Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art

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. Do the colours, bokeh quality etc compare to the Canon 135? Did anyone find that after buying the Sigma it replaced their needs of using the Canon 135?

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 have never had Sigma's 85 1.4 Art, but I did have Canon's EF 85, 1.4 IS and still use the EF 135, f/2. With the Sigma 85 or 105 lenses you can always shoot at f/1.4, with the 135, never.

Canon_Guy wrote:

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.

Did you find much difference between the sigma 85 and 105? I’ve watched a couple of comparison videos and it looked like there was very little difference.

The 105 does look very nice but it looks so heavy I’m not sure if that would put me off using it.

My view on the 135 is the same. I love the rendering but the working distance can be a pain at times. I’d prefer a focal length around the 85mm mark but not if it means giving up that magic feel that the 135 can produce.

Arthur Stanley Jefferson wrote:

Of the two lenses I prefer the pop of the 135 F2…but in a perfect world I’d want a 105 F1.4.

I don’t know how reliable the AF is on the Sigma 85 f1.4 is….I believe the recent 105 F1.4 is meant to be more accurate and consistent, but I can’t personally vouch for it.

Much prefer the working distance of 100mm lenses vs 85mm.

I‘ll probably wait for the RF 100 f1.8 and the R5 mk2…on EF mount/dslr, I’d stick to the 135 f2

Thanks, I’ve heard of a lot of af issues in the past with sigma.

I shoot with an R now so as far as I’m aware the af problems are no longer an issue with mirrorless.

I wasn’t aware there is a rf 100 1.8 due for release? If there’s rumours of the release then I may hold off a bit.

WindwardHaole wrote:

I have never had Sigma's 85 1.4 Art, but I did have Canon's EF 85, 1.4 IS and still use the EF 135, f/2. With the Sigma 85 or 105 lenses you can always shoot at f/1.4, with the 135, never.

Thanks, I’be never felt f2 on a 135 lacking. I’m not sure the actual difference in dof but probably isn’t too far off each other?

expro wrote:

Once I bought the 85 I stopped using the 135.

preferred the perspective, more natural less compressed, and more versatile.

Thanks, I use to love the 135 but starting to think an 85 has a more natural feel as well