LensTip Review - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
And the test heard round the world -- the AF does not suck:
" When it comes to poor lighting conditions the Sigma attached to the 5D Mark III seemed to perform actually better than its rivals. During a studio session with the modelling light switched off it was quite dark; still the Sigma managed to set the focus without any problems every single time. In the same conditions the Nikon D3x with the new Nikkor AF-S 105 mm f/1.4 performed much worse, its AF mechanism often getting lost and trying to find appropriate position several times.
When it comes to the accuracy the Sigma results were very good – in studio conditions the lens hardly ever missed. It also didn’t need any calibration when attached to any of the bodies, and photos below are the proof."
I'd consider that a ringing AF endorsement.
But because it's not first party (and because of prior Sigma Art AF issues), they went further still -- I've never seen them dig this deep:
"In order to be absolutely sure our results were right we took two additional tests, similar to those we perform while testing cameras. We put the Sigma attached to the EOS 5D Mark III before one of our charts and, by f/2.8 we took 50 photos setting the focus every time anew. There were 59% of shots with perfect sharpness, 39% of photos with errors smaller than 20% of the maximum MTF50 and only 2% of shots which should be considered complete misses.
Then we raised the standards even higher and repeated the experiment by f/1.4. What’s interesting, the results were even better, with 75% of perfectly sharp photos, 23% of acceptable ones and once again just 2% of misses."
1) Don't let those 'acceptable' or 'errors small than 20%' throw you off as they've never done this for another lens. It's quite possible Canon glass has similar/worse numbers.
2) How the hell did it get better at f/1.4?
- A
" When it comes to poor lighting conditions the Sigma attached to the 5D Mark III seemed to perform actually better than its rivals. During a studio session with the modelling light switched off it was quite dark; still the Sigma managed to set the focus without any problems every single time. In the same conditions the Nikon D3x with the new Nikkor AF-S 105 mm f/1.4 performed much worse, its AF mechanism often getting lost and trying to find appropriate position several times.
When it comes to the accuracy the Sigma results were very good – in studio conditions the lens hardly ever missed. It also didn’t need any calibration when attached to any of the bodies, and photos below are the proof."
I'd consider that a ringing AF endorsement.
But because it's not first party (and because of prior Sigma Art AF issues), they went further still -- I've never seen them dig this deep:
"In order to be absolutely sure our results were right we took two additional tests, similar to those we perform while testing cameras. We put the Sigma attached to the EOS 5D Mark III before one of our charts and, by f/2.8 we took 50 photos setting the focus every time anew. There were 59% of shots with perfect sharpness, 39% of photos with errors smaller than 20% of the maximum MTF50 and only 2% of shots which should be considered complete misses.
Then we raised the standards even higher and repeated the experiment by f/1.4. What’s interesting, the results were even better, with 75% of perfectly sharp photos, 23% of acceptable ones and once again just 2% of misses."
1) Don't let those 'acceptable' or 'errors small than 20%' throw you off as they've never done this for another lens. It's quite possible Canon glass has similar/worse numbers.
2) How the hell did it get better at f/1.4?
- A
Upvote
0
Impressive sharpness, and if true, impressive autofocus. I almost bought the 50mm many times but heard too many horror stories of AF problems to pull the trigger.
I am quite happy with my 85 f/1.2 from Canon, but I am sure impressed with how this new lens is looking. Sharper than the Otus! Man...that's quite something
I am quite happy with my 85 f/1.2 from Canon, but I am sure impressed with how this new lens is looking. Sharper than the Otus! Man...that's quite something
Upvote
0
Just a crazy idea: what if the AF accuracy limiting factor is now the camera's own phase detection algo and not the lens itself? Would it be easier for camera detect smallest AF deviation at wider apertures due to more pronounced sharpness falloff associated with narrow DoF of the wider aperture? If that's the case, then the lens seems capable of very fine and accurate focusing group movement required in this instance...
ahsanford said:
Upvote
0
This is a lens for the history books.
If copy variation holds, and users have good experiences with AF, it's going to take a miracle for anyone to outperform this Sigma 85A.
Canon could try and get similar results at f1.2, but that would still be a $3,000 lens.
If copy variation holds, and users have good experiences with AF, it's going to take a miracle for anyone to outperform this Sigma 85A.
Canon could try and get similar results at f1.2, but that would still be a $3,000 lens.
Upvote
0
9VIII said:
What's missing in these reviews is the 'magic' / color / rendering that a resolution chart drives right past. The 85mm prime situation very well could be like comparing the 50 Art to the 50L and you have resolution-obsessives buy the Sigma and 'magic'/bokeh-obsessives buy the Canon.
But the sharpness gauntlet has been thrown down by Sigma yet again. Canon responded brilliantly with the 35L II, but we've heard nothing but crickets at 50mm and now they have this 85mm to contend with.
It much less a threat to Canon's business so much as Canon's pride, so at some point they have to punch back.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Contrast is much better on the Sigma, I doubt anyone would choose the Canon 85f1.2 for its color rendition.
https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/
Bokeh on the other hand, is obviously more pleasing on the Canon 85f1.2. People looking for that aspect in a lens aren't going to bat an eye at the 85A.
We still have an 85f1.2 coming from Samyang though, that should be a much more interesting comparison in that regard.
Of course being manual focus, it's still not going to change the landscape for Bokeh fanatics, but the Samyang 851.2 and Sigma 85A have my attention more than anything else on the market right now.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Not into "magic" colors myself. I use lens-specific color profiles which makes all lenses de facto equal on the color side (as in neutral).
Bokeh is of course another matter. It will need more samples than we have seen so far to determine. What I have seen so far did not make me shy away.
The same was said of sharpness and the 70-200 IS L II bokeh and it got a lot of heat for its bokeh being worse than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L - but in the end people succumbed to its superior optical qualities. Today I almost never hear people complain at the 70-200 IS L II bokeh any more.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
well, actually they do, I love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but in every 135mm vs 70-200mm thread you see the coma mentioned, yes its not the same lens, but also its not the same for 85mm, you don't use 85mm for sports like the 70-200 or for events where you need the zoom flexibility, so for the sole use of the 85mm bokeh is very important, I am not saying its bad in the new Sigma, but its clearly different.
Upvote
0
