. I love it and have never regretted it or looked back.
387101
This is a matter of personal choice, and finances....the Canon lens is about twice the price of the Sigma. You gain a stop of light. I use this lens for portraits, and get spectacular results. The bokeh is beautiful. However, at 1.4, it is entirely possible to lose focus on the subject's back eye. I did use it for an event, too....and opened it all the way up....beautiful shots.
387102
The Sigma 85mm is a damn good lens at a damn good price.Sigma also includes the hood and padded case.I use this lens for portraits, nudes,and weddings.Perfect companion to the Canon 18-200mm lens.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
224165
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664 The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
40105
The 1.4 is going to give you better bokeh (that beautiful blurry light) and a shallower depth of field. It also lets more light in. Hope that helps!
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
1732814
Not sure what kit you have. I have Pentax. From what I read, and judging by the price, the 18-35 1.8 may be better, but the 17-70 has a longer reach which comes in handy for a walkaround lens. I have the Pentax FA 50 1.4 prime, and the Sigma can match it at 50mm, so long as there is enough light and you can shoot faster than say 1/20. I have almost retired my 35mm 2.4, 40mm2.8 and 50mm 1.4 primes since I got the sigma, since I have on the Pentax K3 most of the time. Of course I will use the primes under certain conditions, but for a walkaround, the sigma does an excellent job. I considered the 18-35mm, but since I already have this one, I will be interested if the improve IQ is worth the extra money, since the 17-70 has the extra reach.
1249479
I have the Canon 50mm 1.4. The Bokeh is not very good. not a good choice for macro. I'm now looking for a macro lens.
838888
I have not owned that lens so I can not tell you. I would say that the 85 can be occasionally slow to focus in comparison to my 50 1.8d.
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
758396
I think the viewfinder on the 2 is better; you get a slightly faster lens speed....1/2000th on the 1 and 1/4000 on the 2. I'm sure there are other differences, but as an owner of the 1, I can tell you that they weren't significant enough for me to buy the 2.
543324
My copy of the Sigma was horrendous. I had to send it back. Ended up buying the 35mm version of the Sigma (the new Artisan series) and that one's MUCH sharper than the equivalent Canon 1.4.
1966948
Sigmas are known for focusing issues - play it safe and go Canon for sure. Plus if you graduate to full frame you'll still be able to use it.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
48833
I would consider the 85mm 1.4 or 105. The 35mm is great but not my main portrait lens.
75253
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikoni know it's been a while but that may give some insight.i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.