Well, today I did a set of comparison shots with the Sigma 85 I just got and the 85L II I already had. Using my 5D II, I shot a juice bottle from about seven feet, with background stuff from maybe 15 to 40 feet away. I was going to post 100% crops of the bottle, but I discovered that I'd made a mistake in micro-adjusting the Sigma, so it wasn't focused exactly enough to give a fair comparison. But I think they're valid for the overall view, with an example of the bokeh in these particular circumstances.
The AF speed is noticeably quicker, and while I didn't exhaustively evaluate its consistency, I didn't notice any problems; it seemed much like an L (not specifically the 85 - typical Ls) in that regard.
The difference I noticed was quite apparent at full resolution. The Sigma just doesn't reach the level of resolution that the L does. When I get the time I'll microadjust the Sigma properly (or manual focus) and show a meaningful comparison of 100% crops.
@ 1.4, the 85L seems to have a more pleasing background blur to me, all the way through f/8 basically. The circular bokeh on the Sigma is a bit more distracting to me, though that could be a fair trade off between AF speed, and some other advantages (price, etc.) to the 85L.
Nice test shots, and thanks for taking the time to show us your results. The warm/darker cast of the Sigma wouldn't be noticable if the shots were shown by themselves.
Seeing this however side by side makes me want to go with my initial feelings to stick with the Canon lens when I am in the market to buy the "L". Even at that, I don't think the premium for the Sigma in my use is worth it's increase over the Canon f/1.8...
jeremy_clay wrote:
anyone else notice the Sigma shows a bit more 'width' (see the window frame right of the Sigma frames) then the L?
Yes, I see it too. Tiny framing differences can occur among lenses of the same focal length because (1) distortion characteristics can vary depending on the design, even among primes; and (2) differences in how angle of view changes as a function of focusing distance may occur because of the presence of internal focusing and/or differences in the optical formula.
A particularly extreme example of the latter point for zoom lenses is a comparison between the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II vs. the Nikkor 70-200/2.8G VR II. Near MFD @ 200mm, both lenses experience a widening of the field of view, but the Nikkor's is much more severe due to the way it is designed. As a result, it has a maximum magnification of only 0.12x, compared to the Canon's 0.21x, that is not completely explained by the approximately 4" difference in MFD.
I'm really impressed with my Sigma. I personally wouldn't buy the 85L v2 (again) over it. I think the AF is much faster than the L and the handful of pics I've taken so far with my 5D2 have been extremely sharp.
"As I indicated in my earlier testimony, Senator," I intend to pursue this further and post some 100% crops after I assure that I've got the Sigma focused properly. When I looked at the large-aperture shots above at 100%, I discovered that it was focused a bit in front of the bottle, so the detail of the bottle wasn't representing what the lens is really capable of. The L shots, even at 1.2 & 1.4, were just stunning in their sharpness and detail. I really want to see how the Sigma compares when it's properly focused, but I've had other fish to fry this afternoon and evening, and now it's time to retire...
terenceng:
Well, you're seeing examples of how they compare in a specific set of conditions; that's really why I posted those shots. What exactly do you mean?
other than a more thorough testing in sharpness that you plan on doing, next in line should be AF accuracy and consistency. If it trumped the 85L 2 in AF performance then the 'slightly' inferior sharpness can be overlook, we can tweak sharpness during PP, but can't do jack if it has erratic AF performance.
By the way, thank you so much for taking the time to show us some initial comparison shots between Sigma and 85L2, appreciated it man.
