Just addressing the other answer (cpast's), with regards to when to use one or the other for managing passwords:
This is actually completely useless. The attacker does not have to play by your rules. Hashes need to protect passwords when the attackers have a copy of the hashes. If the attacker can compute hashes quickly, it doesn't matter how slowly you compute them. Hashes need to be inherently slow; there should be no shortcuts to evaluate them faster than the legitimate server.
sha256sum(sha256sum(sha256sum.....(salt + master password)))...
Applying the hash numerous times DOES increase the difficulty for an attacker trying to retrieve a password from the hash, and it DOES make the password derivation function inherently slow. The attacker would need to go through every single SHA256 function for every attempt.
This would make it as slow as the other key derivation algorithms (or even slower/harder).
Cryptographic algorithms typically make certain assumptions about the key; among other things, they normally assume it was selected totally at random from the set of possible keys. Keys are also expected to be a certain length; their derivation functions need arbitrary-length output. In contrast, it's OK if a password hash has lots of structure to the output. Maybe there's a 70% chance that adjacent bits have the same value. Maybe it spreads 128 bits of entropy into 4096 bits of output. As long as it's hard to reverse, that's a fine hash, but it's unsuitable as a key.
Running just one pass of SHA256 will produce output that is seemingly randomly selected from the set of integers up to 2256. 2256 is an astronomically large number, and truncating it allows the user to sample arbitrary length output without losing security (as long as they sample enough entropy of course).
There is negligible chance that there could be "lots of structure to the output" of a SHA256 function to the detriment of the generated password. And even then, an attacker has no better strategy than guessing random numbers if they want to crack the hashed output (it would be futile to even try).