Sigma 85mm Portaits (more added)

woof woof said:
Then you are missing out.

I believe in buying the best lens (withing expenditure limits) regardless of the makers name. So far I've never had a single optical issue with any lens, and I own five Sigma's amongst my collection, but if I did get a duff lens I'd either swap it or get it adjusted under warranty.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone has their own experiences. Personally, having owned a Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM I wasn't impressed. I'm not saying I'd never touch a Sigma - as said, my 'gut feeling' would be to stick with Canon.

I have a sneeky feeling that sending my Canon body off to be calibrated against a Canon lens would be an easier ordeal!

I'm far from an expert on this subject, but the whole 'reverse engineering thing'.......... how accurate is it?
 
Last edited:
To each his own, but Sigma arguably make the best len in a few classes now and it's a shame to miss out on that or settle for second best when the lenses come with a warranty.
 
woof woof said:
To each his own, but Sigma arguably make the best len in a few classes now and it's a shame to miss out on that or settle for second best when the lenses come with a warranty.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I'm not writing them off. Just wary.
 
Pop-tastic lens, Joe :nuts:! Congrats on a good (brave) decision (y).
 
10-20 even...

Getting muddled, must be the drugs.


Going back to bed now.

:bonk:
 
Highly debatable? There are plenty of reviews out now.

I was thinking about the Sigma lenses that I own (I'm not a Sigma fan boy, I do have other lenses too) ...

20mm f1.8,
30mm f1.4,
50mm f1.4,
150mm f2.8,
12-24mm.

I think that all of these stand up very well to comparison with the similar Canon lenses (where they exist, they don't in all cases so you have to take the nearest) and could be said to be better although such things may be more a matter of opinion than actual fact, it's an art after all but looking at my own lenses I just can't see any Canon lens at near enough the spec and near enough the price that I'd rather own which is hardly surprising as I made the decision when I bought them.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Highly debatable? There are plenty of reviews out now.

I was thinking about the Sigma lenses that I own (I'm not a Sigma fan boy, I do have other lenses too) ...

20mm f1.8,
30mm f1.4,
50mm f1.4,
150mm f2.8,
12-24mm.

I think that all of these stand up very well to comparison with the similar Canon lenses (where they exist, they don't in all cases so you have to take the nearest) and could be said to be better although such things may be more a matter of opinion than actual fact, it's an art after all but looking at my own lenses I just can't see any Canon lens at near enough the spec and near enough the price that I'd rather own which is hardly surprising as I made the decision when I bought them.
Click to expand...

yep highly debatable (we're debating it aren't we ;) )

more seriously for the two lens I listed the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.4 against the comparable Nikons there isn't a head to head review against the new Nikon 85 1.4 AF-S and it only came out as comparable to the 16 year old Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D (which is a legend)

The 50 1.4 against the newer nikon version - I tried the Sigma twice and both times sent it back, doesn't matter if its sharper (allegedly) if it won't focus

So - like I said debatable :) no idea for the Canons or the other lenses you've listed.
 
I'm in the market for a 85mm prime. But I want to know what the DOF aperture difference is between 1.8 (canon) and 1.4 (sigma).

Could someone with the sigma (please please) take a photo with the subject about 5 feet away and a background about 5 feet behind that at f1.8 and f1.4 so I can see the difference in the background blur (I know the bokeh is better on the sigma).

Cheers !
 
That's kind of what I assumed looking at online DOF calculators. It would appear to come down to the extra 1/2 stop and the overall performance.
 
I have the 85 L which I am very happy with but after seeing some comparisons with the sigma, I'm definitely considering switching.

Does anyone happen to know the approximate hit/ miss rate in terms of getting a good copy?
 
boyfalldown said:
yep highly debatable (we're debating it aren't we ;) )

more seriously for the two lens I listed the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.4 against the comparable Nikons there isn't a head to head review against the new Nikon 85 1.4 AF-S and it only came out as comparable to the 16 year old Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D (which is a legend)

The 50 1.4 against the newer nikon version - I tried the Sigma twice and both times sent it back, doesn't matter if its sharper (allegedly) if it won't focus

So - like I said debatable :) no idea for the Canons or the other lenses you've listed.
Click to expand...

Never had a focus issue with any Sigma, Tamron or Canon lens so I guess the power of positive thinking (and good technique) works for me and I can't understand why you wouldn't get the Siggy calibrated if you wanted one as there's nothing "alleged" about the optical performance of the Siggy 50mm f1.4, if you get a good one and know how to use it of course, enough reviewers say that it's the best in it's class to make it deserve attention.
 
woof woof said:
Never had a focus issue with any Sigma, Tamron or Canon lens so I guess the power of positive thinking (and good technique) works for me and I can't understand why you wouldn't get the Siggy calibrated if you wanted one as there's nothing "alleged" about the optical performance of the Siggy 50mm f1.4, if you get a good one and know how to use it of course, enough reviewers say that it's the best in it's class to make it deserve attention.
Click to expand...

Sigh. It is 'alleged' when it won't focus. Its getting a good one that the issue, and I can't understand why its acceptable to send out so many bad copies of a lens, the odd one maybe but two to the same customer? That's just poor. Although I don't really understand why you think its OK to accept that and unreasonable of me to expect lenses to work out of the box, positive thinking, good technique or anything else won't change that.

Some reviewers say that, but others don't. The 'best on class' is mute if it doesn't work. I think I'll ignore the less tasteful implications about 'knowing how to use it' - suffice to say if you wish to sink to half allegations in a debate then I guess you know you're on too a loser (y)

eta. Reviews are useful to help formulate an opinion, but they aren't the be all and end all, and I'll certainly reference them, but let them tell me what to think, no thanks.

As I said its debatable as evidenced by your robust defence of the Sigma.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
if you get a good one and know how to use it
Click to expand...

How to use it? Is there some form of mystical Sigma 50mm 1.4 shooting techniques we've not heard of? Lol
 
FlyTVR said:
I have to say, my gut instinct is to stick with Canon.
Click to expand...

canon don't make an f1.4

the f1.8 while sharp has its pitfalls with seriously bad CA and the 1.2 apart from being far too expensive suffers from a lot of LoCas wide open. they are both far from perfect when compared to the sigma. if yo are going to shoot at f1.2 then there is no substitute for the canon
 
john.e said:
I have the 85 L which I am very happy with but after seeing some comparisons with the sigma, I'm definitely considering switching.

Does anyone happen to know the approximate hit/ miss rate in terms of getting a good copy?
Click to expand...


seriously why would you swap do you really think your pictures will improve?
 
woof woof said:
Sigma arguably make the best len in a few classes now
Click to expand...

john.e said:
Does anyone happen to know the approximate hit/ miss rate in terms of getting a good copy?
Click to expand...

How very confusing...:bonk: :)

If there is still some confusion as to the hit rate of getting a good copy, then Sigma arguably haven't quite got their act together just yet :shrug:

Personally, I think the images Joe has put up are very very good - gorgeous subject matter helps mind :D
 
posted this one elsewhere but putting it here due to the poptasticness

5379089057_77baa2d36d_b.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Never had a focus issue with any Sigma, Tamron or Canon lens so I guess the power of positive thinking (and good technique) works for me and I can't understand why you wouldn't get the Siggy calibrated if you wanted one as there's nothing "alleged" about the optical performance of the Siggy 50mm f1.4, if you get a good one and know how to use it of course, enough reviewers say that it's the best in it's class to make it deserve attention.
Click to expand...

you are over defensive of sigmas, ive seen you post about this time and again. The fact is if you havent had a bad copy so you havent experienced how much it reduces your confidence in a brand.

i love y 50mm 1.4 but had to send back the first one, if the 2nd had been poor too i wouldnt have waited for a third. its all well and good to say 'just get it calibrated' but its the fact that the qc was poor that makes you wonder if down the line when the warranty runs out if it might break.

Personally, have loved my 4 sigma lenses, 10-20, 30mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and now this one.
 
seriously better than the 1.8s not quite as good as the pro series, but surprisingly good in comparison. Can we move the **** on
 
Hey Joe,

Some very nice examples you have there!

I recently bought a canon 85mm f1.8 and I am really enjoying it.

This lens from your examples does look like a step up from my lens but instead of envy i'm actually more impressed with what my sub £300 lens is able to achieve now.

Also how is working at 85mm for you? I found it easier to get more natural poses from my camera-shy family where I can hide a bit further away and get the framing im used to on the 50.
 
I'd seriously consider one of these lenses if I had the money , sadly I haven't at the moment

As for the Sigma V canon/nikon debate , in a lot of cases (particularly the zooms) the Sigma is sometimes up to half the price of the Canon/Nikon equivalent , surely it would be a bit much to expect the same IQ as the big brands ?

I recently bought a Sigma 24-70 2.8 for my D90 and I think its cracking lens , I'm very happy with it. It does concern me though when I hear people having to return Sigma lenses several times till they get a good copy , to be honest this isn't good enough. how many other firms would still be in business with an "apparent" returns rate such as sigmas ? it also makes me wonder how many sales they're missing out on because people haven't got the confidence to buy their products .
 
mrgas said:
.... it also makes me wonder how many sales they're missing out on because people haven't got the confidence to buy their products .
Click to expand...

I agree, I have used sigma lenses, and the IQ does vary within the range, note this is IQ, and like any other brands can be the case depending on price points. However I don't think its acceptable for lenses to have inherent focus problems after leaving the factory, sure nothing is perfect but it will seriously dent my confidence in a brand if I have to send lenses back more than once.

Back to topic the 85mm looks great, its def worth considering if I was in the market for a short Tele prime. Fortunately that lust was cured by the zeiss a while ago :p.
 
salmoally said:
Hey Joe,

Some very nice examples you have there!

I recently bought a canon 85mm f1.8 and I am really enjoying it.

This lens from your examples does look like a step up from my lens but instead of envy i'm actually more impressed with what my sub £300 lens is able to achieve now.

Also how is working at 85mm for you? I found it easier to get more natural poses from my camera-shy family where I can hide a bit further away and get the framing im used to on the 50.
Click to expand...

I used to have the 85mm 1.8 and there's nothing wrong with it, but once i got a hold of this I sold that one straight away, it's a great lens but even though this costs £400 more, I just can't really love the look this one gives so since i could afford to upgrade am glad I did. I would have been fine with the 1.8 but it's nice to get that next step up.

As for the focal range, don't forget you are using your 85mm on a 1.6 crop so you are effectively at 136mm. I'm at 85mm on full frame so quite a bit of difference. I actually found the 85 on my crop was too long for indoors and only ever really used it outside.
 
Took the 85 to a soft play today, the light was very poor and this was a good test of the autofocus.

Shot this at 1/320 to get the freeze on the movement as it was one of those moving train things, ISO up at 2500 at 1.8, nice and sharp focus on the eyes

5382162424_294c61e1e4_b.jpg
 
POAH said:
seriously why would you swap do you really think your pictures will improve?
Click to expand...

No but f1.2 isn't that important to me so if this lens performs better overall and is cheaper then it's a no brainer really.
 
Just found this thread - some great pictures! I'm now seriously thinking of not getting the Canon 85 1.8 that was on my shopping list and going for a Sigma instead. I'd heard good things about the 50 1.4, so it seems maybe they have got their prime lenses very well sorted. I haven't heard half the "bad copy" stories that seem to go with some of the high end canon lenses either.
 
In regards to the QC of Sigma lenses... I owned a Sigma 17-70mm years ago, that was fine. Purchased a Sigma 50mm a few weeks ago and had to set it to +8 on the AF adjust to get the best result out of it; shame for those who do not have Micro adjust really.

Surely the simple answer to this problem is to buy new (with warranty!), test it out then arrange for calibration under warranty if needed? When I was looking to buy one of these I simply refused to get one without having a warranty to back it up.
 
I would of thought the best solution is for Sigma to calibrate them properly before they leave the factory first time round
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top