sigma 17-35mm f1.8 or canon 85mm f1.8 for canon t4i?
751818
i hear alot of good things about the sigma 17-35 1.8 all though it would depend on what sort of photography you do!i like to keep in the family,so thats why i went with canon 85 1.8 witch is a vary good lens,also its a prime lens and would work well on your t4i and most other canon cameras.
666201
The difference is larger than "adding an image stabilizer" to the IS model. In other words, the internal lens elements are not identical (in design or in quantity) between the f/4L and f/4L IS. Perhaps some of the glass elements are shared between the models, but the addition of IS technology requires the addition of more lens elements. Look at the Canon site and compare the number of "elements" and "groups" internal to each lens to see what I am talking about. If you poke around the internet you should find a graphic demonstrating the optical arrangement internal to each lens. I have owned the f/4L, the f/4L IS, and the f/2.8L IS II. If I had to rate these lenses on a scale from 1-100 for image quality: I'd rate the f/4L at 85 because it lacks a little sharpness and has a small amount of chromatic aberration. I'd rate the f/4L IS at 95 because it has a small amount of chromatic aberration toward the corners. I'd rate the f/2.8L IS II at 98 because it is almost perfect with no real flaws to speak of. The f/4L IS is noticeably better than the standard f/4L (but doesn't "blow away" the f/4L model). If you can afford the f/4L IS model it is definitely worth the price premium. If you can only afford the f/4L you won't find a better lens at the price point.
1183537
I have tried both and frankly I actually prefer sigma version. Why? Price and speed. 85 is very temperamental, it has to be perfect for it to work good, and do we have perfect clients who dont move? I work with children and do travel photography, sigma is my perfect friend. See photos on my blog at larissakphotography.com/blog
1114923
The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 is usm lens doesn't have a special piece of glass inside it called "UD" which the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is usm does have. The wide angle difference between the two does really mean something once you consider the crop sensor multiplication factor of 1.6X, so the 15mm end equals 24mm in full frame, 35mm film camera terms. For many people who take snap shots of friends, places, and stuff, the 17-85mm is fine for their needs and can be purchased used on EBay for $200-$250. Keep in mind the 17-85mm isn't built quite as sturdy/durable (so I've learned from reading many reviews) as the newer 15-85mm lens is. If you don't need to print 8"x10" sized pictures for framing(or larger), then you should be happy with the 17-85mm is usm. I have both lenses now and will decide which one to keep within a few months of shooting pictures. Do a Google search on both lenses, there are plenty of reviews/comparisons on the two.
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.
501125
I've got the sigma, it's a great lens and a good focal length. (48mm on crop cams) If you are going to be indoors, the f1.4 is handy. I've got the 50mm f1.8 and the extra 2/3's makes a difference when you're already at slow shutter speeds.
48832
Actually, for portrait I really much prefer something like 85mm to have a really nice bokeh and isolation of your subject. A 35mm is awesome to have put not primarily for portrait because you will endup always being so close to your subject that it becomes almost embarassing!
264636
I have the Canon 50 f1.4, the Canon 100 f2.0, the Canon 135 f2.0L, and this lens. I recently sold my 24-105 f4L. I use primarily the sigma 35 art or the 135L, it depends on what I am shooting. I do love this lens though. It is sharp and fast.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
433204
I have both, but use the 50mm more (for portrait). Now that I have a tokina 11-16mm 2.8, 35mm won't be used as much, but I did get some good shoots from it.
241545
If you are looking for a great portrait lens then go with the 85mm 1.4, it's fantastic. The 35 mm is a great lens too but better as a walkaround lens for general photography. You definitely want longer focal lengths for portraits.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
769014
sorry I thought you were asking about the sigma 35/1.4. The filter size of the 85/1.4 is 77mm.
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
108982
The Contemporary version according to "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-os-hsm" is smaller, lighter, and uses revised optics compared to the old version which is why I choose this contemporary version. I use it on a Rebel T3i and I am very happy with the results.
427330
A 85mm F1.4 if is for full frame cameras in my personal opinion would be a great great lens to use for portraits. Expect to heve more head-shoulders type of portraits inside buildings due to 85mm and not being able to be far enough from the person you are taking the photo to capture more of the body but it should be more than enough.