Review: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Receives Highest DXOMark Score Ever

[YuengLinger]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

Wasn't there a rumor, speculation, or something that Sigma had used an underpowered motor in the 50mm and that was a culprit in some of the inconsistent focusing... furthermore that Sigma recognized that and put in a beefy motor for the 85mm to correct that shortcoming.

Yes. Sigma used a new HSM motor with 1.3 times the torque https://www.sigmaphoto.com/85mm-f14-dg-hsm-a They blamed the lower torque motors used prior for this for effectively missing the AF destination. [citation needed]
But that doesn't really tell us much, just that they want to sell lenses.

First thing I heard about that, and the 50 1.4 A is my go to lens for close-up concert photography. Although my 70-200 does indeed have more full-on-focus-hits, the 50 isn't off worse than my other lenses and MUCH better than my Canon 85 1.8.

Aren't you becoming a part of the show if you are doing CLOSE UPS with a 50mm during a concert? Just curious!

Too bad about your 85 1.8--that is one of the fastest, most reliable AF lenses I've ever used. Glad you are doing well with the 50mm Art!

 

[ExodistPhotography]

and where did you get that numbers from? how about 98 out of 100 in focus (shots with sharpness achieved better than 80% of peak sharpness). first hand experience, lens tested with Focal software. custom test. 100 consecutive shots. good lighting. indoors. focal target at 4m. central AF point only. Camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod.
I can confirm that canon 24-70 F2.8 L II lens results are not any better.

Gets highest optical score ever. Still misses focus every 3 out of 10 shots.. No thank you..

Don't take my word for it.. Check out Christopher Frost video. He got the same results.
To the dipstick that says I need a tripod. That has nothing to do with focusing issue. I am not a newb. I shoot in studio or outdoor fashionscape photography using flash.

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Sigma alerted me to this yesterday. I'm not surprised by the sharpness metric at all - the 85A is extremely sharp. But here's where lab results don't always tell the whole story, too. The Otus has far more contrast (and less chromatic aberrations) and thus will LOOK sharper in the field. I also find the rendering from the Otus to be much more special. But for 99% of users that is neither here nor there. They don't want to pay for the Otus and they don't want to manually focus. Kudos to Sigma for building an accessible resolution monster.

 

[neuroanatomist]

How can the transmission change? Does a mount change involve additional elements?

DxO measures lens + sensor. So, for example, if there's more light loss due to the CFA or microlenses on one sensor than another, that will show up as a difference in transmission.

 

[Viggo]

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?

 

[ExodistPhotography]

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?

Did you check out the link to Christopher Frosts review of the lens. Its missing focus over 30% of the time..

 

[ahsanford]

Wow, we hit a nerve here. Far be it from me to be a defender of Sigma's AF -- I regularly harpoon the AF on the 35 and 50 Art lenses -- I think the 85mm Art is a different animal for the better. Hear me out.

First -- when we malign the rep of Sigma's AF, it's not about front or back focusing, so please stop bringing a USB Dock to a gunfight. Front or back focusing the dock can address, yes, but most people's beef with the Art lenses is inconsistent focusing where trying to hit the same damn target (even on a tripod in controlled conditions in good light) can inexplicably whiff 1 or 2 times in 10 -- the dock can do nothing to address that short of delivering a new firmware update. Calibration does not solve inconsistently hitting/missing the same target.

Second -- not all Art lenses are plagued by this inconsistency. I've personally experienced it on the 35 Art, and the 50 Art's problems are well documented by trusted reviewers.

But the 85 Art appears to have turned a corner. I do not know if this is due to the new additional power the focusing motor has or if they just worked out a bug with their EF communications routines. But the proof is in the pudding:

• http://www.lenstip.com/491.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofocus.html
  
  In their general lab test, the miss rate was so low it was not reported. For perspective, the 35 Art had a 2.5% miss rate and the 50 Art had a 6-7% miss rate and exhibited a nutty AF stuttering/indecision problem on one of the test bodies. So one reviewer says the 85 Art is a very solid AF performer. Consider: the 85L II had a 3% miss rate in their testing.
  
  LensTip even went a step further and ran a separate battery of more stringent tests and at f/1.4 the 85 Art only exhibited a 2% miss rate. That's actually a phenomenal result -- there are certainly some L lenses that would not hit that bar.
  
  
• Bryan Carnathan at TDP -- who rather famously nailed the 50 Art AF problem -- gave a much better review to the 85 Art:
  
  "After capturing over 600 tripod-based images of various subjects strictly for the purpose of testing AF, each capture starting in an out-of-focus condition, I found that this lens focuses consistently accurately. Not every image is perfectly sharp, but a very considerable percentage of them are."

I am not saying the 85 Art is flawless. I am saying Sigma appears to have greatly diminished the Art lenses' biggest limitation. The reasons to avoid buying this particular lens are very small -- lack of IS, lack of sealing, it's too big, etc. -- but optically it is dynamite, the AF is significantly improved, and it's a value for the ages. And lest we forget, I'm no Sigma apologist. I've been one of their biggest critics on this issue. If I needed an 85, I'd get this one in a heartbeat.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?

'Fix' implies a firmware change solves it. If they could do this, they would have.

The 85 was not a fix -- it's a new product that has a different AF design. So what you call a fix for the 35 and 50 may actually require Sigma to deliver a new product in the form of a full-blown Mk II.

- A

 

[FramerMCB]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

The Sigma 85mm is a huge lens (size and weight). Based on several reviews I have read, the reviewers have had 0 (that's "zero") issues with the autofocus ability of the lens. This one from Sigma truly looks like it's a giant killer. And with the Dock, it future proofs it for later Canon (or Nikon, or pick a mfg.) bodies... I can't wait until we start getting some solid info on the new Canon 85mm 1.4 that's reportedly coming later this year. To see how it matches up.

 

[Viggo]

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?

'Fix' implies a firmware change solves it. If they could do this, they would have.

The 85 was not a fix -- it's a new product that has a different AF design. So what you call a fix for the 35 and 50 may actually require Sigma to deliver a new product in the form of a full-blown Mk II.

- A

Yes and no, they made a new motor for the 85, because they KNEW it was a big problem with the 35 and 50, yet they make no attempt to make the 35 and 50 work, not even a firmware. How about a callback? How about starting to produce the 50 and 35 with new motors as well?

I realize that would cost them greatly, but do I care when I paid a bunch of money for a useless product?

 

[Chaitanya]

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY

 

[ahsanford]

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HN6shIWJY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m25s

...to be exact (to save you some time).

Methods weren't stated for that battery of shots (was he using off-center points, auto point selection, did he de-focus each time, was he on a tripod, how dark was the scene, etc.), but it's clearly not a good finding if true.

- A

 

[grainier]

Like everyone else says - who cares about image quality if you can't get your lens to focus?

 

[ahsanford]

Like everyone else says - who cares about image quality if you can't get your lens to focus?

Because this may be a mountain v. molehill situation with this particular lens. We honestly don't have great data to compare to other lenses we take for granted as working. (Where are the hit rate studies for L lenses?)

In the only head to head* I've seen (from LensTip), we have:

85 Art: 'hardly ever missed' -- no hit rate reported in the general test
85L II: 3% AF miss rate

*Not a perfect comparison: the 85L II was tested on the 1Ds3 and the 85 Art was tested on the 5D3, I believe.

In light of that data, why would anyone ever buy an 85L II? 3% of your never-can-be-retaken wedding reception shots just went poof. Why is that not also outrageous and unacceptable?

I'm not arguing the 85L II is a problem, of course, so much as pointing out that we are putting Sigma somewhat unfairly under a microscope based on the 50 Art experience. Reviewers need to up their game and thoroughly test AF consistency on everything from here on out.

But between Dustin's work, TDP, and LensTip, I'd say to go get the 85 Art without reservation. By their same body of work on the 50 Art, I would not buy that lens unless what you shoot allows you to chimp as you go and reshoot.

- A

 

[testthewest]

As posted elsewhere, PB, DPR and others had an advanced scoop on this before it was published. PB actually got a screenshot from DXO, see attached.

(Link here, pic below)
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/02/02/sigma-85mm-f1-4-beats-zeiss-otus-dxo-tests/

It's a little fuzzy, but if my eyes do not deceive me:

Nikon D800E + 85mm Art:

Sharpness: 36


Canon 5DS R + 85mm Art:

Sharpness: 40

And then DXO just does what it does:

Overall Score - Nikon: 51
Overall Score - Canon: 48

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A

Well, getting 36MPix out of a 36,3 MPix camera is outstanding. Getting 40MPix out of a 50MPix camera is merely great. So how could the combination of the Canon/Sigma ever score higher if it loses 20% of the pixels, while the Nikon/Sigma combo does barely lose any?

 

[Nininini]

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY?t=2m37s

viewfinder shots on an easy static subject in bright daylight:

30 shots in focus
9 out of focus
11 completely out of focus

That's 20 misses for every 50 shots. That's 40% of shots being out of focus in conditions that aren't even challenging. Completely unacceptable. I don't even want to know how terrible the hitrate would be on moving subjects or dim light.

This lens has major AF problems, just like every Sigma lens before it.

There is a reason these lenses cost half of what Canon lenses cost.

Getting a lens to focus properly is primordial, I don't care how sharp a lens is, if it has AF problems, it's useless to me.

 

[jeffa4444]

I dont know why anyone takes DXO seriously. They have flawed testing techniques period.

Thats not to say the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens is not great by the way.

 

[jeffa4444]

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?

'Fix' implies a firmware change solves it. If they could do this, they would have.

The 85 was not a fix -- it's a new product that has a different AF design. So what you call a fix for the 35 and 50 may actually require Sigma to deliver a new product in the form of a full-blown Mk II.

- A

Yes and no, they made a new motor for the 85, because they KNEW it was a big problem with the 35 and 50, yet they make no attempt to make the 35 and 50 work, not even a firmware. How about a callback? How about starting to produce the 50 and 35 with new motors as well?

I realize that would cost them greatly, but do I care when I paid a bunch of money for a useless product?

I suppose your sitting at Sigma engineering meetings? Sigma made a stronger motor because the 85mm is larger & heavier than the 50mm lens. Ive met with the president / owner of Sigma at Photokina last year and he takes a very keen interest on what his customers think and strives to improve their products. Sigma took a huge gamble when they invested in designing the Art series of lenses I know first hand the cost of developing high performance lenses and thanks to Sigma both Nikon and Canon have to try harder with their new designs. I dont own a single Art lens or Sigma lens so Im unbaised and see it purely as an engineer. Canon are not perfect and some lenses are well past their sell by date the EF 17-40mm f4L or the EF 50mm f1.4 being good examples.

 

[MikleK]

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY?t=2m37s

viewfinder shots on an easy static subject in bright daylight:

30 shots in focus
9 out of focus
11 completely out of focus

That's 20 misses for every 50 shots. That's 40% of shots being out of focus in conditions that aren't even challenging. Completely unacceptable. I don't even want to know how terrible the hitrate would be on moving subjects or dim light.

This lens has major AF problems, just like every Sigma lens before it.

There is a reason these lenses cost half of what Canon lenses cost.

Getting a lens to focus properly is primordial, I don't care how sharp a lens is, if it has AF problems, it's useless to me.

Well, actually I used to have the same with my EF 50 f/1.4 and old 7D mark I. However, Canon service solved the problem and it became nearly 98% shots in focus afterwards.

Has anybody used Sigma USB Lens Dock to calibrate the Art lenses?

 

[ahsanford]

Getting a lens to focus properly is primordial, I don't care how sharp a lens is, if it has AF problems, it's useless to me.

I hear you, and yes, if the AF is off, it's a major deal.

That said, who is this gentleman, and very specifically how does he perform this test?

We tend to rely on sites that publish their methods and others have reproduced the same finding. Is this an issue on a more modern/comprehensive AF setup like the 5-series and 1-series bodies have? We he using an off-center AF point or auto-select? Was it a really dark scene and we're only seeing what he boosted in post?

I'm not saying it didn't happen and I'm not saying he's biased -- I am saying others I trust more tell me this is a non-issue and I'm inclined to believe them enough to get this lens and find out.

- A