Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art

DannH wrote:

I currently shoot 95% of my outdoor portraits with the Canon 135 F2, which produces fantastic results. I considered replacing my Canon 85 1.8 a while back with the Sigma 85 1.4 art but opted for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art instead at the time as felt the focal length would get more use for indoor shots.

I'm now re-visiting the idea of the 85 1.4 art, I like the focal length, but rarely use my Canon 85 1.8 as it just doesn't have the same wow factor as the 135 f2.

I'm after others opinions on:

a. I'm aware that the Sigma is optically very good, but for those that have owned the Canon 135 F2 and Sigma 85 1.4 art, which do you prefer to use when you're not restricted by room.

I had 135/2 for many years. And have rented Sigma 85/1.4 for a weekend to try and compare with other 85s. It is very good lens overally and absolutely worth its price but to me it did lack a bit of the magic feel 135/2 has. Finally I chose 105/1.4 which not only has THE special feel but also has much better contrast and definition than 135/2. At least to me.

Do the colours, bokeh quality etc compare to the Canon 135?

Colors are a bit different but with a decent RAW converter you can make your own one-click color presets to match your needs.

Did anyone find that after buying the Sigma it replaced their needs of using the Canon 135?

Yes I sold 135/2 afer buying 105/1.4.

b. For those that often shoot with a 50mm and 135mm, do you feel an 85mm is needed or do you find the 50mm and 135 cover all your needs?

I opted for a breathtaking 40/1.4 instead of any 50mm. With 105/1.4 it covers my "portrait FL" needs so I am not planning for 85 or 135mm lenses. 135mm allways felt a bit long to me as for a general portrait, yet Canons 135/2 was attracting me with its fabulous rendering. 85mm feels redundant to my needs. I had 85/1.8 for years. With careful choosing of the shooting scene to hide optical flaws of that lens it could deliver a decent result. I sold it too after aquisition of 105/1.4.