December 15, 2017, 08:56:54 PM

Author Topic: Sigma 85 looks better in corners  (Read 6271 times)

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2017, 10:12:41 AM »
Viggo,

I am not saying that the Canon is is not good enough in corners.
my statement is: Sigma at F1.4 in corners is better than Canon at F2.0.. that is all. simple.
there statements that Canon is sharper in corners. obviously false . That Canon vignettes less. obviously false one.
Canon is a solid performer. joy to use. I keep saying this and all I get is opinionated replies from people who have no idea but judge about the subject based on god knows what. I respect your opinion and I had a very pleasing experience interacting with you. but let me explain why I take time replying to some statements of others:I have nothing against anyone out there but when people make ridiculous claims and question someone's expertise in something they have no a slightest idea about, I am either walk on them or take my time to explain as my experience may be useful for someone who needs to know. As I said, this place is great but I have no intention to continue.
Anyway, I will continue reading CR as this resource is a great source of information for someone that knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thanks for the company.

 
If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2017, 10:12:41 AM »

Viggo

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3120
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2017, 10:40:01 AM »
Viggo,

I am not saying that the Canon is is not good enough in corners.
my statement is: Sigma at F1.4 in corners is better than Canon at F2.0.. that is all. simple.
there statements that Canon is sharper in corners. obviously false . That Canon vignettes less. obviously false one.
Canon is a solid performer. joy to use. I keep saying this and all I get is opinionated replies from people who have no idea but judge about the subject based on god knows what. I respect your opinion and I had a very pleasing experience interacting with you. but let me explain why I take time replying to some statements of others:I have nothing against anyone out there but when people make ridiculous claims and question someone's expertise in something they have no a slightest idea about, I am either walk on them or take my time to explain as my experience may be useful for someone who needs to know. As I said, this place is great but I have no intention to continue.
Anyway, I will continue reading CR as this resource is a great source of information for someone that knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thanks for the company.

 
If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.

I was referring to Jaell’s post.
1dx mkII, 35 L II, 85 L IS, Broncolor Siros 800 L.

LSXPhotog

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • Kevin DiOssi Photography
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2017, 10:50:52 AM »
NOT THIS AGAIN! haha

I just sold my Sigma Art last Friday after only 3 days with the new Canon, I made up my mind. Here is my reply from another forum about why I made the choice and why I even considered getting rid of the Sigma. If life were charts, I'd choose the Sigma. Unfortunately, things move around and so do I, and the Sigma falls short there.


Thanks, everyone. Sorry for the long post, but I would like to vent my frustrations and be open about my change from the 85mm Art to the Canon and why.

One thing to consider is that most of these images were captured in harsh back lighting - which emphasizes chromatic aberrations. I personally don't feel the lens did poorly at all, but I will admit that would have enjoyed a better performance on some of these. The question I ask myself is "would I rather the lens optics perform better, or would I prefer the shots to be in focus?" For me, that answer is a resounding "in focus" because I know that my Sigma Art lens wouldn't have been able to achieve the keeper rate I got with this lens.

What problems did I have with the Sigma?
A: The only problem I had with the Sigma was autofocus. When I first got the lens it was nailing focus left/right, but didn't do too well in low light - this was fine. But about 3 months later? The lens started missing focus randomly, but would nail it on most shots. I took the lens to the Sigma Dock and performed a little calibration. This showed me that the lens needed a little modifications, but would still miss focus on around 10% of shots and various distances. After about a month or two of this and missing shots I could never get again, I went back on the dock and tweaked a little more. This had the same results - it was nailing focus crisply in about 90-95% of shots, but would miss that one shot every now and then. Rinse and repeat: I would perform the dock calibrations over and over thinking it was something I could work out, but the lens simply would beep in focus and be ever so slightly off or be wildly off. I second guessed every shot I took with the lens and I started to focus in live view on critical portraits - I was NOT happy with the lens anymore as a professional. I preordered the Canon day one simply because of autofocus, knowing full well that I would leave image quality on the table. I would like to emphasize that I'm a full-time photographer and use my gear quite a bit more than most others. At the same time, I take extra special care of everything I own and use, so my results aren't par for the course. Also, one or two months in my hands sees the lens being used and traveled with quite a bit.

What I didn't like about the Sigma?
A1: Man, where do I begin with this without sounding like a sissy? LOL OK, so I shoot motorsports professionally and am usually using a 1DX Mark II with a 100-400 Mark II attached and maybe a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM or the occasional rental lens (I've found the big whites haven't benefited me at all and don't own any). So I'm used to walking around with heavier lenses and gear. But this lens doesn't mount from a tripod collar to my Black Rapid Strap, making the lens all nimbly bimbly as I walk around an event or wedding. It's a lot of weight to have moving around a lot, so I would find myself leaving the lens in the bag a lot more than I wanted or ever anticipated simply due to the handling. What I would do is break the lens out specifically for shots and then put it away and didn't really leave it on very much. Last Tuesday I received my new Canon and immediately went out to perform side-by-side testing. The very first thing I noticed was that when I walked around with the Sigma on my 5D Mark IV, I was annoyed by it!!! Then I would throw the Canon on and I wouldn't even think twice about it. It didn't get in the way, didn't feel too heavy because of the size/balance of the lens, and it felt more natural. In other words, it was a pleasure to walk around with. In my year of using the Sigma regularly, I've found that I much prefer using the lens on a gripped cameras versus one without a grip. I get better stability with the grip and more accurate AF and sharper images as a result. The Canon feels fine with no grip.

A2: The filter size is truly unacceptable. When I saw how big the front element was, I said COOL! Maybe it won't vignette or fisheye as badly now? Then I used it and it did both pretty noticeably...soooo what was the point? I use ND filters a lot in my shooting to avoid High Speed Sync when shooting portraits when I don't have to - it's just nice to have the flexability in that department. I only use higher end NDs. My NDs cost me around $120 each and I have a set of three in 77mm. Those same filters - or close to them - cost $200 each in 86mm! To do this right, I would need to buy a set of three ND filters and drop around $600 on them and ONLY be able to use them on one lens?!? Man...this was a tough pill to swallow. So my compromise was to just swap to one of my 77mm lenses when I was in an ND situation. But here I am with the sharpest, best 85mm lens in the world, and I'm not using it on high-end big money projects because it didn't adapt to my work - not to mention the AF issues. LOL The Canon was designed with a 77mm filter thread and I was grinning from ear-to-ear! I must have checked back on B&H every damn day to see if pre-order was available after the announcement until it was.

IN SUMMATION: The optical quality of the Sigma 85mm Art is obviously incredible and I love the lens for that. But, as you can read above, there's more to living with and using a lens that its optical quality. The Sigma just seems to be a lens that fought me every step of the way to the point where I started not want to use it and couldn't trust it. I got some truly beautiful and amazing photos with that lens this year, but I should have gotten more out of it and I couldn't.

- Kevin
- Kevin
1DX Mk II/5D Mk IV/SL2/M5 - 5x Flashpoint XPLOR 600s
Primes: EF 40mm f/2.8| Sigma 50 Art | Canon 85mm f/1.4L | EF 100L Macro | EF 135L | Zooms: EF 16-35 f2.8L III | EF 24-70mm II f/2.8L | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

jaell

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2017, 10:56:39 AM »
If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.

I was referring to Jaell’s post.
[/quote]

Thanks. That's what I don't know, so that's why I'm asking. I've seen some sample shots, and the Canon corners are a whole lot softer than the Sigma's at 1.4. Not owning either lens, I don't know if the difference is so dramatic that it's a deal-breaker for the Canon.

And SecureGSM, if I've flown 11 planes of a particular make/model, I'd never make an assumption that my experiences applied to all 1,000+ machines produced in that line. While I respect your experience with Sigma lenses--and it certainly far outweighs mine--statistically, you cannot make any conclusions with anything approaching certainty from a sample that is that small. Especially if the lenses you service are all exported to the same region, potentially manufactured on/about the same time, etc.

The fact that you have a "side business" doing lens calibration that has allowed you to "experience" so many Sigma lenses is worrisome. And the exact thing that you're saying--that it's a gradual drift--is exactly the problem that concerns me and many others. The focus starts to drift, and as a photographer, you start off compensating as best you can. Then tolerating focus near-misses. Then the lens goes in the bag and doesn't come out until you decide to hook it up to the dock and do the re-calibration.

Point me to a lens that won't require compromises like that, though the the caveat that the corners aren't as sharp, and then I've got a tough choice to make. If the Canon was optically indistinguishable from the Sigma, but had better AF performance and IS, then hell yeah it's worth $400 more.

Bottom line, what I'm saying is it's not clear-cut (anyone who argues that the decision is clear and that one lens is obviously superior to the other in every case, in every context, is deluded and/or lying). So it's up to each individual photographer to figure out what they value more. To you, doing the "maintenance" on the lens isn't a burden, and your copy(ies) have good AF performance. Until I get a little more information on how many people experience AF issues, and to what degree, I can't make a decision.

Which--returning to the OP of the thread--is why it would be nice if Bryan re-visited his lens evaluations. The Sigma 85mm Art review is positively glowing, but he doesn't discuss any issues with AF or re-calibrating over time.
5D Mark IV / 6D converted to Infra-Red / EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L / EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L USM / EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake / EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro / EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

jaell

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2017, 11:04:21 AM »
I'd ask Bryan and Sean about this... your assumption about things being 'uncool' and bad manners is ridiculous imho. They are very easy going people and not so hung up on these minor particulars as your post makes you appear.

They might not care at all, you're right. But by and large, it's very much net etiquette not to post linked images someone else is hosting. Their bandwidth gets eaten up. Which is why so many commercial sites explicitly disallow it.

Given that Bryan has numerous disclaimers up about how much time/effort he puts into the site, and he solicits commissions and even donations, I go on the assumption that it's more polite to not do something that would cost him money (even if it is pennies on bandwidth).

Plus, it's not like it takes that much effort to host an image, or to simply link to the page so the owner gets some page-hits/advertising revenue.
5D Mark IV / 6D converted to Infra-Red / EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L / EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L USM / EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake / EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro / EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5856
  • USM > STM
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2017, 11:11:20 AM »
You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right?

Did I miss something?  We re-post TDP stuff here all the time, esp. when the point of the post is to reflect upon what has been published there. 

This, in turn, draws folks back to TDP to inquire further, which racks up his page hits and potential 'Buy Here' clicks which are credited to the website.  I'd imagine Brian and Sean would be delighted by that.

Also:  this thread has (to my eyes, unless I missed something) zero HTML links to standalone pictures hosted at another site.  Did you mean to post this in another thread, perhaps?

- A

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5856
  • USM > STM
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2017, 11:19:10 AM »
Which--returning to the OP of the thread--is why it would be nice if Bryan re-visited his lens evaluations. The Sigma 85mm Art review is positively glowing, but he doesn't discuss any issues with AF or re-calibrating over time.

Agree, but that's a ton to ask a site that requires so much energy to just put up a review in the first place.

I'm not aware of any major review site revisiting lens performance other than retesting results when a new higher resolution sensor comes out.  DXO does this on large numbers of lenses, TDP does a solid job of this and PhotoZone has done so on a scant few.  But none to my knowledge look into AF drift over time or discuss how reliably a lens performs like it did at time of unboxing.  In general, AF hit rate work (at all) is anecdotal for most sites, so drift is just an greater ask than the basics we may not be getting from those sites.

But yes, it would be awesome if folks looked into this.  A few of the writers and editors at SLRLounge -- in fairness, more of a professional tutorial / community site these days -- have commented that they've seen Sigma Art lens AF drift over time, and I'd like to hear more about that.  (FWIW, the folks claiming this at that site were working pros and not enthusiasts with photo websites.)

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2017, 11:19:10 AM »

LSXPhotog

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • Kevin DiOssi Photography
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2017, 11:28:20 AM »
I feel like people are fighting over something so stupid here.

The Sigma is widely considered the greatest optics in an autofocus 85mm in the world and one of the best optically performing lenses ever made. Nothing from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have come close. The best comparison for the Canon is both the Sigma and the old Canon 1.2L II. In this comparison we find that it's right where it should be, and that's on the heels of the Sigma and vastly superior to the old Canon.

Why are there people trying to argue that the Canon is better optically? I know from using both that it's not, but it's damn sure close. The whole vignette argument is downright silly. I personally found them to be very similar and in some shots I felt it was worse on the Sigma, but then on a chart we see about a 1/3-2/3 stop difference in the corners. Is this really a win for the Sigma? I mean...it has an 86mm filter thread!!! It's asinine that its even a close call.


Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art
Pros:
- Nearly Flawless Optics
- Contrast levels

Cons:
- Autofocus inconsistency and repeated calibration needs.
- Size (filter size, dimensions)
- Weight (heavy...very heavy)


Canon 85mm 1.4L IS USM
Pros:
- Very high optical quality wide open
- Image stabilizer benefits
- Autofocus consistency and accuracy
- Top-notch weather sealing

Cons:
- Axial chromatic aberrations higher than the Art series, but better than any other 85mm prime.
- Price
- Softer than the Art series globally with mild drop in corners

Canon 85mm 1.2L II USM
Pros:
- Bokeh quality is truly legendary
- ........smaller size?

Cons:
- Soft wide open
- Loads of chromatic aberrations and purple fringing
- Truly terrible autofocus
- Very heavy, but shortest lens in the bunch - dense.
- Kevin
1DX Mk II/5D Mk IV/SL2/M5 - 5x Flashpoint XPLOR 600s
Primes: EF 40mm f/2.8| Sigma 50 Art | Canon 85mm f/1.4L | EF 100L Macro | EF 135L | Zooms: EF 16-35 f2.8L III | EF 24-70mm II f/2.8L | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21841
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2017, 11:32:28 AM »
anyway, not a single post from me on CR from now on.

(another post)

Wow, your resolve lasted a whole 35 minutes and 27 seconds.  Impressive...most impressive.   ;) :o :-X
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jaell

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2017, 12:20:15 PM »
You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right?

Did I miss something?  We re-post TDP stuff here all the time, esp. when the point of the post is to reflect upon what has been published there. 

This, in turn, draws folks back to TDP to inquire further, which racks up his page hits and potential 'Buy Here' clicks which are credited to the website.  I'd imagine Brian and Sean would be delighted by that.

Also:  this thread has (to my eyes, unless I missed something) zero HTML links to standalone pictures hosted at another site.  Did you mean to post this in another thread, perhaps?

- A

A link is different from an image. And that's my point--an image with no credit (other than the watermark), hosted by the creator, doesn't draw folks back to TDP. Bryan incurs the cost of the bandwidth yet doesn't get page hits, which in turn means he loses revenue.

And the TDP images that were posted here were already removed from the post.
5D Mark IV / 6D converted to Infra-Red / EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L / EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L USM / EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake / EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro / EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5856
  • USM > STM
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2017, 12:36:04 PM »
A link is different from an image. And that's my point--an image with no credit (other than the watermark), hosted by the creator, doesn't draw folks back to TDP. Bryan incurs the cost of the bandwidth yet doesn't get page hits, which in turn means he loses revenue.

And the TDP images that were posted here were already removed from the post.

Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying. 

The former (linking to pictures) I don't do, but the latter I absolutely do often.  I download TDP pictures and re-attach them here all the time.  I do that expressly to not have CR traffic gobble up TDP bandwidth (unless folks decide to go to TDP to read more, of course). 

In the majority of cases I do this, it's in pursuance about a discussion about a TDP story/update/finding where the image credit is implied.  But, to your point, I don't always explicitly credit TDP for the shot, and I certainly should do that more conscientiously. 

Appreciate the comment.  I need to do better on this front.

- A

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2017, 12:46:14 PM »
I wonder if the design choices that Sigma makes (i.e. eliminate chromatic aberrations) affects their ability to focus on off-center points.  I used a 20A with a 5DIII, and if I dialed in the AF on the center point, it front-focused at the outer points on both sides consistently.

A control feedback loop is simple, and I can't imagine that Sigma is willing to take a hit on focus issues if they can solve it easily.  Which is why I'm positing whether or not the inaccuracy/incompatibility is inherent within the optical design.  Does anyone know if Sigma lenses have similar issues on Nikon cameras?  I wonder if the Canon lens profiles include anything about offsets for outer points...

Viggo

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3120
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2017, 12:51:16 PM »
I wonder if the design choices that Sigma makes (i.e. eliminate chromatic aberrations) affects their ability to focus on off-center points.  I used a 20A with a 5DIII, and if I dialed in the AF on the center point, it front-focused at the outer points on both sides consistently.

A control feedback loop is simple, and I can't imagine that Sigma is willing to take a hit on focus issues if they can solve it easily.  Which is why I'm positing whether or not the inaccuracy/incompatibility is inherent within the optical design.  Does anyone know if Sigma lenses have similar issues on Nikon cameras?  I wonder if the Canon lens profiles include anything about offsets for outer points...

It’s the same for example with the 50 L also which has tons of CA. I thought it was field curvature that was the issue with the 50 L and others. But perhaps Sigma is just being sucky at reverse engineering the AF. Others may know better.
1dx mkII, 35 L II, 85 L IS, Broncolor Siros 800 L.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2017, 12:51:16 PM »

PavelR

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2017, 02:18:37 PM »
Nothing from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have come close.
You are wrong - Sony 85GM is at least equal to Sigma...

jaell

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2017, 03:40:28 PM »
I'd ask Bryan and Sean about this... your assumption about things being 'uncool' and bad manners is ridiculous imho. They are very easy going people and not so hung up on these minor particulars as your post makes you appear.

They might not care at all, you're right. But by and large, it's very much net etiquette not to post linked images someone else is hosting. Their bandwidth gets eaten up. Which is why so many commercial sites explicitly disallow it.

Given that Bryan has numerous disclaimers up about how much time/effort he puts into the site, and he solicits commissions and even donations, I go on the assumption that it's more polite to not do something that would cost him money (even if it is pennies on bandwidth).

Plus, it's not like it takes that much effort to host an image, or to simply link to the page so the owner gets some page-hits/advertising revenue.

You're preaching to someone who has donated to his site many times. Thanks for the school marm treatment.

Ahh. I didn't realize that if you've donated to a site, you get to make your own rules.

Another poster--not you--posted images hosted by Bryan at TDP. I said, "hey, that's a bit rude. Think again."  And I gave reasons why it's considered bad etiquette, and why it literally costs the image host money. Plenty of forums have rules explicitly forbidding this, and plenty of hosts block images from being posted like that.

You disagree? Fine. You don't think it's rude. And your contributions to TDP allow you to do whatever you want, apparently. I'm not the arbiter of Fairness and Justice on the Internet. I'm just sharing what is common practice.

If your undies are in a bunch about it, that's your problem and not mine, childish insults notwithstanding.

And, given that I'm a college professor, comparing me to a school marm isn't so far off the mark.
5D Mark IV / 6D converted to Infra-Red / EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L / EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L USM / EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake / EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro / EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2017, 03:40:28 PM »