Sigma 85 looks better in corners

[sanj]

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1168&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.

 

[ahsanford]

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1168&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.

...and the AF. The Sigma 85 and 135 Art apparently appear to be better AF-wise than the 35 / 50 Art, but I'd still go first party AF unless the large aperture application I need the lens for allows for a tripod or the time to chimp & reshoot.

If you are shooting folks off-tripod / on-the-fly at events, weddings, reportage, etc. I'd forego the smaller corner sharpness opportunities for more of a sure thing with the AF, but that's just one guy's opinion.

- A

 

[Viggo]

I shot a few today of a key ring in harsh lowing sunlight to produce the worst amount of fringing I could, to be honest, it’s nothing, seriously good.

I really like it so far, I don’t want to post any samples yet as I’m in the process of calibrating focus. To me, it looks like it’s the same with AF as any other brand new lens I’ve bought; The out of the box obvious calibration value does change over the first periode of use.

 

[sanj]

Thank you guys

 

[Viggo]

Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D

 

[YuengLinger]

Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D

I blame my declining steadiness on age and parenthood. Especially parenthood. We now have a 1 year old who climbs like a monkey, moves chairs to get on tables, and will happily wave around a steak knife or a camera when found. So, yes, IS has become an urgent need!

 

[Viggo]

Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D

I blame my declining steadiness on age and parenthood. Especially parenthood. We now have a 1 year old who climbs like a monkey, moves chairs to get on tables, and will happily wave around a steak knife or a camera when found. So, yes, IS has become an urgent need!

LOL!

Showed my son a bunch of pictures of adults before and after the became parents and he didn’t know and just asked;

“What happened to these people, are they sick?” No, son, we parents are just your energy source, and we do wear out ;D

 

[SecureGSM]

Sigma has less vignetting? how is that even possible? I have been told by local experts that new Canon vignetting level is only 1.3EV in extreme corners. and no CA to boot.

I have been called full of crap, that I need to get the life, Sigma crowd and what is not for calling it as it is.
Sigma sharper across the frame and up to 2 full stop sharper in corners, less LoCA, less vignetting, better contrast and pop, equally as good rendition of out of focus areas and focus to out of focus transition.
no IS, 95% as good AF for One Shot situation centre and peripheral points. Sigma is a wrong tool for AI Servo subject tracking, not an event / run and gun lens. New Canon is jack of all trades type of lens, solid performer.
Sigma requires AFMA adjustment every few months due to internal heavy optics and mechanics wearing in. I was told by service centre that it takes up to 12 months for things to settle.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1168&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.

 

[jaell]

Sigma has less vignetting? how is that even possible? I have been told by local experts that new Canon vignetting level is only 1.3EV in extreme corners. and no CA to boot.

You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right? Given how much work Bryan does that the rest of us benefit from, and how up-front he is about the costs he incurs as a result, it's really bad manners to use his bandwidth and post his pictures here with nothing but his watermark for attribution. The least you could do would be to host the photos yourself so he's not incurring any costs for your posting.

And by the way, for those of us without a dog in your fight (I haven't made a decision yet about whether I'm going to buy a Sigma or the Canon 85 1.4 IS), your shtick is really wearing thin. You like the Sigma. We get it. Stop nailing yourself to the cross about it.

Personally, I don't feel like having to spend time every few months recalibrating a lens so it focuses right. Given that most lenses don't need such minute attention, I expect my equipment to work properly throughout its normal life. You obviously feel differently, and your Sigma 85mm works well for you. Can you just accept that not everyone has the same preferences and requirements for their equipment?

 

[SecureGSM]

another one... i have no part in this sigma vs canon game. all I mentioned is true. there is a lot of bias on CR forum for obvious reason.

deleted those links because it is apparently uncool. hope it helps.

buy what you please. you are on the fence apparently, I have data that may assist you to make an educated decision. just out of a good will.
I service my car every 6 month approx. it is what it is. No, I do not feel differently about Sigma.
Not suggesting what suits you best. but when people comes out with dubious claims in regards to subjects they have no knowledge about, I would not be afraid to raise my head and speak out.

it appears that you are the one that do not get it: I am not a blind brand supporter or a Sigma shill.
I sold all my Sigma Art primes but 85 Arft due to erratic AF behaviour on 5D IV.
there are facts and there is noise. the noise is that ALL Sigma lenses AF inconsistent. the fact is - not all of them do.

anyway, i think I am done with this subject. waste of efforts for nothing. off to a better things in my life.

 

[jaell]

And here's where I'm really conflicted. I like composing images with the subject not in the center of the frame where IQ is maximized. The Sigma is very appealing because the corner-to-corner sharpness, the lower CA, the lower vignetting, appeals to me.

But then, I spend months at a time abroad, and I simply cannot afford to have a lens that falls out of calibration and requires being attached to a dock and computer (with the right software installed) to be put back into calibration. I can't benefit from better corner IQ if the lens isn't focused where I want it to be.

Then on the other hand, I think, "Am I going to take a heavy 85mm prime with me in the field, in addition to my wide-angle & tele zooms and my general purpose lens? Isn't this mainly a portrait lens?" But then on a third hand, I remember that the majority of my photography is in the field, and I don't feel like spending $1200+ for a lens that will sit at home or in a bag most of the time.

Here's the big rub: there's a price difference between the two lenses, but the Sigma isn't low enough to simply say, "Get both; use the Sigma for X and the Canon for Y." And the Canon so far doesn't seem to be so good as to make this a slam-dunk decision. So there are a lot of people out there who want a good, definitive answer as far as which lens is "best." And the bottom line is neither one is "best." One is better than the other at some things, but not everything.

 

[jaell]

another one... i have no part in this sigma vs canon game. all I mentioned is true. there is a lot of bias on CR forum for obvious reason.

deleted those links because it is apparently uncool. hope it helps.

buy what you please. you are on the fence apparently, I have data that may assist you to make an educated decision. just out of a good will.
I service my car every 6 month approx. it is what it is. No, I do not feel differently about Sigma.
Not suggesting what suits you best. but when people comes out with dubious claims in regards to subjects they have no knowledge about, I would not be afraid to raise my head and speak out.

it appears that you are the one that do not get it: I am not a blind brand supporter or a Sigma shill.
I sold all my Sigma Art primes but 85 Arft due to erratic AF behaviour on 5D IV.
there are facts and there is noise. the noise is that ALL Sigma lenses AF inconsistent. the fact is - not all of them do.

anyway, i think I am done with this subject. waste of efforts for nothing. off to a better things in my life.

No, I'm not "one that do not get it." I'm a guy who comes here, reads, mainly lurks, and I see over and over and over you picking fights with people. Just like you're getting defensive and trying to pick a fight with me.

To your car analogy: I'm a pilot. Every time I fly, before I get in the cockpit, I do a visual inspection of the plane. Every bit of it. Now, when I drive, how often do I even walk around my car to see if all 4 tires are inflated? Rarely. (Why? Because driving on a flat tire won't kill me in 10 seconds.) Does that mean I don't take care of my car, that I don't expect it to perform to my expectations? Absolutely not. It means that I have different expectations for different pieces of technology in my life. It's why we value cameras with magnesium bodies more than cameras with plastic bodies: we expect a magnesium-body camera to be more durable and less prone to breakage. So, ironically, we might be less careful with a more expensive camera (or L-series lens) than with a cheaper piece of equipment. In the end, I don't expect a lens to need routine maintenance. Sure, I can't expect a lens to stay in perfect shape if I'm carrying it in a backpack through a desert in a country far from home. But that's a world of difference away from having to dock a lens and re-calibrate it after a few months of light use doing portraits in a studio.

Some of us want what we perceive to be a more reliable piece of equipment.

Now, your experience and opinion is that the Sigma is not too much trouble and hits at a more-than-acceptable rate of in-focus shots. Congrats. Realize that you might have a better copy of the lens than others who report less-than-acceptable experiences. Also realize that other people have different opinions.

You have data. I've seen your posts, so I know about your testing. How many copies of the Sigma 85mm Art have you tested? Is it a representative sample of the thousands of copies that are in circulation? Again, maybe you've had better luck than other people getting copies that focus more accurately and reliably.

Now, to wrap up. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said you're a Sigma shill. I did say that your woe-is-me-I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong act is annoying. Some of your arguments rest on logical fallacies, because you've built up anyone who disagrees with you into a mass of people who say you're a shill. Anyone who questions your opinions and thinks that you're a bit too vehement is somehow questioning your expertise, your data, your facts, your incontrovertible logic. I don't have a single problem with the Sigma lens or your affinity for it. Quite the opposite: if I could be sure I'd get a 85mm Art that performed as well as your copy, I'd probably do so. But that's the problem: I am not willing to bet $1100-1200 that I'd get that. And that's why I've come here and asked if anyone has more data about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Sigma's focusing. Because if the focusing issues are just here and there, and most copies perform to the level you've experienced, then that's a whole lot different from--what I've seen in these forums--the narrative that the Sigma is hit-and-miss with AF. But good for you that the Sigma works for you; no doubt anyone who has such a positive experience with a product wants other people to know about it. It doesn't make you a shill; it makes you someone who appreciates a good-performing piece of equipment.

But one thing it doesn't allow you to be is that jagoff who trashes anyone whose opinions or experiences are different from yours. Because ultimately, if you have better things to do with your life than argue with people on an online forum, by all means stop arguing and do those better things!

 

[SecureGSM]

ahhh, no. it does not work like this with Sigma. it is not a sudden drift and everything and all values are all over the shop. it is a sloooow process.. months and by a subtle amount. and even then you should be able to quickly recalibrate just by looking at the images you get. It is simple.

this is not a lens for a field work. far from it. if you after utmost resolution and detalisation even stopped down, then the Sigma may be what you are after. high resolution bodies, commercial settings, studio when you spend time and effort setting things right and would appreciate that extra bit of IQ - high level sort of work, precise stuff. not even apples to apples comparison. For a field run and gun work I am all Canon - holy trinity - F2.8 is good enough for most type of work that I come across. the light is crappy anyway but I manage to get shots out that seems to be good if not better.

On location portraits is a different story though. I would use prime lens as you can set things up to the level where one can utilise optical advantages in order to deliver an excitement to the client.

And here's where I'm really conflicted. I like composing images with the subject not in the center of the frame where IQ is maximized. The Sigma is very appealing because the corner-to-corner sharpness, the lower CA, the lower vignetting, appeals to me.

But then, I spend months at a time abroad, and I simply cannot afford to have a lens that falls out of calibration and requires being attached to a dock and computer (with the right software installed) to be put back into calibration. I can't benefit from better corner IQ if the lens isn't focused where I want it to be.

Then on the other hand, I think, "Am I going to take a heavy 85mm prime with me in the field, in addition to my wide-angle & tele zooms and my general purpose lens? Isn't this mainly a portrait lens?" But then on a third hand, I remember that the majority of my photography is in the field, and I don't feel like spending $1200+ for a lens that will sit at home or in a bag most of the time.

Here's the big rub: there's a price difference between the two lenses, but the Sigma isn't low enough to simply say, "Get both; use the Sigma for X and the Canon for Y." And the Canon so far doesn't seem to be so good as to make this a slam-dunk decision. So there are a lot of people out there who want a good, definitive answer as far as which lens is "best." And the bottom line is neither one is "best." One is better than the other at some things, but not everything.

 

[SecureGSM]

ok, my last post. it becoming unreasonable:

1. I am offering AFMA Canon and Sigma lens calibration for people for last couple of years as side miniscule size business ( AFMA calibration service). more like a fun. I charge peanuts for the service. it is more a service to community. fun club.
I have calibrated 11 Sigma 85 Art lenses and hundreds of other Sigma Art lenses personally over last couple of years. does it ring a bell with you? do you think I can confidently say that I know a thing or two about Sigma Art lenses.

i am not picking up fight with people. I point out what seems to be bias or misinformation or mistake. some people reply with disrespect.

your statement: may be you have a better luck with your lens than others - I hope I was able to explain why what I say is what it is. next time I need to fly the plane I know who to ask for assistance.

I am sure that you do not fly your aircrafts by luck, do you?
I am sure that you expert in what you do. I do not question that for a second. why you are questioning someone else expertise in something that you are not proficient enough yourself?
anyway, I am sure that there hundreds of other experts that can assist you with you Sigma or Canon dilema.

i am seriously done with this. All I wanted to share my experience with people that may be interested to know what is really going on. All I get is irritated replies and disbelief and all for no reason.
anyway, not a single post from me on CR from now on.

Realize that you might have a better copy of the lens than others who report less-than-acceptable experiences. Also realize that other people have different opinions.

You have data. I've seen your posts, so I know about your testing. How many copies of the Sigma 85mm Art have you tested? Is it a representative sample of the thousands of copies that are in circulation? Again, maybe you've had better luck than other people getting copies that focus more accurately and reliably.

 

[Viggo]

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.

 

[SecureGSM]

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.

 

[Viggo]

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.

 

[LSXPhotog]

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

 

[jaell]

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.

 

[jaell]

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.