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

[ahsanford]

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?

Stop talking rationally, we're talking about DXO.

In the past, lenses that outresolved the sensor sitting behind it (let's say 22 out of 22 P-MPix on a 5D3) were deemed 'disappointing' and 'sensor-limited' while the test result of the same lens on a 36 MP D800E got a 30-out-of-36 and was 'deemed brilliant' and 'class-leading'. To DXO, more is better when it came to resolution, and seemingly solely on the virtue of being the only 36 MP rig out there at the time(the original A7R was late to their testing party), Nikon topped all the overall score lists.

Now the findings don't make sense; the lower resolving combination breaks their overall scoring record while the higher resolving combination's score is inexplicably gouged. It seems like some very minor differences in transmission and vignetting are bossing the overall score larger than ever before.

It's not about right or wrong (or even your very fair) perspective. It's about DXO changing its overall scoring the moment Nikon no longer was class leading in resolution. Somehow despite all the sharpest lens tests, none of the current top 5 lenses at DXO are on the 5DS R, which is laughable given their prior body of work. Their prior 5 highest scoring lenses (prior to the 5DS R) were I believe their #1 - #5 highest resolving lenses. Now? No longer so.

And again, I don't need Canon to be 'top' or trust DXO's scoring at all in any way. I just want to see them have a method, publish it and stick to it -- or in absence of that, stick to their standard sub-metrics and abolish the overall score altogether. Otherwise, they remain a big fat biased piñata to swing at.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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?

I did with my 35 Art Rental some time ago, and it did little to improve things.

The dock gives you a a pretty powerful AFMA functionality -- even better than with Canon glass as it can be dialed in at a variety of focus distances.

But that only manages front or back focused images. Plots like the samples shown above show something a dock cannot correct -- inconsistent AF. TDP demonstrated this on the 50 Art and it was a simple setup: nail one high contrast target 10 times on a tripod with the center AF point and a defocused lens before each shot was taken. It didn't front or back focus, it altogether whiffed out of the blue on a number of the shots. Again: the dock can't solve that.

But before this video link was dropped, I had not seen this on the 85 Art. Most reviewers were attuned to this inconsistent 35 / 50 Art problem and thoroughly put the 85 Art through its paces and they felt the issue was resolved this time.

- A

 

[MikleK]

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?

I did with my 35 Art Rental some time ago, and it did little to improve things.

The dock gives you a a pretty powerful AFMA functionality -- even better than with Canon glass as it can be dialed in at a variety of focus distances.

But that only manages front or back focused images. Plots like the samples shown above show something a dock cannot correct -- inconsistent AF. TDP demonstrated this on the 50 Art and it was a simple setup: nail one high contrast target 10 times on a tripod with the center AF point and a defocused lens before each shot was taken. It didn't front or back focus, it altogether whiffed out of the blue on a number of the shots. Again: the dock can't solve that.

But before this video link was dropped, I had not seen this on the 85 Art. Most reviewers were attuned to this inconsistent 35 / 50 Art problem and thoroughly put the 85 Art through its paces and they felt the issue was resolved this time.

- A

How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?

I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses completely, I can see for sure that it is a heavy front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best

 

[ahsanford]

How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?

I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses completely, I can see for sure that it is a heavy front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best

Don't know, perhaps 10 minutes to try / adjust / retry at various focal lengths until I felt I had it. It wasn't a 'missed by a little front or back' sort of problem.

After calibration, I'd shoot with:

Single center point AF (5D3)

Shutter speed was well faster than 1 / FL

My subject was stationary in good light

and I shot without recomposing after AF confirm.

...it would confirm AF on the face of a static subject and then it would whiff completely with the AF -- trust me when I say it was not a calibration issue as I would take two shots in a row without doing anything differently and one would be nailed and the other was a blurred out mess -- very similar to Carnathan's butterfly target on the 50mm Art that he reported. I can't peg a hit/miss rate, but it was far worse towards the wide open end. My hits at f/1.4 were breathtakingly sharp but too infrequent and Sigma didn't get the sale after that rental as a result.

It was not discernibly front or back focused that I could tell -- the subject was not lying down in a field of grass where I could use their face vs. the grass blades a 'real world FoCal target'. It just whiffed inconsistently and no dock in the world will fix that unless it's loading the lens with improved AF firmware.

- A

 

[Alex_M]

this.. its almost like understeering /oversteering issue as you force your car into a sharp turn. always take a second shot just in case or hope for the best. the second shot with 35/50 Art works better for me

How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?

I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses completely, I can see for sure that it is a heavy front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best

Don't know, perhaps 10 minutes to try / adjust / retry at various focal lengths until I felt I had it. It wasn't a 'missed by a little front or back' sort of problem.

After calibration, I'd shoot with:

Single center point AF (5D3)

Shutter speed was well faster than 1 / FL

My subject was stationary in good light

and I shot without recomposing after AF confirm.

...it would confirm AF on the face of a static subject and then it would whiff completely with the AF -- trust me when I say it was not a calibration issue as I would take two shots in a row without doing anything differently and one would be nailed and the other was a blurred out mess -- very similar to Carnathan's butterfly target on the 50mm Art that he reported. I can't peg a hit/miss rate, but it was far worse towards the wide open end. My hits at f/1.4 were breathtakingly sharp but too infrequent and Sigma didn't get the sale after that rental as a result.

It was not discernibly front or back focused that I could tell -- the subject was not lying down in a field of grass where I could use their face vs. the grass blades a 'real world FoCal target'. It just whiffed inconsistently and no dock in the world will fix that unless it's loading the lens with improved AF firmware.

- A

 

[IglooEater]

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.

True enough- test charts aren't everything. Thanks for the bit of balance presented here.

 

[ahsanford]

this.. its almost like understeering /oversteering issue as you force your car into a sharp turn. always take a second shot just in case or hope for the best. the second shot with 35/50 Art works better for me

That was my sad lesson as well -- put it in 3 or 6 fps mode and slam on it and hope for the best. Then you fill your hard drives with duplicates and have to sift through them all. Pass -- no thank you.

- A

 

[Alex_M]

Nininini,

I call BS on this so called "test results" judging focus accuracy by looking at bunch of photos with unknown test parameter - are you serious?

do you own the lens, do you have first hand experience taking photos with the lens? then you talk about something you have no idea about and your mega claims are unsubstantiated.


1. what AF mode was used - single AF point, zone, etc?
2. shutter speed used? - hand shakes, bad technique, etc.
3. camera on tripod or handheld?
4. subject lacks any contrast to it. not an ideal situation.
5. can we see 1:1 images? - I have seen flies and little insects throwing focus off as the camera focused on the insect rather than on the subject.
6. was the lens AFMAed prior to testing on USB dock? - this can greatly affect test outcomes.
note: from my experience calibrating the lens with Focal, lens will produce extremely inconsistent results if AFMA is off by 10+ units -/+. especially at infinity!!
7. was the lens faulty by any chance?
this is what I am goin to do to put this BS claims to rest:

I going to put my money where my mouth is.
I am going to take 50 shots of proper target with Sigma 85 Art on tripod and post the link to the series of shots. all of them, in RAW, unedited, untouched, with full exif included - then you can see for yourself.
Take my word for it: I am going to smash my beautyful sigma 85 Art lens, with a hammer if it will produce 10 out 50 OOF shots as that person claims ( well, he claimed 20 out of 50).
and if Sigma 85 Art will produce at least 45 nice and sharp shots you will appologies for the unsubstantiated gobbledygook.

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.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

Nininini,

.....................

I going to put my money where my mouth is.
I am going to take 50 shots of proper target with Sigma 85 Art on tripod and post the link to the series of shots. all of them, in RAW, unedited, untouched, with full exif included - then you can see for yourself.
Take my word for it: I am going to smash my beautyful sigma 85 Art lens, with a hammer if it will produce 10 out 50 OOF shots as that person claims ( well, he claimed 20 out of 50).
and if Sigma 85 Art will produce at least 45 nice and sharp shots you will appologies for the unsubstantiated gobbledygook.

Which hammer would you like to use?

I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them.
That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos.
That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable.
Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye.

But hey, its your money.. Go for it..

 

[ExodistPhotography]

How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?

I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses completely, I can see for sure that it is a heavy front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best

I have the USB dock. While it will help the lens micro-focus better based on distance. It will do nothing for consistency. If it jumps around all the time. You may as well send it into sigma for fix.

 

[Alex_M]

Which hammer would you like to use?

I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them.
That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos.

I am not saying that first generation of Sigma Art lenses focused consistently. That I agree with. What I do not agree with is that 85 Art is the sameand has AF inconsistentcy issue in normal light conditions just like previous generation of Art lenses. There are bunch of internet netizens out there that keep perpetrating the hype that Sigma 85 has AF consistency issue. And logic is: Just because the previous generation had one, why would new one be free of such a problem? right? No, wrong! I have taken hundreds of photos so far with the lens and I know what I am talking about.
It is wastly diffrently focusing lens in terms of accuracy. why would you not listen to voice of reputable reviewers instead?

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/lensrentals-com-review-of-the-sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-series-lens/

"... When it comes to the focus of the lens, it’s good and fast when compared to the slow Canon 85L. While one of us experienced some slight seeking in little light, the consensus is that even at it’s worst, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Series focuses just as good as its competitors..."

I understand your negative AF experience with older Art lenses. I have been there and sold all of them 6 months ago. but is that the reason to be crutical of the lens that you have no personal experience with?

That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable.
Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye.

There is only one lens I am aware of that is 100% focus consistent each time every time: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM. 2% Phase Detection AF error rate is already very good.

1 out of 200 is 0.5%. I am sure that you are following my logic just fine. your claimed AF consitency rate is 4 times better that 2%

I own couple of Canon L zoom lenses and I can tell you the AF consistency rate is much lower than 0.5% you are claiming. 2-3% is more like it. (24-70 F 2.8 II, 16-35 F4 L) and thats not even F1.4 lenses.

I brought 10 out of 50 rate forward only because that reviewer claimed 20 out 50 OOF images which is nonsense. I know my Sigma glass. Thank you.
I am confident to see much better number than 5 out 50. but thats already 4 times better than review claimed.

But hey, its your money.. Go for it..

yes, to each his own and I never throwing good money after bad. I also saved a ton of cash on the way.
but let me prove my point with test images when posted tomorrow. you are welcome to load all of them into Reikan Focal in Manual Mode for sharpness analysis and see how results stack up against the peak sharpness achieved in the series of shots.

 

[ricky_005]

Do you really trust DXO test ;D

Micro contrast is terrible on the Arts ..... Micro contrast is very important.

 

[ahsanford]

I going to put my money where my mouth is.
I am going to take 50 shots of proper target with Sigma 85 Art on tripod and post the link to the series of shots. all of them, in RAW, unedited, untouched, with full exif included - then you can see for yourself.
Take my word for it: I am going to smash my beautyful sigma 85 Art lens, with a hammer if it will produce 10 out 50 OOF shots as that person claims ( well, he claimed 20 out of 50).
and if Sigma 85 Art will produce at least 45 nice and sharp shots you will appologies for the unsubstantiated gobbledygook.

Alex, it's not like Nininini was making things up. Some guy posted his findings, which is hardly baseless libel on a product. I wouldn't say an apology is in order regardless of your test outcome.

An VF AF hit rate as others have said may have a different outcome than with LiveView.

I welcome your data on this, but let's not take all this personally.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them.
That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos.
That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable.
Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye.

But hey, its your money.. Go for it..

Then you are very talented or very lucky. Even the best AF on the planet misses around 1-2% with large aperture glass this. And those are in lab conditions -- in questionable light, slightly moving subject, off-center AF points, etc. one's real-life usage miss rate has to be higher than that.

But whatever test is run needs to be repeated on a 'proven' lens or any value other than perfect will be harped on by the naysayers. I believe even the best AF lays an egg occasionally, and that rate should be considered when praising or condemning the 85 Art.

As far as what lens to use, it's a mixed bag. I agree the 35L II has stellar AF, but a 35mm f/1.4 is simply more forgiving to a miss than an 85mm f/1.4. You kind of have to compare it something similar, say one of Canon's 85 primes (because we know at least two of Canon's 50mm primes will lay an egg on that test) or possibly a 135mm f/2L.

- A

 

[ExodistPhotography]

.........

An VF AF hit rate as others have said may have a different outcome than with LiveView.

I welcome your data on this, but let's not take all this personally.

- A

Yea Live View should almost never miss on something not moving around..

All my Sigma lenses focused great using live view. But thats becuase the camera is doing all the work and has nothing to do with the lens at all. But live view is not usable in all situations.

I am talking about the cameras built in AF sensor.
Sigma has never got the software to full work correctly with Canon. Its not really anything to even do with the lens AF motor speeds, at least with stills and portrait photography. They just are not nearly as accurate.

But yes, I never have focusing issues unless its a UGE (aka my fault). Now that 1-2% is likely from moving subjects. I mostly shoot headshots and fashionscape photos. Except when I am traveling and take lots of landscape and cityscape shots. But those are almost non moving subjects.. The camera and lens should never miss.. But........... The Sigma lenses would.. So I am still trying to sell those things off. Except for my 18-35mm Art. I am keeping it for video which it works fine..
Now talking about older Sigma Lenses (not just the arts) They focused better IMHO. They were micromotor style lenses. But at least new they worked. These newer Art/Sports USM lenses, they got issues..


EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.

I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is slightly different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!

- A

 

[Loswr]

EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.

I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is slightly different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!

Yeah, it's a bit sad what constitutes 'proof' for some people.

 

[ahsanford]

EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.

I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is slightly different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!

Yeah, it's a bit sad what constitutes 'proof' for some people.

My hit rate with a 35 Art absolutely plummeted when shooting wider than f/2, even after calibration and employing a militant 'I recognize small DOF work is unforgiving to technical errors' sort of methodical shooting method.

Again, the reviewers this go-round (with the 85 Art) didn't find that this time. And they were absolutely looking for it based on the 35 and especially the 50 Art.

So again, I welcome a proper test on the 85 Art and a proper control lens tested alongside it to baseline out any test conditions or user decisions that might skew the results. If the 85 Art and 85L II have the same hit rate in the same conditions with VF based focusing, this new lens would be a champ in my book.

...which LensTip almost showed but used separate test bodies.

So someone out there with both 85s, please close the loop for us, would you? Tripod + cable release + each shot defocused before taking the next one + VF based AF. Single point AF on a high contrast target. One battery of comparisons in the center AF point and one (cross type) conducted with an away from center AF point, please. Bonus points: one battery of tests in great light and one in poor interior lighting we might see at a wedding reception, concert, etc. Easy!

- A

 

[ExodistPhotography]

I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is slightly different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!

- A

Not not 15ft away. Only 3 to 5 feet away. But yes a APS-C body at f/7.1 has the equivalent DOF of just over f/11 on FF. However its still thin enough if the eyes are not in perfect focus, then its a dud..

But you talk about shooting wide open. How do you think I calibrated my lenses? All wide open so I could adjust the MFA precisely..

Now, I also own FoCal software and it allows the to test focusing accuracy of my lenses. It throws the focus way out and makes it completely refocus each time. I had to add a -1 to my Canon 50mm STM. Nails focus each time consistently from letting the software test the focus. My EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens, had to add a +8. It also consistently nails focus without any variation. My new 18-135mm I am still testing. But its looking very promising. Now my Sigma 18-35mm Art. FoCal says basically that lens is bad. It jumps all around never hitting its mark. My other sigma lenses also vary in and out about +/- ~5. Even after calibration. Those are just the ones I remember.

Now I am not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money. Do what you want. Matter of fact I think if someone uses Nikon, Sony or a Mirrorless camera. Go for it. Sigma makes optically amazing lenses. But they got issues with Canon.. Thats just reality..

 

[Luds34]

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!

+1

(At least) My copy of the 85mm f/1.8 is deadly in the focus department, both in speed and accuracy. It is the main hesitation I have in upgrading to a better lens optically.