A Year With Sigma Lenses (plus a review of the 70-200 f2.8 and the 150 f2.8 macro)

Just over a year ago I was approached by Sigma Canada to see if I was interested in being a Sigma Professional. What that meant was that I would get some free lenses and all I needed to do was make images using Sigma lenses that Sigma Canada could use on their website to promote the brand. What photographer (especially a guy) does not want free lenses? So I agreed but on the condition that I could review their lenses and tell my honest impressions of each. If I could not say what I really thought, then I was not interested in the sponsorship. They agreed and so I used the lenses (a lot) and formed some opinions and did some reviews (see the list below). To see all upcoming reviews please visit me over at oopoomoo.com

Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 zoom

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

Sigma 85mm f 1.4

Sigma 8-16mm lens

Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 24-70mm lens at 45mm

Going into the deal I had some biased opinions about Sigma lenses (mostly based on what I heard form other photographers but not from any personal experience):

1. Sigma stuff could hit or miss; there is wide manufacturing tolerance and you’ll get either a dud or a winner
2. Sigma is pretty good at telephoto and macro lenses but poor at making wide angle lenses
3. Sigma lenses are lower in contrast and build quality is lower than Canon or Nikon lenses

After using Sigma lenses for a year my impressions changed:

Lens Variation

There is a load of stuff on the web about people trying out numerous lenses of the same model and same brand in search of a winning copy (e.g. Canon’s 17-40L lens is a classic one where photographers try out many before finding a ‘good’ copy). This copy variation theory was suggested as applicable for all almost all brands, but the third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) were blamed for having the most variation.

I have no data to refute or confirm if variation is higher in the third party brands or not, but I do know that there are numerous variables that contribute to what photographers ‘perceive’ as lens variation (e.g. the same lens will test differently on different cameras of the same model and auto-focus gives different – usually softer – results than manual focus in Live View for instance). For an excellent series of articles on this topic every photographer should visit these links:

Notes on Lens and Camera Variation

The Limits of Variation

In the end, I do note that if a lens (Sigma or otherwise) is optimized for a particular camera body that optical performance is greatly increased. The nice thing about Sigma Canada is that if you think your lens is ‘softer’ than it should be, you just send it back to Sigma and they will calibrate it to your camera body and you’ll get back a lens that is performing to its best specs. I have talked to numerous photographers who have done this and they have all been amazed by the results! All of a sudden their so-so lenses became great. I have heard the same thing from Canon shooters who have had Canon recalibrate their lenses to much better results. So mileage my vary depending on how you drive….

All the lenses Sigma sent to me were ‘pimped’ out for optimal auto-focus for my camera bodies so they performed really well using auto-focus. But for my sharpness tests I only used manual focus and live view so the auto-focus variable was not a factor in my overall judgement of sharpness. In the end none of the lenses I tested from Sigma was lacking in the sharpness department. Indeed many were as good or slightly better than the Canon equivalents (see my previous review articles).

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 17-50mm lens at 17, f14

Telephoto versus Wide Angle Lenses

Some photographers insist that Sigma knows how to make telephoto lenses but that their wide angle lenses are not great. In my tests of the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens I was impressed and for me I liked the lens better than Canon’s 24-70mm lens in terms of performance and sharpness. On my Rebel I use the 17-50 f2.8 lens as my default lens and find is just as sharp as the Tamron or Canon equivalent.  And one of my favorite Sigma lenses is the 8-16mm lens for APS-C sensors. That lens is wicked fun and seems really nice and sharp to me. So… I dunno, I am not a lens tester, just a photographer and the results I got from all the Sigma lenses were perfectly fine to my eye.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 8-16mm lens at 8mm

Build Quality

Build quality within a product line varies greatly. For example Canon’s consumer kit lens, the 18-50mm is a piece of crap but its pro lenses like the 70-200 f2.8L Mark II is super robust. You get what you pay for. Sigma has consumer lenses which are cheaply built (but not as bad as Canon’s 18-55mm!). And they have pro lenses which to me seem pretty robust but not as fully gasketed and weather-proof as Canon or Nikon’s top line lenses. Nevertheless the Sigma stuff lives up to my abuse (-40 Celsius, wind, dust, rain and snow). I have not had a failure yet but if push came to shove I think the Canon top end lenses might be just a bit better sealed (except for Canon’s 100-400mm dust-sucking monster!).

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 120-400 at 400mm

Conclusion

Here is the bottom line:  All the lenses I got from Sigma, I am going to keep and use. In fact, I sold a number of my Canon lenses. For me the Sigma lenses are as good as the Canon lenses (in some cases I liked them better) and they are usually 30-40% cheaper. If I had to buy these lenses this would be a huge factor. Look, I could sell all my Sigma glass (which I got for free) and buy Canon replacements. But why would I? The Sigma stuff is great and works for me and I see no real advantage to getting the Canon glass (except for Canon’s Tilt-shift lenses which is a whole other story!).

You may be skeptical and thinking, he is just saying this shit because he is sponsored and he wants more freebies. Well, the truth is I have recently rejected renewing any sponsorship or affiliations (more on that later). I am no longer sponsored or affiliated with anyone. I won’t get any more free stuff from anyone (including Sigma). I will be buying whatever I need with hard-earned cash just like the rest of you (so value for my dollar will be important going forward). For me I learned that Sigma gives good value and performance for the money spent. I don’t hesitate to recommend their products to any photographer.

Quick Review: Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM

This is Sigma’s pro 70-200mm lens that features optical stabilization, silent auto-focus (HSM), flourite low dispersion glass and full frame coverage. It is meant to compete with Canon’s 70-200 f2.8L IS II lens or Nikon’s 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II. I have had the luxury of shooting with Sigma’s 70-200mm lens for about a year and I am happy with its sharpness and performance but can it compete with the Canon and Nikon 70-200’s? I can’t speak about the Nikon lens but I compared the Sigma and Canon lenses and found the following benefits for each lens:

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

1. The Sigma lens is much less expensive than Canon’s version ($1480 vs $2580 at The Camera Store). That is a huge difference!
2. I found the Sigma lens to be just as sharp as the Canon lens across all apertures from f5.6 to f22 at all focal lengths The Canon was noticeably better at f2.8 both on edge and center sharpness and better at f4 along the edges.
3. The autofocus on the Sigma was zippy and quiet and just as fast as the Canon lens except in low light where the Canon ‘hunted’ less for focus.
4. I was super impressed by the lack of fringing and chromatic aberrations with the Sigma lens (IMO better then the Canon)

Canon 70-200 f2.8:

1. This noticeably lens was better at f2.8 than the Sigma lens
2. The Canon lens focuses a bit closer (which can be useful).
3. Where the Canon lens really shines is with its Image Stabilization which easily lets your get sharp shots hand-held  down to 1/15th of a second. Amazing! The Optical Stabilization on the Sigma worked well down to 1/60th of a second and sometimes gave sharp shots to 1/30th.
4. The build quailty of the Sigma is really good, but the Canon is better with gaskets for waterproofing.

Overall, I would rate the Sigma easily as good or slightly better than Canon’s previous version of its 70-200mm f2.8L lens. The Sigma is a very good lens especially for its price point. But the improvements to Canon’s latest 70-200mm lens (Mark II) are significant and for people who might shoot hand-held especially in dimmer light (e.g. wedding photographers or journalists) the better wide aperture performance and image stabilization on the Canon might justify the extra $1100 in costs for the Canon. Or if you shoot in rough conditions (sand storms, ocean spray etc), then the Canon might make more sense as well with its gasketing. But for photographers like me, who mostly use a tripod and only occasionally use f2.8 (which really ain’t bad on the Sigma), and who shoots outdoors but not in crazy extremes, then the Sigma 70-200mm lens makes more economic sense.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 70-200mm at 147mm, 1/40s at f2.8, hand-held

Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro

This one is easy; for me the longer the macro lens the better because the camera and lens will be further from the subject (working distance) and so I will be less likely to bump, shade, or disturb the subject. As well, a longer telephoto macro lens takes in a narrower background making it easier to make clean compositions. But everytime you double the focal length of a macro lens, the price doubles. A 100mm macro is twice the price of a 50mm macro for example so long lenses like a 150mm will cost you dearly (the Sigma costs about $1240 in Canada). But if you can afford it, I think a longer macro lens is better (especailly for nature subjects).

I have owned many macro lenses mostly in the 100mm to 180mm focal length and found all macro lenses to be among the sharpest optics made by lens manufacturers. Sigma is no exception, many of their macro lenses are highly rated. The previous 150mm macro without optical stabilization is well known among photographers to be a winner of a lens. So how does the newest version stack up?

I did not do a direct comparison with other macro lenses nor did I have an older 150mm for comparison but I can honestly tell you I was impressed by the sharp images I got with this lens. So far this is the sharpest macro lens I have owned. Possibly the Canon 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM is sharper but I have not done a comparison between the two lenses. The Canon has gotten some rave reviews to suggest it is a stellar performer.

Here are a couple of  reviews that of the Sigma 150mm lens. For me this lens does all I need it to and at an attractive focal length for nature photography. Consider it when shopping for a macro lens.

Photozone Review

Pop Photo Review

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 150mm macro at f9.0

Canon 24-70mm f2.8L vs Sigma f2.8 IF EX DG HSM

Note: To see all future reviews please note this blog is no longer active, please visit me over at oopoomoo.com

On full frame cameras a 24-70mm lens is the standard zoom lens for most professional photographers whether you shoot weddings, portraits, journalism, sports, travel or landscape. A 24-70 f2.8 gives you a fast lens with a wide angle, normal and short telephoto capabilities. Almost every professional I know owns and relies on a 24-70mm lens.

For years I owned a Canon 24-70mm f2.8L lens and it was a workhorse lens for me especially for my photographs of dogs and kids and outdoor recreation.. I also used it for landscape photography (until I started using tilt-shift lenses). I sold my lens about two years ago anticipating that Canon would release a Mark II version of the lens that was image stabilized and a bit sharper and with less distortion at the wide end. To date (August 2011), that lens is not yet out. So for almost two years I lived without a 24-70mm lens, waiting for the new and improved Canon. In the meantime, Sigma lent me their 24-70mm f2.8 pro lens to test out. I borrowed Wayne Simpson’s Canon 24-70mm Canon and spent three days in the field shooting with the two lenses. Here is what I found out:

Prices:

Canon 24-70mm f2.8L at B+H Photo = $1399.00 (weight 950g)

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 IF EX DG HSM = $899.00 (weight 790g)

The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lenses side-by-side

As you can see from the photo above the Sigma lens is significantly smaller (and lighter) than the big Canon 24-70mm lens and the Sigma costs 40% less than the Canon lens. Can the smaller and less expensive Sigma lens hold its own in the field?

First a note on the design of the lens. The Canon lens physically gets larger when zoomed to 24mm and is shortest when zoomed to 70mm. This is a strange design feature because most lenses are physically longer at longer focal lengths like we see with the Sigma lens (see photos below).

Sigma at 24mm (left) aad Canon at 24mm (right)

At 24mm the Sigma lens is short and compact but the Canon lens is fully extended at 24mm.

The Sigma (left) and the Canon (right) at 70mm

At 70mm both lenses are the same size. Canon’s design means that the lens is larger and extends even longer at 24mm. This may seem counter-intuitive but it is actually kind of clever because the lens hood on the Canon then becomes fully functional at all focal lengths. The hood attaches to the lens body with a bayonet mount right above the red line on the lens. The hood is long and when the lens is extended to 24mm, only about 1/3rd of the hood is used. Pulled back to 70mm the full hood length is used. The Sigma lens has a short hood that is optimized for 24mm and when the lens is zoomed out, you still have a 24mm effective hood. So with the Canon you have a fully functional hood but with the Sigma it only works its best at 24mm.

So… the price you pay for the clever functional zoom within a long hood is that the Canon lens is bigger lens that weighs 20% more than the Sigma lens! If you do a lot of backlit photos then the Canon 24-70mm and its functional lens hood will better prevent flare.

A 24mm is a 24mm right?

Both the Canon and Sigma lenses are 24-70mm focal lengths so I expected both lenses to give me the exact same coverage when I swapped the lenses on the tripod-mounted body. I was surprised that with the camera in the exact same position that the two zooms gave very different angles of view at the same focal length!

The Sigma 24-70 at 24mm

The Canon 24-70 at 24mm

What the heck??? How can the two lenses both zoomed to 24mm and mounted on the same camera body on a tripod (nothing was moved) give such different coverage? Is is because the Canon extends out at 24mm and so the front of the lens is closer to the subject?

If this is the case, then at 70mm when both lenses are physically the same size then we should see the angle of view be exactly the same. But both lenses produced different coverage even at 70mm even when the camera was fixed in position on a tripod. Note how Brando the dog is slightly larger in the frame with the Canon lens.

The Sigma lens at 70mm

The Canon lens at 70mm

The Sigma gives wider angles of view than the Canon when both are set to the same focal lengths. Which one is more accurate is hard to say but for reference I tested both against my 24mm TS-E lens and the Sigma and the Canon 24mm TS-E had almost exactly the same coverage. I don’t think the Canon 24-70mm lens is truly a 24-70!

What About Close-Focus Abilities?

This one is easy, the Canon can focus significantly closer than the Sigma at both 24 and 70mm.

Sigma close-focus at 70mm (top), Canon close focus at 70mm (bottom)

But which lens is sharper at close focus? Below is the same scene at the closest focus for each lens. The camera is tripod-mounted, live view, manual focus was used, mirror lock-up and an aperture of f8 was used.

The detail close-up scene

Sigma lens at 70mm f8 (top); Canon lens at 70mm f8 (bottom)

Center sharpness (above 100% magnification in Photoshop) was similar at close focus at 70mm for the two lenses but with the nod going to the Canon 24mm F2.8L lens.

Edge sharpness at closest focus at f8 for both lenses was disappointing and both lenses suffered from fairly severe chromatic aberrations at closest focus at 70mm (see below).

Edge sharpness at f8 for the Sigma lens (top) and the Canon lens (bottom)

What about Bokeh?

Bokeh is the the aesthetic quality of the blur in the out-of-focus areas. With fast lenses like a f2.8 zoom, the quality of the blur is important as a counter point to the sharp areas. To test how each lens rendered out-of-focus areas I shot various scenes at different focal lengths all at f2.8. Below are several sample photos. For me both the Sigma and the Canon seemed to render the out-of-focus with similar pleasing blur (but I give the nod to the Sigma for softer bokeh at 24mm).

Sigma lens at 24mm f2.8

Canon lens at 24mm f2.8

Sigma at 55mm, f2.8

Canon at 57mm, f2.8

Sigma at 70mm, f2.8

Canon at 70mm, f2.8

Overall Sharpness

I tested the sharpness of both lenses using my Canon EOS-1ds Mark III. I always use Live View and manual focus to test sharpness because auto-focus can vary with various lenses and each lens needs to be micro-adjusted for precision of focus. Live View with manual focusing gives consistent sharp results.

Both lenses are optimized for sharpness in the f2.8 to f8 range. Higher apertures like f11-f22 suffer from diffraction and yield less resolution than wider apertures. For example check out the 100% magnifications of the images below. The top photo is f2.8, the middle one is f8, the final one is f22. You can see that f8 is the sharpest, f2.8 next best and f22 trails far behind in sharpness. This was true for both lenses at all focal lengths.

Canon 24-70mm lens aperture resolution; f2.8, f8, f22

At 24mm the Sigma performed better than the Canon at all apertures in both center and edge sharpness. Below are two samples the first center sharpness at f8 where there is only a minor difference between the two lenses and then edge sharpness at f8 where the Sigma does a better job.

Center sharpness at 24mm at f8, Sigma (top), Canon (bottom)

Edge Sharpness at 24 mm at f8, Sigma (top), Canon (bottom)

In tests at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm, the Canon was slightly sharper in the center and at the edges of the frame than the Sigma but not by much. At f4 both lenses performed equally at all these focal lengths. From f5.6 to f22, the Sigma was sharper than the Canon at all of these focal lengths. As well, the Canon lenses produced darker photos than the Sigma lens even when both were shot at the exact same shutter speed and aperture. The Sigma photos were lighter and a bit more contrasty.

Center sharpness at 50mm at f8, Sigma (top), Canon (bottom); both at 1/30s - note differences in angle of coverage at 50mm

Overall I give the edge in sharpness to the Sigma lens which was a better performer at 24mm and as good or better than the Canon at all other focal lengths from f4 to f22. The Canon was better at f2.8 at 35, 50 and 70mm. If you are a landscape photographer the Sigma has less diffraction than the Canon at f16 and f22.

The overall scene - Sigma at 24mm, f22

Below is a 100% magnified view of the scene above shot with the Sigma and Canon lens at 24mm and f22 — the Sigma lens handles diffraction at small aperture openings much better.

Sigma at f22 (top), Canon at f22 (bottom)

Auto-Focus Tests

Both lenses were fast and responsive in auto-focus. I could get sharper photos with both lens using manual focus and 5x Live View, but auto-focus was pretty close in sharpness. I calibrated each lens using Lens Align and micro-focus adjustments in-camera and once calibrated each lens accurately popped into focus. Neither lens seemed better nor faster than the other when it came to action photography.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 24-70mm lens at 34mm, f2.8

Image Look

Both lenses produced images that looked similar. The Sigma lens produced slightly brighter and slightly more contrasty images than the Canon lens when both were shot in the same light at the same settings but overall both lenses produced crisp, sharp images.

Sigma 24-70mm lens

Canon 24-70mm lens

Final Considerations

The Canon lens has a filter size of 77mm which is common for Canon L lenses. The Sigma lens has an odd size filter thread of 82mm. If you use filters the odd size filter size on the Sigma might be a serious drawback requiring an investment in larger sized filters. For me, I use a Cokin Z-Pro Filter holder on my lenses and to get filters on the Sigma lenses was just a matter of buying an 82mm adapter ring for my filter holder. It would have been nice if the Sigma lens use 77mm threads which is a more common filter size than 82mm.

So Which One Should You Buy?

As always that depends. If you are a wedding or sports photographer who always shoots at f2.8 and likes to use back light, then I think the Canon is a good bet because it has better lens sharpness (by a small margin) at f2.8 and at all focal lengths except at 24mm. As well, the well designed lens hood/zoom mechanism on the Canon helps to prevent flare my having a more functional lens hood. Also the close focus ability of the Canon is better and sharper at 70mm than the Sigma lens and for detail photos at a wedding (rings, flowers, cake, tight face shots) this close-up capability would be welcome.

On the other hand, if you are looking for an all around travel and landscape lens, I would give the Sigma higher marks because it is smaller, lighter, sharper at 24mm and at all other focal lengths at apertures f4 and higher and it suffers less from diffraction at small f-stops (like f16 and f22). I also like that the 24mm setting on the Sigma is more true and more wide than the Canon 24mm setting. Also the Sigma lens is much less money which is always good. Both lenses seem to be robustly built and should handle the rigours of use well. Personally I prefer the mechanics and feel of the Sigma lens over the Canon lens.

Wish List

For both the Canon and Sigma lenses I wish both manufacturers made a 24-70mm lens with image stabilization (optical stabilization for Sigma). Having a stabilized lens would really help photographers get the most of a fast f2.8 lens so that we can hand-hold at lower shutter speeds. Both lenses also suffer from chromatic aberrations at the edges of the frame and are not as sharp as they could be when focused close. I expect better performance from such high end pro lenses. Overall either lens is a fine tool that will serve most photographers well. Which one you choose, depends on your interests and budget. I have no idea whether Canon or Sigma plan to update these work horse lenses but it may be worth waiting to see if they do unless you just can’t wait. Either way, you’ll get great images with these two lenses but be aware of their shortcomings.

©Darwin Wiggett - Canon 24-70mm f2.8L - great for tight close work!

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 24-70mm lens - great for landscape, travel and general use!

Note: I am sponsored by Sigma Canada and they provide me with lenses to use. I report things the way I see it and am not paid or influenced to bias the review. I use Sigma lenses whenever they perform better than Canon lenses. When they don’t I use Canon lenses. For my style of photography the Sigma 24-70mm lens is a better choice for me. Your mileage may vary.

Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens Review – A Field Test

Note: To see all future reviews please note this blog is no longer active, please visit me over at oopoomoo.com

Recently Sigma Canada lent me a copy of their new 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens to try out on my Spring Photo Tour in the Canadian Rockies. I used the lens for six days in a variety of conditions and took hundreds of photos. Here is what I thought of the big lens with the 10x zoom! Note: all sample images were made with a Canon EOS-1ds Mark III full frame camera.

The Background

Listed below are the ‘features’ of the lens that might entice someone to consider this piece of glass:

• crazy all-in-one 10x zoom range; 50-500mm on a full frame camera or 75-750mm lens on an APS-sized camera!
• optical stabilization feature for a 2-4 stop shutter speed advantage for hand-held photography.
• HSM (hyper-sonic motor) for silent auto-focus.
• low dispersion glass elements for best lens performance.
• ‘reasonable’ price for a lens with these capabilities (approx. $1800 CAN, street price).

The Results

OK, so what’s not to like about a lens that goes from the normal point-of-view of the human eye to pinpoint telephoto images? How much zoom is 10x in the real world? The two images of the below highlight the incredible zoom range in action and show the same subject photographed from the same position (in my car) only seconds apart.

©Darwin Wiggett - Bear at 50mm with the Sigma 50-500mm lens

©Darwin Wiggett - Bear at 500mm with Sigma 50-500mm lens

During my spring photo tour I mostly used two lens; my trusty Canon 24mm TS-E (tilt-shift lens) for big wide-angle scenes and the Sigma 50-500mm lens for everything else. I loved the flexibility of the zoom range of the big Sigma lens from normal for generic landscape photography to telephoto for skittish wildlife and distant scenes. The more I used the lens, the more I liked rarely having to change lenses and the better prepared I felt for any photo opportunity! I could frame and zoom on the fly and get things I would have missed if I had to change lenses.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 500mm, 1/40s at f6.3

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 58mm, 1/4s at f14

Besides loving the zoom range and the flexibility of the lens I also really liked the build quality and the operation of the zoom and focus rings. Best of all the lens was snappy and fast to focus and auto-focus was accurate on my 1ds Mark III. The OS (optical stabilization) worked well down for me down to about 1/60th of a second hand-held even at 500mm. I was able to walk around and photograph wildlife without a tripod and the lens seemed to grab focus the majority of the times (except in very low contrast light).

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500 at 500mm, 1/250s at f6.3

500mm at f6.3 - detail at 100%, no post production sharpening

I also liked the ability of the lens to focus close at all focal lengths. I could make images of flowers and hummingbirds and other small subjects from a distance and nearly fill the frame. I cropped the image slightly to make a more squarish presentation but even at this distance I was not a minimum focus.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 500mm, 1/250s at f6.3

All in all the lens was a joy to use because of its crazy zoom capabilities and responsive auto-focus. I felt like I could photograph anything I could see and I certianly got images that I would not get with a kit full of prime lenses or regular zooms because the opportunity would be lost when changing lenses.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 413mm, 1/15s at f10

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 167mm, 1/400s at f5.6

Ok, so the zoom range is fantastic… but what about sharpness?

Sharpness is subjective. In the end, is the sharpness of the lens going to suit your purposes? Are you selling professionally, do you make mega-big prints or will you never make anything over 12×18 inch prints? What is sharp for one person is crap for another….

When I test lenses for myself, I have a simple subjective scale for lens sharpness:

• Excellent (the rating for sharpest lenses I have tried e.g. macro lenses or prime short telephoto lenses like an 85mm or 135mm lens). Does the tested lens match up to these levels of sharpness?
• Very Good (good zoom lenses like a 70-200mm lens, or a prime 50mm lens would fall into this category).
• Good (decent zooms producing professional or nearly professional quality).
• Acceptable (good enough to make a nice 12×18 prints with a post-production sharpening)
• Crap (Coke bottles are better than this)

Most lenses I have ever tried are normally in the good (consumer lenses like a 70-300mm f5.6) to Very Good range (pro level lenses like a 24-70mm f2.8 lens). Some lenses have sweet spots. Some lens are sharp in the center but crappy on the edges. Some zooms are better at some focal lengths than others. Some lenses are optimized for sharpness wide open while others need to be stopped down a bit for good performance. You can spend a lot of time testing every possible permutation and other sites offer this information on the web by running the lens through bench tests in the lab. But for me, I just want to know what I can get in the field with a lens and if the results give me what I need (publishable sharpness). I am lens interested in optical bench tests.

Based on my field tests making actual images in the field I would rate the sharpness of the Sigma 50-500mm lens as follows:

• 50mm – Acceptable
• 100mm – Good-
• 135mm – Good
• 200mm – Very Good
• 300mm – Very Good
• 400mm – Good +
• 500mm – Good –

The lens seems to have a sweet spot for sharpness in the 200-300mm range. I found the 400mm images from the Sigma 50-500mm lens to be sharper than the 40omm images taken with a Sigma 120-400mm lens or the Canon 100-400mm lens so I would say this is a great lens to use in the 200-400mm range. I think 50-150mm  is the weakest performing range of this lens.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 332mm, 1/25s at f10

At 500mm the Sigma is decent but of course it’s nothing like a 500mm prime (I have tried the Canon 500mm f4L and would rate it as Very Good). I got publication quality photos with the Sigma 50-500mm lens at 500mm and even though it does not perform to the levels of a 500mm prime, it still gives decent results. Everything is a compromise, even if you could afford a 500mm prime ($6000-$9000 CAN) would you constantly carry the giant beast in your camera bag (over 8lbs)? With the 50-500mm it was small and light enough that I actually had the lens with me all the time and got shots at 500mm that I would have missed if I owned a 500mm prime (because I would have left the lens in the car). Sharpness is the be-all for some photographers, but having a great shot that is a little softer but useable is better than having no shot at all!

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 500mm, 1/25s at f10

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500 at 450mm, 1/640s at f7.1

The Dislikes:

No lens is perfect and the 50-500mm lens has some flaws that may make or break it for you:

• 95mm front lens element means the lens is hard to filter. I managed to use a polarizer and ND filters by using a Cokin Z-Pro Holder and a Cokin Z-Pro 95mm adapter ring but using filters on this lens will cost you big bucks to buy Z-Pro or Lee sized filters. This is not an easy lens to filter.
• if you use 1.4, 1.7 or 2x extenders you will not be able to auto-focus your lens (manual focus only). I would not recommend extenders for this lens as sharpness suffers to non-acceptable levels. Plus who needs an extender when you got this much zoom range?
• the lens is less contrasty than Canon or Nikon lenses and sometimes the colours seem a bit flat (but for me that was an  easy fix in  JPEG camera settings or in RAW conversions).
• when I use live view and manual focus I love it when the lens stays sharply focused no matter what focal length I zoom to (like my Sigma 120-400mm lens does) – the 50-500mm lens needs to be refocused every time you change the zoom setting (frustrating for the way I shoot). But when auto-focus is used, the lens is zippy and so refocusing is less of a chore.
• the weight and bulk turns some people off but it is only a tad bigger than the Canon 100-400mm lens and for what you get I think the lens is actually surprisingly small.
• like all big lenses, to get optical sharpness requires precision in technique – this lens requires a super robust and sturdy tripod for any shots less than 1/60th or 1/125th of a second. People might complain that this lens is not sharp but chances are good it’s an inadequate tripod problem and not a problem with the lens! For longer shutter speeds, 1/30th of a second or longer,  mirror lock-up and a remote release are a must! It is difficult to get a sharp shot with this lens at slow shutter speeds unless you are using proper technique and have a super solid tripod and tripod head.
• this lens (and many super long lenses) doesn’t do great with distant subjects; atmospheric haze, heat shimmers and other atmospheric effects can reduce apparent sharpness in long lenses and long zoom settings; realize this is not a issue with this lens but is a a long telephoto issue in general.
• the lens vignettes (slight darkening of corners) at all focal lengths in apertures from f4.5 to about f9.0. I don’t mind this because I often purposefully add vignetting to my photos in post because I like the effect (the vignetting can easily be fixed in Camera RAW). But some people demand and need even exposures across the frame.
• the lens does suffer from fringing at the edges of the frame with full-frame cameras when the lens is in the 50-150mm range and shot in contrasty light (this can easily be corrected in Camera RAW in Photoshop or Lightroom). If you plan to shoot JPEGS and do not want to spend time correcting fringing, then this lens might be problematic for you.
• edge sharpness on full frame cameras is about one quality factor from center sharpness (but this is common with most lenses).  On APS-sized sensors both edge vignetting and edge sharpness concerns disappear because of the crop factor of the camera.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 450mm with a Cokin P173 Blue-Yellow polarizer, 1/4s at f16

Below is an image shot at 50mm with the Sigma 50-500mm lens and the image that follows shows the fringing at the edge of the frame in contrasty light.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 50mm, 1/1600s at f10

Colour fringing at the edges of the frame at 50mm with the Sigma 50-500mm lens

Conclusion

I was super skeptical about this lens. Any lens with a 10X zoom range I am ready to write off as crappy in terms of image quality. I told Sigma I would test it but that they should be prepared for a completely honest review. I was prepared to pan this lens. But I was wrong.

Sure the lens is not as sharp as a 300 or 500mm prime lens, but who would expect it to be? I was surprised by how good this lens actually was especially in the 200-400mm range. It was decent at 500mm and yields publication quality images (with a little help from post-production sharpening). The weak spot in the lens is the 50-150mm range where sharpness and fringing are problems that need to be fixed in post-processing. Also this lens needs to be used with proper techniques to yield optimal results.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500 at 244mm, 1/30s at f13

The one thing that caught me off guard is how much I loved the zoom range and how I felt I was ready to capture any subject from intimate details, to landscapes both grand and extractive, to wildlife all with one lens. I got addicted to having one do it all (and more) lens on my camera. How liberating! And surprisingly I found that long lens settings in the 400-500mm range made up the vast majority of my landscape work with this lens.

If I was going on a trip that was a combination of generic nature photography where I might expect grand landscapes, wildlife and intimate details, then I would be tempted to take just two lenses; a 24-70mm f2.8 and the 50-500mm lens. Two lens and I am covered for every possibility! In fact next year I am going to Iceland and these two lenses might be my perfect travel companions.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 167mm, 1/60s at f5.6

The Dilemma

Sigma lenses are made to fit Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Sigma cameras so if you have one of these camera systems, then you might consider the Sigma 50-500mm lens. The problem is Sigma makes a few long range telephotos to choose from and so your choices become a bit difficult:

Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 – reviewed above ($1800 CAN)

Sigma 150-500mm lens f5-6.3 – (street price $1200 CAN)

Sigma 120-400mm lens f4.5-5.6 – see my review here (street price $1000 CAN)

Which one to buy?? It all depends on what you own already, your needs, your photographic subjects etc. I bought the 120-400mm lens after I reviewed it because I liked it better than Canon’s 100-400mm lens and I liked that I could filter the lens easily (77mm filters which I already own). Plus I already have a 70-200mm lens. That choice made sense for me. Look at the specs of each of these lenses and check out several reviews to decide if any of these lenses shoot your shooting style and budget.

For an all round nature shooting I would be happy with either the 50-500 or the 120-400mm lenses. I have not used the 150-500mm lens. If I planned to be a wildlife specialist, I would save up my coin for a fast prime lens (300mm f2.8, 500mm f4 or a 200-400mm f4 or Sigma’s new 120-300 f2.8) but all of these these lenses are very expensive and very heavy. There is no perfect lens but with a little research you can find one that is a good match for you. Good luck!

Full disclosure: I am sponsored by Sigma Canada. I give fully honest reviews of what I think but for some people the issue of ‘sponsorship’ might colour their view of this review. I only accept sponsorship from companies where I am allowed to say whatever I think, Sigma Canada allows this. If you buy from B+H Photo I will get a small percent of the sale that helps support this website.

If you want to buy the 50-500mm lens in the USA I recommend B+H Photo (good service and prices and they support this website) and for Canadian customers please support The Camera Store – the best place to buy any camera stuff in Canada (a biased but honest opinion!).

I hope this field review has been useful. Feel free to comment but keep things polite and reasoned and offer useful input that will help others make informed decisions. Name-calling, thoughtless comments or personal attacks on anyone will not be tolerated and those comments will be removed. Play nice!

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500 at 167mm, 1/4s at f13

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500 at 167mm, 1/10s at f10

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 500mm, 1/250s at f6.3

The Weekly Photo – June 13

On my spring photo tour early in June, I took out the Sigma 50-500mm lens for 6 days of rigorous field testing. I will post the results next week. In the meantime here is a photo from the lens shot at 167mm.

©Darwin Wiggett

The photo above is of the Kootenay Plains in fog which is a rare event. Just to show you how much zoom range the Sigma 50-500mm lens has check out the two photos below: the top one is at 50mm, the bottom at 500mm. The two photos are of the same scene. See if you can tell which part of the 50mm picture I zoomed in to for the 500mm shot.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm lens at 50mm

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 50-500mm at 500mm

The Sigma 85mm f1.4 as a macro lens?

Almost anyone who has been photography for awhile knows that an 85mm focal length lens is considered perfect for portraits. The lens is flattering to the human face and an 85mm lens is relatively small and unobtrusive. With a fast aperture of f1.4 you can get micro-thin slice of focus that makes your subject pop off the screen in a sea of blur. No wonder wedding photographers, journalists and fine-art photographers love a fast 85mm lens (see this review of the Sigma 85mm lens for portrait shooting).

I had planned to use my Sigma 85mm lens to do pet portraits and kid photos but have not yet set up any shoots of these subjects. This weekend for grins I went out with just the 85mm to see what I could do with nature subjects. Right away I found out that the Sigma focuses really close and at f1.4 I got a really lovely wash of blur that looked painterly (see below).

Closest focus with the Sigma 85mm lens at f1.4

I loved the look of the shallow depth-of-field but wanted the lens to focus even closer. The easy answer of course is too add an extension tube which is simply a hollow tube that pushes the lens away from the camera and allows the lens to focus closer. To learn more about extension tubes see this link.

I grabbed my set of Kenko extension tubes and slapped the 36mm tube between the camera and the Sigma 85mm lens. Suddenly the Sigma portrait lens focused super close and I could make frame-filling photos of all sorts of wee things in nature. I loved the soft painterly look I was getting using the lens wide open at f1.4. And the best thing, at such wide apertures, is that shutter speeds were lightning fast so I could just hand hold the camera and get tiny pricks of sharp focus in a wash of blur. The Sigma 85mm f1.4 is now going with me in my nature photography photo bag  as my ‘artistic ‘macro’ lens. I am looking forward to taking it with me on my upcoming spring photo tour. Watch out Monet!

©Darwin Wiggett

©Darwin Wiggett

©Darwin Wiggett

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

On full frame cameras the 24-70mm f2.8 lens is the go-to lens for travel, sports, wedding, street, and landscape photography. On cropped sensor cameras the equivalent focal length to a 24-70mm is roughly 17-50mm. This latter focal length gives you wide, normal and telephoto lens perspectives in a relatively small package that fits on cropped sensor cameras. If you are looking for a fast all-purpose lens for your Canon camera whether a Rebel, 20D, 30D 40D, 50D, 60D or the 7D, then you have four choices:

Note: To see all future reviews please note this blog is no longer active, please visit me over at oopoomoo.com

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

• Image Stabilized
• Ultrasonic lens (no focus noise)
• UD glass
• internal focus
• close focus 0.35m
• filter size 77mm
• weight 645g
• cost $1200 CAN

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM OS

• optical stabilized
• hypersonic motor motor (HSM) – no focus noise
• internal focus
• two low dispersion FLD glass elements
• close-focus 0.28m
• filter size 77mm
• weight 565g
• cost $775 CAN

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC

• vibration compensation
• LD (low dispersion) glass
• internal focus
• close-focus 0.29m
• filter size 72mm
• weight 570g
• cost $579 CAN for the VC version and $450 CAN for the non VC version

There is also the Tokina 16-50mm AT-X 165 Pro Dx but I did not have an opportunity to test this lens.

A Bit of History

When I picked up my first cropped sensor Canon camera (a Rebel Xsi) I wanted a light, fast lens for hiking and backpacking. I tested out the Tamron 17-50mm lens (the f2.8 XR di II LD versionwithout the vibration compensation feature). I found it to be surprisingly sharp and I picked up a new one for a sale price of $350 CAN! It was perfect for landscape photography especially for me because I almost always use live view and manual focus on the Rebel to make landscape images. I owned the lens for a year or so and took many landscape photos with it in all sorts of conditions. It was a super performer for the price! But… be aware that the Tamron  lens is really lacking as an auto-focus lens. It was painfully slow to focus and was noisy when focusing. I tried using it with dogs and sports and it was not really suited for action photography.

©Darwin Wiggett - Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens

©Darwin Wiggett - Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens

And Then…

Sigma sent me their 17-50mm f2.8 lens to try it. I was incredibly happy with the Tamron in terms of sharpness and so my first tests were to see if my budget priced Tamron was as sharp as the more expensive Sigma lens. I did the standard tests in the studio using a lens chart to check sharpness at all apertures and at various focal lengths. And then I took the lenses out in the field and photographed the typical kinds of subjects that I shoot to see how the lenses performed in terms of contrast (snap) and colour rendition and also things like flare control and distortion. Rather than bombard you the reader with tons of detailed comparison shots the conclusion of all these tests was the same. Both lenses performed the same optically but with the nod going to the Tamron in the 17-35mm range at f2.8 (better edge sharpness).

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 17-50mm lens at f14

But… the Tamron was terrible auto-focus performer! I’ve found that using live view at 5x magnification and manually focusing lenses gives me much sharper images than using auto-focus even in bright contrasty light. This result is consistent across cameras I have tried from the Canon 1ds Mark III, Canon Rebel Xsi and Rebel T2i, Canon 60D, Canon 7D and the Nikon D300s. On workshops and tours I often illustrate this to participants using their own cameras. To try it yourself, simply set your camera to aperture priority and use the smallest number on your aperture dial like f2.8. Use the center focus point on your camera and let the camera focus on a contrasty part of the subject. Now go into live view and magnify the area (e.g. 5x) where the camera auto-focused.  Switch your lens to manual focus and adjust the focus to see if you can get the image sharper than the auto-focus. Often you can easily improve on the sharpness. Check out the scene below. I had the Canon Rebel Xsi mounted on a tripod and the auto-focus was set to ‘one shot’ with the center focus point selected. I had the aperture set to f2.8 and let the camera auto-focus. Then I rephotographed the same scene using manual focus in live view.

The auto-focus test scene

Below are the results of the test using the Sigma 17-50mm lens at f2.8. The image is magnified to 100% view. The top photo is auto-focus, the bottom is manual focus in live view.

Sigma 17-50 at f2.8: top=auto-focus, bottom=manual focus in live view

The auto-focus on the Sigma/Rebel combo locked in really well. The manual focus is a tad sharper but not by much. Below are the results of the Tamron lens on the Rebel Xsi:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8: top=auto-focus, bottom=manual focus in live view

What can you say? The auto-focus on the Tamron lens is terrible! It is slow, it searches, it hunts, it creeps, it’s noisy. I have tested and tried several Tamron lenses (from their 70-200 f2.8 to their 10-24mm lens) and the problem is the same. If, like me, you mostly use manual focus and a tripod, then the Tamron is easily the best buy of the group (especially the non VC version of the lens) and optical performance is really fine. But if you want a sports, travel, portrait lens where you can rely on auto-focus, then I would pass on the Tamron. Also note I did not test the vibration compensation (VC version) of this lens, other reports on the web suggest that sharpness of the VC version is lower than the non VC version. Test before buying!

And so, after testing the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 against the Tamron lens, I decided to sell the Tamron and keep the Sigma. The Sigma was just as good optically (except at f2.8 where edge sharpness was lower) but it had fast and accurate auto-focus and it had optical stabilization for hand-held shots.

And So What About the Canon 17-55mm f2.8?

This is Canon’s flagship lens for cropped sensor cameras and numerous reports state that this lens is super sharp and an all around great performer but it comes at a high price ($1200 CAN). Is the overall quality and performance of the Canon worth the extra cost (more than $400) over the Sigma?

I took the two lenses out over a weekend and ran them through a few tests such as:

1. Optical performance (sharpness, vignetting, flare etc.)
2. Auto-focus tests
3. Image stabilization tests
4. Close-focus capabilities

Here is what I found:

Optical Performance

I compared the sharpness of both the Sigma and the Canon lenses using manual focus in Live View. When precisely focused I really could not give the nod to one lens over the other when it came to center sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. But at f2.8 in the focal range of 17 to 35mm the Canon had significantly better edge sharpness than the Sigma.

Edge sharpness at 17mm at f2.8 (Sigma top, Canon bottom)

It’s easy to see here that the Canon lens is really good wide open even at the edges. The Sigma lens does not match the edge performance of the Canon until stopped down to f8! After f8 the two lenses perform equally well.

Another weakness of the Sigma Lens are fringing artifacts at the edges of the frame when the lens is shot from 17- 35mm in high contrast light. The Canon also suffers these effects but to a lesser extent.

Edge fringing at f2.8 at 17mm - Canon top, Sigma bottom

The fringing on both lenses is more controlled and equal once the lenses are zoomed out to 35mm or higher.

The Canon lens appears to be optimized for best performance in the aperture range from f2.8 to f8. Images at f11 are decent but less sharp overall and images at f16 or higher are terrible!

Canon 17-55 at f5.6 (top) and f22 (bottom)

I found that although center sharpness on the Sigma is as good as the Canon at f2.8 and f4 that overall image sharpness from edge to edge is best with the Sigma in the f5.6 to f11 range with good performance up to f16. The Sigma is better than the Canon in the f11 to f16 range and therefore is a better choice for landscape work requiring large depth-of-field.

Sigma lens at f16 top photo, Canon lens at f16 bottom photo

The Sigma lens also records images with more contrast and ‘pop’ and with a more accurate colour cast than the Canon lens which tends to record scenes flat and washed out and cool in colour tone.

Sigma lens top photo, Canon lens bottom photo

Sigma lens top photo, Canon lens bottom photo

In numerous tests I found this same difference in contrast and colour between the two lenses. All comparisons were shot at the same exposures, white balance etc. The Sigma lens simply had a more pleasing rendition of scenes for my tastes.

As far as flare is concerned it depends. Sometimes the Sigma gave more flare (e.g. at 17mm) sometimes the Canon was more prone to flare (e.g. at 28mm).

Auto Focus Tests

I tested both the Sigma and the Canon lens for accuracy of auto-focus vs manual focus in live view and both lenses returned similar results. Live view gave slightly better results for both lenses. Only in dim light did the auto-focus capabilities start to falter.

With action sequences of people running, cars on the highway and moving dogs, I saw absolutely no difference in the ability of the Sigma and Canon lenses to track focus. As well, with static subjects both lens were zippy and fast to auto-focus and for me they seemed matched in their abilities.

Image Stabilization Tests

Handheld images using auto-focus and image stabilization (Canon) and optical stabilization (Sigma) returned fairly similar results but I got a slightly higher percentage of sharp shots in the 1/15th to 1/30s range with the Canon lens. So nods in this department to Canon.

Close-focus Capabilities

The clear winner in this category is the Sigma lens. Not only does it focus closer (see images below) but when photographing close subjects (e.g. head and shoulders or closer, the Sigma is significantly sharper at all apertures than the Canon lens. The Canon does not seem to like close subjects and optical performance really suffers. This is not a good lens to use for close-up work!

sigma at closest focus at 50mm

Canon closest focus at 55mm

Sigma close detail sharpness at f8

Canon close detail sharpness at f8

Conclusion

Which lens you choose all depends on your budget and on your needs. If want the best overall optical performance for your dollar then the  Tamron SP AF17-50 f2.8 Xr Di II is a fantastic buy! Although I did not this test the lens directly against the Canon lens, I think it is just as sharp at all apertures but it costs almost 1/3rd the price of the Canon lens! But the Tamron is not a lens to buy if you rely on auto-focus. This is a good landscape lens when used on a tripod and focused manually in live view. But do not try action photos with this lens or you’ll be disappointed.

If you want a lens with good all around performance at the a reasonable price, then the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens might be the lens for you. The Sigma is as good as the Canon lens in terms of auto-focus, it’s a sharp as the Canon lens when stopped down to at least f5.6 and it is a much, much better lens for close-up subjects. As well the contrast on the Sigma lens is snappy and the colour rendition is accurate. The Sigma is a better landscape lens than the Canon because it has better performance in the f11-f16 range which are apertures often needed for depth-of-field. Also the lens is the lightest of the bunch. I would recommend this lens for nature and generic photography.

If you want to photograph people, sports, or action or hand-held street photography where  wide apertures like f2.8 or f4 are regularly used then the Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens lens is the best choice. It’s sharp edge-to-edge when wide open (with little fringing), has great image stabilization and zippy auto-focus. The drawbacks are its heavier weight, poor close-focus performance, flat contrast and cool colour rendition and large price tag.

In short, none of these lenses are perfect but some work better for some purposes than others. As always try before you buy but hopefully this review will help narrow your choices.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 17-50mm lens at f11

Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs Canon 85mm f1.2L II

Note: To see all future reviews please note this blog is no longer active, please visit me over at oopoomoo.com

Sigma Canada gave me their new 85mm f1.4 lens to review. I thought it would be a cool lens to use on my dog portraits and maybe for street photography but I have been so busy with landscape shooting that I have not had time to give the lens a serious spin nor a detailed review.  So… to solve the problem I am letting someone more qualified to do the review for me (smart eh?) and share his findings here.

My good friend Wayne Simpson is a full-time portrait, wedding and landscape photographer who owns and uses the coveted Canon 85mm f1.2L lens daily in his work. I thought Wayne was the perfect guy to give the Sigma a test run and see how it performed for a working photographer. Both the Sigma and the Canon 85mm lenses are designed for portrait, sports, event and wedding photographers where prime lens performance (a fast wide aperture) is needed either for low light shooting or for an ultra-thin slice of focus. Wayne was interested in just how well the Sigma could stand up to his much lauded Canon 85mm. So I gave the lens to Wayne and he played… here is his report and results:

Note, neither I, nor Sigma Canada have sponsored, paid nor bribed Wayne… not even with beer! I simply wanted Wayne’s honest impressions as a working photographer. Wayne receives no cut, no commissions on sales, and not even a ball cap for his review (not too smart eh?). Wayne just wanted to see how both lenses performed so that he had the best choice for his own work. Plus like any guy, he likes to play with toys – can you blame him?!

Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX DG HSM – price $969 US at B+H Photo

image from Sigma Canada – available in Canada at The Camera Store

Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II – price $2149 US at B+H Photo

image from The-Digital-Picture.com

available in Canada at The Camera Store

Wayne Simpson reviews the Sigma 85mm f1.4 vs the Canon 85mm f1.2L II

Okay, first the disclaimer:

This is a practical comparison, and by no means scientific in any way. The following is simply my opinion as a working wedding and portrait photographer.

All shots are done with a Canon 1D Mark IV. The only adjustment done to the images is the odd exposure adjustment to the  RAW image, however, any images being compared will have had the exact same adjustments. White balance was either set to daylight or cloudy and was not changed after capture.

Here we go…

When I heard about the new Sigma 85 1.4 I must admit that I was curious, but  never really considered it as an option over my Canon 85 1.2 II. Even when the opportunity came to take the lens for a test drive I was not overly excited, but decided to give it a whirl. Well, once I had the lens in my hands I could immediately tell that this lens is for real!

Lets have a look at the build quality…

While I love the build quality of my beloved Canon 85 1.2 II, the Sigma appears just as good… just different. The actual diameter of the Canon (especially the lens hood) is much larger than the Sigma. I have always found it annoying that my Canon 85mm is big lens and it never seems to fit comfortably into any of the bags I have tried. This always  slows me down when changing lenses. The awkward size of the Canon prevents me from carrying as many lenses as I would like since this beast seems to take up the space of one and a half  “normal sized” lenses. This would not be an issue with the Sigma which is significantly more compact.

I tend not to use manual focus very often with my Canon because I don’t feel confident with its incredibly loose and touchy focus ring. The Sigma focus ring is more snug and less touchy which inspires confidence especially to use manual focus. However, the AF/M switch on the Sigma seems a little too exposed and prone to being bumped out of place; however it never happened to me while using it.

When shooting in bright light and using flash, I often like to use screw-on neutral density filters to cut down the light and maintain my sync speed while shooting at wide apertures. As a Canon shooter with other L series lenses, I have come to expect the filter diameter to be 77 mm.  However the Canon 85 1.2 II uses a 72mm filter size. I was happy to find that the Sigma uses the popular 77 mm size, which may save you money on filters especially if you already own other Canon L-series lenses!

If you have ever used the Canon 85 1.2 II you know how careful one needs to be when changing lenses. The rear element is basically level with the lens mount, which is a little scary. As if that wasn’t scary enough, Canon has hidden the red dot to align the lens and mount so that it’s not easily visible when changing lenses. Again, these issues don’t exist with the Sigma.

So it’s built well, but how well does it autofocus?…

Very well actually! I would guess that the Sigma is about twice as fast as the Canon in decent light. After using my Canon 85 1.2 II for a few years now, I have come to accept the fact that it is very slow to focus. In fact, if I’m photographing kids, or anything moving I will reach for my Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens instead. I missed many, many shots due to slow auto-focus before I learned the limits of the lens. While I did not test the Sigma on any moving subjects, I can confidently say that it would beat the Canon hands down when tracking a moving subject.

In backlit situations, the auto-focus of both lenses go a little crazy. At first it seemed that the Sigma reacted worse, however I think it just seems that way because the auto-focus bounces around faster!

Next, I tried the two lenses in a dark room shooting at f1.4, ISO 6400 at 100/sec (very dark). In this situation (without focus assist or flash) the lenses seem to focus almost the same speed on my 1D Mark IV, with a slight edge going to the Sigma. The Sigma seems to lock focus a little faster and with a bit more authority than the Canon. The one thing that the Canon has over the Sigma in this situation is that it can open up to f 1.2 allowing you faster shutter speeds for hand held shooting. This can potentially save your bacon as long as you can lock focus in the first place!

So, can the Sigma compete with the image quality of the legendary Canon 85 1.2 II?…

In short, yup! As you will see in the images below, it’s pretty much impossible to tell which lens is which when looking at image sharpness and bokeh. You don’t really see much of a difference until you look at the colour and brightness. Originally I thought that the difference in colour might be due to using an automated white balance (daylight or cloudy) and that the camera might be compensating somehow because of one lens having a larger maximum aperture than the other. Keeping this in mind I quickly set a manual white balance and re-shot, but found the same shift in colour.

©Wayne Simpson - The sharpness test subject

©Wayne Simpson - Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f4

©Wayne Simpson - Canon 85mm f1.2L II at f4

©Wayne Simpson - Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f1.4 - Bokeh test

©Wayne Simpson - Canon 85mm f1.2L II at f1.4 - Bokeh Test

©Wayne Simpson - Sigma 85mm f1.4 - Colour

©Wayne Simpson - Canon 85mm f1.2L II - Colour

One thing that is pretty much inevitable when shooting at very wide apertures is some amount of chromatic aberration or fringing. Now I’m no scientist, so I can’t explain exactly what causes it, but I do know that I don’t like it and it can be difficult to fix in post production (for me anyways!). In scenes with little contrast I found that both lenses where acceptable by my standards – even at f 1.4. Once you enter a high contrast scene however, the story changes. I found that the Sigma needed to be stopped down to about f 2.8 to eliminate the fringing, while the Canon still had a tiny bit of fringing still visible at f 2.8, although very minor. At f2.8 the sharpness is absolutely incredible with both lenses! I honestly can’t say which one is sharper, which is amazing considering there is something like a $1000 dollar difference in price!

©Wayne Simpson - fringing in low contrast light, Sigma 85mm at f1.4

©Wayne Simpson - the high contrast test for fringing

©Wayne Simpson - Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f1.4 showing fringing

©Wayne Simpson - Canon 85mm f1.2L at f1.4 showing fringing

So, lets sum up the pluses and the minuses for the Sigma…

The pluses:

–          faster auto-focus

–          77mm filter diameter

–          rear element is not dangerously exposed

–          slightly better focusing in low light

–          much less expensive

–          lighter and more compact

The minuses:

–          does not open to f 1.2

–          slightly warm colour cast which means extra work in post to match the colours of othere Canon lenses

–          darker exposure and a little less ‘pop’ than the Canon lens

–          Exposed AF/M switch can be dislodged accidentally

So, would I sell my Canon 85 1.2 II and buy the Sigma 85 1.4?…

Heck, it’s not out of the question! I guess the real question is do I really need to shoot at f 1.2, and do I need the faster autofocus offered by the Sigma? I have had the odd occasion where shooting at f 1.2 has saved me, but they are very few and far between–-I’m guessing I could live without it. The faster auto-focus though would be a very, very welcome change from my slower  Canon 85mm f1.2.

The major problem for me however, is the warm colour cast (visible in the comparisons)the  and slightly darker images  produced with the Sigma lens. I realize that these can both be fixed in post production, however it would mean that I would have one lens that produces a different colour than all of my other lenses. which means lost time in image correction. The images from my Canon just seem to have that tiny bit more pop to them… I don’t know how else to explain it! Maybe it’s something to do with the amount of money I spent on the  Canon lens, or maybe I’m still having a hard time accepting the fact that the Sigma is almost identical for about half the price!

If you are looking to buy one of these two lenses, my official advice is … go for the Sigma. For the difference in price, it is definitely the best bang for your buck. I will likely end up holding on to my Canon. However if I could do it again I would likely choose the Sigma especially for its zippy auto-focus. Unless you shot the two side-by-side, you likely would never notice a difference in the images. Who would have thought that this lens could hold it’s own against the legendary Canon 85 1.2 II!

Other reviews of these lenses:

Sigma 85mm f1.4L – dslrphoto.com summarizes numerous reviews here

Canon 85mm f1.2L II – Photo Zone review, The Digital Picture Review

See also the latest issue of Popular Photography for further comparisons

©Wayne Simpson - Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f1.6