Just an update: I went ahead and picked up a Sigma 85 and Canon 135L. They're both phenomenal lenses. I was originally planning to keep only one, but I may end up keeping both, selling the 50L and then getting a Sigma 35 in the near future.
The other option is to keep the 50L and Canon 135L and let the Sigma go. Not sure yet what I'm going to do.
I have an 85L II, and I tried a Sigma 85; I did some comparisons, and found that I liked the bokeh from the Sigma better than that from the L, but I ended up returning the Sigma and keeping the L because I found that the L resolved more detail.
I have the 70-200 f2.8 II, but because of its size and weight, I don't find myself using it much. I have the 70-200 f4L IS, and I'm quite impressed with it. I'd much rather use it than the 2.8 if I want f4 or smaller for DOF, which is not uncommon.
I have both 100 macros; for moving subjects, I think the non-L is plenty good enough. For still subjects, the IS can be a real boon.
I also have the 135L, and it's really good; but at that focal length, I'd really like IS (but again, for moving subjects it wouldn't be helpful).
The way you talk about IQ, bokeh, shooting indoors, sticking with Canon for focus accuracy etc. ; along with what you say about loving the 85L II makes me say find one used for $1650 or less and bite the bullet. You have two stellar lenses in the 24-70II and 50L (which I have and agree that they would be my top choices in a two lens kit) and I just can't see you being 100% satisfied with anything else. That said, I just finally broke down and got a 70-200 2.8 IS II and wow! I had used the mark I, but this version is just stellar. It sure doesn't feel heavy after using that 200 1.8L for a few years (which I sadly sold to fund my 70-200II for practicality reasons).
saneproduction wrote:
The way you talk about IQ, bokeh, shooting indoors, sticking with Canon for focus accuracy etc. ; along with what you say about loving the 85L II makes me say find one used for $1650 or less and bite the bullet. You have two stellar lenses in the 24-70II and 50L (which I have and agree that they would be my top choices in a two lens kit) and I just can't see you being 100% satisfied with anything else. That said, I just finally broke down and got a 70-200 2.8 IS II and wow! I had used the mark I, but this version is just stellar. It sure doesn't feel heavy after using that 200 1.8L for a few years (which I sadly sold to fund my 70-200II for practicality reasons)....Show more →
I may end up with the 85L II. But so far I've been really impressed with the Sigma. My first copy had AF issues, but this one does not. It's very sharp at f/1.4, and quite a lot lighter and less bulky than the 85L II. Right now that additional $750 (comparing to the used price of the 85L II) seems better applied toward the 135L or Sigma 35.
While I really do like the 50L, I'm finding I prefer the 35/85 combo in terms of focal length. The 50 is a bit too long indoors sometimes, and not long enough when I want a nice, tighter portrait. I've been doing more "environmental" portraiture lately, and the 35mm is well-suited to that.
With the 24-70 II and 35/85/135 I'd have it all covered. A 24-70 II and 50/135 combo is another option, but again I think I prefer 35 to 50 right now; I use 85 more than 135; but I do like having the choice of the 135 for when I want something longer.
I've done a lot of work and made money with an 85L years ago, but the Sigma 35/85 is very impressive for the money. This time around, got the Sigma 85 over the L.
kezeka wrote:
The 85 1.8 is basically an 85L with significantly faster AF, stopped down, and with slightly less pretty bokeh/color/contrast.
I'd have to disagree with that statement. The 85 1.8 and 85L are totally different beasts. Don't get me wrong, the 85 1.8 is a great little workhorse lens and there is no arguing that the AF on the 85 1.8 blows the 85L (and Sigma 85) out of the water. However, I found a pretty significant difference in bokeh, micro contrast, and detail rendering when comparing an 85 1.8 vs an 85L II. The color fringing on the 85 1.8 is also very apparent, whereas it is much better controlled on the 85L II (and Sigma 85).
The Sigma 85 vs the 85L II is a much different story. The IQ was pretty darn comparable on both, with similar detail rendering and contrast. The colors on the Sigma were a bit warmer. The bokeh on both is a little different, but very pleasing from both lenses. The Sigma has faster AF and slightly better color fringing performance. However, the big things for me was that the Canon 85L II provided almost a full stop shallower DOF with both lenses shot at 1.4 and about a 1/3 stop of extra light when shot at the same f-stop. This isn't even including the benefit of the extra 1/2 stop gain by having f/1.2 available.
If you go to the bottom and look at the pictures on the details in the trees, house, and pinecone, you can see the 85LII is much sharper than the 85 1.8, even when compared with both lenses shot wide open. The 85L II is just that much better. The Sigma is pretty good, but the 85L II is still sharper.
You can see examples of the DOF between the Canon 85L II and the Sigma 85 in the picture of the girl in front of the fence. (Select the Sigma at f/1.4 and then the 85L II at 1.4 and look at the DOF. Canon is much shallower. Now select the Sigma at 1.4 and the 85L II at f/2 and notice the DOF is now about the same. *Note: This applies mostly to the Sigma from f/1.4 to f/2. From F/2.8 on, the differences are still there but much less noticeable).
Having said all of that, I own the 85L II and am biased because it is my favorite lens. If I were to choose between the 3 for cost vs performance, I would absolutely buy a used Sigma 85. However, if you want the best 85 for portraiture, the Canon 85L II is hands down the winner in my opinion.
