Considering Canon EF85-f1.8 to replace my Siggy 24-70 f2.8

P

puggie

Messages
889
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
Last xmas I bought a siggy 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG as a fast upgrade from my Canon EF28-105mm f3.5-4.5. I'm pretty happy with the IQ from the sigma just not getting on with the ergonomics of it so well. I find the double action of going from AF to MF annoying (you need to flick the usual switch on the lens barrel then slide the focussing collar to engage the gearing to focus manually) and the zoom rotates the wrong way (not such a biggie, I have got used to this but the AF/MF still annoys me a lot), also its a micromotor drive and very noisy and this gives the perception of it being slow (its a bit slower than the canon but feels very crude and rough in comparison).

So I'm thinking of shopping it in for something different, and looking at the EF85 f1.8. My thoughts are the 2.8 is quite quick, but not that fast and the af accuracy is poor in lower light/faster subjects, I find myself shooting at F4-8 most of the time to compensate for the AF and I then may as well be using my old canon, its not as sharp but its very useable if you have enough light. The 85 would give me better low light AF and the ability to tweek focus easily as its a USM lens. I shoot a lot of film and could happily get by with a 28mm 50mm 135mm on full frame, so the thought of using primes is not a problem, and the 85 on my 20D would look very similar to the 135mm f2.5 on 35mm film. I also have an EOS 1v so whatever I go for needs to be full frame compatible. The canon 24-70 or 105L would be ideal but don't have the budget :( I need to keep the spend minimal.

Your thoughts anyone?

EDIT: Jeez that was an epic post for a simple question
 
Now, can you please write the above in english!! lol
 
cam1986 said:
Now, can you please write the above in english!! lol
Click to expand...

Ok...

Got siggy 24-70mm f2.8 EXDG, find it gives good pics but not so nice to use.

Thinking of swapping it for a Canon EF85mm f1.8 to give me better low light focusing and a USM motor for full time manual tweeking.

Not got much budget so new lens must be no more than £100 more than what I would get for the siggy. I have the Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 and nifty fifty as well, and it must be a full frame lens, not just crop.

Sensible idea or not? any better suggestions?

ta :)
 
Its a superb lens, even better at the price you can get them for. My favorite lens, oddly enough probably my least used though but I wouldnt get rid of it.
Very sharp from f2 onwards. Good for macro with a set of tubes.
Matt
 
Last edited:
I'd find 85mm a bit long on a 20D, 50mm being about my limit for anything other than macro on APS-C.

If you are convinced that 85mm is for you then I'd (infact I did) stretch a little more, ok a lot more, for the Siggy 85mm f1.4. My reason being that the Canon lens gives more angled bokeh whilst the Sigma's is much more rounded and I think that that's imortant in a lens like this.

Or you could buy a USM/HSM zoom.
 
Can't afford the siggy 85mm, REALLY want but cannot justify it. I probably shoot more film on the 1V than I use the 20D if I honest and at some point I'll probably upgrade to a 5D Mk1 or maybe even MKII when the 3 is released and S/H prices drop.

What other fast USM/HSM zooms are available in that kinda range, I guess I could stretch to £300-£350ish and second hand is fine.
 
Last edited:
puggie said:
What other fast USM/HSM zooms are available in that kinda range, I guess I could stretch to £300-£350ish and second hand is fine.
Click to expand...

Still on primes... Have you thought about the Samyang 85mm f1.4?

It's a manual lens but it's getting rave reviews... but yet again the bokeh isn't quite up to the Siggy IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
Still on primes... Have you thought about the Samyang 85mm f1.4?

It's a manual lens but it's getting rave reviews... but yet again the bokeh isn't quite up to the Siggy IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon. 85/1.8 is Canon's one of the best lenses given its price tag - arguably the best non-L prime. Full frame performance is something really quite special, unlike Sigma and Samyang 85mm that can't hold on to the scrutiny in the corners. It's easy enough to shoot with the centre of any lens (APS-C cameras) or only look at the centre of the frame. And AF at 85mm is a must. If we were talking f/1.2 then it would be more special, with a very special price tag, but also some extra problems too.
 
daugirdas said:
Oh c'mon. 85/1.8 is Canon's one of the best lenses given its price tag - arguably the best non-L prime. Full frame performance is something really quite special, unlike Sigma and Samyang 85mm that can't hold on to the scrutiny in the corners. It's easy enough to shoot with the centre of any lens (APS-C cameras) or only look at the centre of the frame. And AF at 85mm is a must. If we were talking f/1.2 then it would be more special, with a very special price tag, but also some extra problems too.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for the siggy being soft in the corners full frame? Just interested as most reviews have not mentioned this.
 
daugirdas said:
Oh c'mon. 85/1.8 is Canon's one of the best lenses given its price tag - arguably the best non-L prime. Full frame performance is something really quite special, unlike Sigma and Samyang 85mm that can't hold on to the scrutiny in the corners. It's easy enough to shoot with the centre of any lens (APS-C cameras) or only look at the centre of the frame. And AF at 85mm is a must. If we were talking f/1.2 then it would be more special, with a very special price tag, but also some extra problems too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sorry that I chose the Siggy. I'd choose it every time over any Canon 85mm and against that f1.8... well, bokeh just isn't a contest IMVHO.

As for focus, manual isn't for everyone but some manage to live without it. Probably well over 1/2 and probably 3/4 my shots are MF and as I said, that Samyang thingy has it's fans.
 
menthel said:
Do you have a source for the siggy being soft in the corners full frame? Just interested as most reviews have not mentioned this.
Click to expand...

I own one and use it on FF and it isn't something that's jumped out and smacked me in the face as being a problem.

See here...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

It might be just my eyes but the Siggy looks sharper in the corners at f1.4 than the Canon at f1.8, and every other wide aperture too although this is APS-C, I think.
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
Do you have a source for the siggy being soft in the corners full frame? Just interested as most reviews have not mentioned this.
Click to expand...

ok not soft-soft, but not brilliant either so certainly no landscapes or group shots at f/2.8 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff?start=1
(for the record canon 1.2 is very similar, but then it is 1.2 for the sake of it)

compare that with canon 1.8
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1

very sharp from the start and very consistent. Bokeh certainly looks good enough. One of the best lenses in the bag and the first one I use for portrait work.
 
woof woof said:
I own one and use it on FF and it isn't something that's jumped out and smacked me in the face as being a problem.

See here...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

It might be just my eyes but the Siggy looks sharper in the corners at f1.4 than the Canon at f1.8, and every other wide aperture too although this is APS-C, I think.
Click to expand...

Sorry it is like tasting a cake by licking the icing.

APS-c sees optics very selectively, and magnifies problems including those of user or camera.

'Poor' corners on FF do show very little resolution particularly wide open, but you would nearly never see that on APS-C. it is really best to avoid such lenses. Sadly there are problematic cases like 50mm and 17-40

85mm is a very clear cut example. The cheapest one performs the most uniformly. 1.2 is for the special effects - 1.4 is not special enough and I am talking generically here. is sigma bad lens? No. But there is cheaper and sharper one.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Sorry it is like tasting a cake by licking the icing.

APS-c sees optics very selectively, and magnifies problems including those of user or camera.

'Poor' corners on FF do show very little resolution particularly wide open, but you would nearly never see that on APS-C. it is really best to avoid such lenses. Sadly there are problematic cases like 50mm and 17-40

85mm is a very clear cut example. The cheapest one performs the most uniformly. 1.2 is for the special effects - 1.4 is not special enough and I am talking generically here. is sigma bad lens? No. But there is cheaper and sharper one.
Click to expand...

I guess if sharpness is your be all and end all then that makes sense. However, it's not the same for everyone! And that website is about the only one that complains about the sigma. Most put it at a similar level overall to the f1.2! :)
 
menthel said:
I guess if sharpness is your be all and end all then that makes sense. However, it's not the same for everyone! And that website is about the only one that complains about the sigma. Most put it at a similar level overall to the f1.2! :)
Click to expand...

1.2 is softer than 1.8 and sigma is indeed close to 1.4. Sharpness is important. I shoot studio portraits with 1.8 at 2.8 and don't have to worry about anything, where other lenses would need to go to f/8-11 for the same confidence level. Same thing for land-night-scapes.

I am not having a go at anyone here, but I see so many totally defecteive or totally mis-focused lenses (of any sort) for sale on ebay, photos posted on flickr, etc and they are then described as sharp. I still can't figure out why - do they need to go to spec savers? If it looks like film at 100% or worse, it is not sharp.
 
daugirdas said:
1.2 is softer than 1.8 and sigma is indeed close to 1.4. Sharpness is important. I shoot studio portraits with 1.8 at 2.8 and don't have to worry about anything, where other lenses would need to go to f/8-11 for the same confidence level. Same thing for land-night-scapes.

I am not having a go at anyone here, but I see so many totally defecteive or totally mis-focused lenses (of any sort) for sale on ebay, photos posted on flickr, etc and they are then described as sharp. I still can't figure out why - do they need to go to spec savers? If it looks like film at 100% or worse, it is not sharp.
Click to expand...

Because people have different standards. Also for some of us sharpness is not a holy grail, its how the photo looks overall, its a difference I guess and one probably born of the digital age.

As for the OP, you have a lens that covers the 24-70 range and if you are happy with this then go ahead and do it. If you can get a second hand 85mm then go for it, you will lose very little. I think you would be happy with either the canon or the siggy but at the price the canon can't be beat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top