Sigma 85 looks better in corners

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
jaell said:
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
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
jaell said:
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
 
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
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.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 28, 2013
39
2
ahsanford said:
jaell said:
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.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
jaell said:
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
 
Upvote 0
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...
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Random Orbits said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 28, 2013
39
2
slclick said:
jaell said:
slclick said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
YuengLinger said:
Viggo said:
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!
Well if your 1-year old gives you enough scares to cause you a constant nervous tremor, I get the usefulness of IS. If he/she is just scooting about all over the place and hasn't yet given you the 'shakes', I don't see what possible advantage there would be in IS. Widest possible aperture will help ... or just shoot with flash.

Edit: In fairness and on reflection, my own child of only slightly greater vintage has been very easy on the knife and camera juggling thing ... "It's a 'tool', it's not a 'toy'", he dutifully tells his friends ... makes me wince a little, since I put the words into his mouth. But he does abide by that mantra ... not shakes inducing at all. Hey ... but what will he be like at 16???
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,751
2,269
USA
jaell said:
slclick said:
jaell said:
slclick said:
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.

You must have tenure if you have time to join a camera forum and start flaming and scolding right off the bat. Ivy League?
 
Upvote 0
I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has never competed in that world. Can has always taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.

Yeah, the Sigma is noticeably cleaner. And the Canon has IS and can be more readily repaired in more countries. In other news, the sky is blue and grass continues to be green.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 28, 2013
39
2
YuengLinger said:
You must have tenure if you have time to join a camera forum and start flaming and scolding right off the bat. Ivy League?

Let's see.. I signed up here in March of 2013. so nothing I've posted here recently is "right off the bat." I've flamed no one. Scolding? I'd say that's even a harsh interpretation of me suggesting someone not steal TDP's hosting/bandwidth to post images here.

But no, not tenured yet. And definitely not Ivy League. I wouldn't want that sort of headache.

It always does make me smile when someone online tells someone else that they must have a lot of spare time to post their thoughts. Aside from the pot/kettle thing, it amuses me that people assume it takes a lot of time to compose a post here (or on any online forum). And even if it did take more than 60 seconds for me to type this paragraph, given that I'm soliciting information and reading this forum to help me decide how to spend $1100-1600 on an 85mm prime, it actually makes sense to spend a little time figuring out the best use of sizable chunk of money.

I apologize to anyone reading this if my digressions have detracted from the Sigma vs. Canon question.

But taking a few minutes periodically through the day to check in here to find out if there have been any new reviews or data to help me figure out how to spend $1100+ isn't, in my mind, a waste of precious time.

Especially over this past week, when my grading is light because I don't like loading up my students with work in the run-up to the extended holiday.

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
aceflibble said:
I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has never competed in that world. Can has always taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.

Yeah, the Sigma is noticeably cleaner. And the Canon has IS and can be more readily repaired in more countries. In other news, the sky is blue and grass continues to be green.

«canon have never competed in that world” ? Do you mean just with 85mm or in general?
 
Upvote 0
Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 12, 2015
852
298
KirkD said:
Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.

I agree, but compare them when both are attached to the lower resolution body 1Ds III, and it becomes hard to tell them apart. In real world use, to me, the resolution advantage the Sigma holds is unsignificant.
 
Upvote 0
I would have thought Brian and TDP would like people linking their articles on other sites. I don't recall whether I found CR or TDP first, but I'm pretty sure I found one by seeing a post linking to it on the other.

Incidentally, I just picked up the 5d4 on that insane Adorama package deal yesterday, but I was careful to go through the TDP link so that TDP gets a little commission.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
KirkD said:
Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.

Love IS and agree it's valuable. It lets you walk the ISO down a few stops on static subjects.

But to make a sharpness argument for it implies you aren't watching your shutter speed.

But if you're set for auto ISO 1/FL minimum shutter, it would see to it that you wouldn't have a shutter speed related oopsie and you'd be able to realize the resolving power of the lens handheld in the field.

i.e. if I'm shooting a 24-70 lens with IS off (or lacking IS), I'll set min shutter to 1/60th (as 1/70th isn't an option) or 1/125 if I'm tired, hiking, etc. But if the IS is on and I'm shooting static subjects, I'll tweak my auto ISO to 1/15 or so. Sounds tweakish, but I really only of do this once each time I mount the lens (IS is almost always on for me). So in the manner I shoot, IS never bails me out -- I'm constantly counting on it to keep my ISO as low as possible.

Love IS, I do, but 'it bails me out when I don't keep an eye on shutter speed or don't like to fiddle with my ISO level' is not a selling point for the way I shoot.

- A
 
Upvote 0