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

[Luds34]

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..

Easy there professor. The point still stands. Shooting even head shots at f/7.1 on crop has plenty of DOF (despite your beliefs) for the camera's AF system and is not applicable to the general "focus accuracy" discussion that is occurring in this thread.

 

[Alex_M]

well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.

software does much better quantitative work in judging how much your shot is off from the peak sharpness. some people can notice 15% difference in sharpness. I start noticing things at around 10-15% depending on the scene contrast and lighting levels.

anyway, here is the outcomes:

50 shots taken, camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod, distance to target : 4.25m, natural light, indoors, cloudy. F1.4, ISO 100, AV - but all shots at T=1/60s, AWB, mirror locked up, remote shutter release.
each shot taken with lens defocused away from the camera to infinity. OVF focusing (Phase detection AF), not a Live view contrast detection.
in camera AFMA: 0 all AFMA adjustments are set to the lens firmware via Sigma USB dock. RAW, single shot mode, central AF point selected. all shots are taken in sequence, no shots were pre-selected or discarded.. you have got them all. check the EXIF data to confirm the test conditions are as per above.
target Focal Standard Target at 200% (A2 size).

all 50 files can be downloaded at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wzwzfrt5eqa28bm/AAA_AxaK3Xx3KIEgylTeZoP0a?dl=0

I encourage interested parties to conduct independent evaluation of the test files in order to confirm Sigma 85 1.4 Art lens AF consistency level.

I also loaded all 50 files in Rekian Focal for focus consistency analysis.


end result, as per Reikan Focal : ConsistencyofFocus 96.4%

the absolutely worst sharpness achieved: 1556.6
the peak sharpness achieved:1691.4

maximum deviation from peak focus: 7.97%
please note: if the worst and the best shot were excluded, the focus deviation is within 5%

not a single shot was OOF. all 50 shots are in focus (less than 10% focus deviation from the peak sharpness)

ReikanFoCalFocusConsistencyTestReport can be downloaded here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbw2bah6h51luil/170205_143252_AFC_Canon%20EOS%206D_308051002045_EF24%20f_1.4L%20II_85mm.PDF?dl=0


Reikan Focal identified the lens as Lens EF24f/1.4LII FocalLength 85.0mm apparently, if you twist the focal length ring of the EF24f/1.4LII hard enough you can get to 85mm with the lens

ExodistPhotography

I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF

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

 

[ahsanford]

Anyway, here is the outcomes:

[nice methodology truncated]

end result, as per Reikan Focal : ConsistencyofFocus 96.4%

the absolutely worst sharpness achieved: 1556.6
the peak sharpness achieved:1691.4

maximum deviation from peak focus: 7.97%
please note: if the worst and the best shot were excluded, the focus deviation is within 5%

not a single shot is OOF. all 50 shots are in focus (less than 10% focus deviation from the peak sharpness)

But if you didn't run a control lens to baseline misses from the test method...

I kid. No control will beat a 0% OOF result.

A+ work, Alex. Do you mind telling everyone what body you tested this on? And any chance you'd rinse and repeat this for off center AF points (pick one, pls pick cross type) or poor lighting?

Thx!

- A

 

[Alex_M]

Thank you, Sir!

Camera : Canon 6D. body type and body serial number is included with report.

++++And any chance you'd rinse and repeat this for off center AF points (pick one, pls pick cross type) or poor lighting?

A.M.: I would love to but I am afraid I have got only a single cross type AF point on my 6D to play with - the centre one .Doh ;D ;D ;D

poor light : not sure if this is something that is extremely useful? I took about a hundred of photos in dimly lit studio so far but always used AF assist of GODOX X1t-c wireless trigger and at F7.1 so not a good indicator. I am happy to repeat low light test next weekend.

Anyway, here is the outcomes:

[nice methodology truncated]

end result, as per Reikan Focal : ConsistencyofFocus 96.4%

the absolutely worst sharpness achieved: 1556.6
the peak sharpness achieved:1691.4

maximum deviation from peak focus: 7.97%
please note: if the worst and the best shot were excluded, the focus deviation is within 5%

not a single shot is OOF. all 50 shots are in focus (less than 10% focus deviation from the peak sharpness)

But if you didn't run a control lens to baseline misses from the test method...

I kid. No control will beat a 0% OOF result.

A+ work, Alex. Do you mind telling everyone what body you tested this on? And any chance you'd rinse and repeat this for off center AF points (pick one, pls pick cross type) or poor lighting?

Thx!

- A

 

[Viggo]

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?

 

[ExodistPhotography]

ExodistPhotography

I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF

Keep waiting. You will not get it.
You can argue yours has no problem. Great, wonderful. Proud for you. Honestly I am.
But your copy is just one of many. The fact that more Sigma lenses have focusing issues then Canon lenses has not changed. I bought 4 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. 2 have serious focusing issues. I bought 6 Canon lenses in the past 8 years. None of which have focusing issues. This is just me. My experience. I do not claim everyone else has had better or worse.

Like I said, its your money folks.. Your millage may vary, but do not claim that since you have a good or even great copy that everyone else that says they have had issues is either incompetent as a photographer or just lying. If you think this is just me talking.. Visit google and do your on searching on the topic. Its more wide spread then you may think.

While your at it. You may wish to learn what sample variation is..

 

[Alex_M]

good question. I found that for some reason numbers are target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.

peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?

 

[IglooEater]

well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.

anyway, here is the outcomes:

Excellent work Alex_M! Thanks. It's awesome to hear Sigma has improved so much.

 

[YuengLinger]

good question. I found that for some reason numbers a target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.

peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?

I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape about photographers frustrated with Sigma. If you've had good luck, great, happy for you. But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors.

And then, when you seek help from Sigma, they go into the whole, voodoo magic USB dock routine. So you try that and find the exact same results after wasting hours with the silly thing.

As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?

And then you seek help online and get the same inane questions and advice from anonymous know-it-alls who tell you that you simply don't understand AFMA or even how to take a snapshot.

Of course many photographers--the ones who got multiple bad copies of Sigma Art Series lenses--don't want to get burnt once again!

Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so.

Thank you!

 

[Alex_M]

...While your at it. You may wish to learn what sample variation is..

You may wish to learn that copy to copy varation test was already conducted by a very reputable company and if you doubt their findings you should have your reality checked as soon as available.

here:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

Variation

The Sigma shows excellent copy-to-copy variation control, as good or better than the Canon L, Nikon G, or Zeiss offerings in this focal length.

I bought 4 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. 2 have serious focusing issues.

I bought 6 Sigma Art lenses in last 3 years. 4 have serious focusing issue.
18-35 1.8, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1,4, 120 -300 2.8, 85 1.4
But how is this even remotely relevant to a completely new product being 85 1.4 Art with new generation of AF system and improved copy to copy variation as per Uncle Roger? Sir, you have no leg in this case to stand on.

Visit google and do your on searching on the topic. Its more wide spread then you may think.

Thanks. I will let you to do the leg work while I am taking sharp photos with my new beautiful lens. keep googling... :-* :-* :-*

ExodistPhotography

I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF

Keep waiting. You will not get it.
You can argue yours has no problem. Great, wonderful. Proud for you. Honestly I am.
But your copy is just one of many. The fact that more Sigma lenses have focusing issues then Canon lenses has not changed. I bought 4 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. 2 have serious focusing issues. I bought 6 Canon lenses in the past 8 years. None of which have focusing issues. This is just me. My experience. I do not claim everyone else has had better or worse.

Like I said, its your money folks.. Your millage may vary, but do not claim that since you have a good or even great copy that everyone else that says they have had issues is either incompetent as a photographer or just lying. If you think this is just me talking.. Visit google and do your on searching on the topic. Its more wide spread then you may think.

While your at it. You may wish to learn what sample variation is..

 

[YuengLinger]

I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!

Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.

(And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)

 

[Alex_M]

I bent out of shape because I would like to help community to get to the bottom of the issue... "photographers" bags the product they have no idea about. what has been in the past does not always applies to the present and top the future. lets talk about what we understand or have experience with.. I have got numbers to back up my case.. see above.

in regards to:

"... But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors..."

you must be joking right?
I spent hundreds of hours trying to sort AF issues out with 18-35, 24, 35, 50 Art for months with no resolution. replaced lenses, have lenses calibrated by Sigma. no result. then I sold all of my Sigma Art lenses 6 months ago. And you are saying I have to imagine what it takes to be disappointed by Sigma products?

"... Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so..."

thanks, I would rather start taking photos with such a nice lens ASAP. The product comes with 24 month warranty. No worries. I'll leave you to it.

good question. I found that for some reason numbers a target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.

peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?

I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape about photographers frustrated with Sigma. If you've had good luck, great, happy for you. But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors.

And then, when you seek help from Sigma, they go into the whole, voodoo magic USB dock routine. So you try that and find the exact same results after wasting hours with the silly thing.

As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?

And then you seek help online and get the same inane questions and advice from anonymous know-it-alls who tell you that you simply don't understand AFMA or even how to take a snapshot.

Of course many photographers--the ones who got multiple bad copies of Sigma Art Series lenses--don't want to get burnt once again!

Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so.

Thank you!

 

[YuengLinger]

I bent out of shape because I would like to help community to get to the bottom of the issue... "photographers" bags the product they have no idea about. what has been in the past does not always applies to the present and top the future. lets talk about what we understand or have experience with.. I have got numbers to back up my case.. see above.

in regards to:

"... But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors..."

you must be joking right?
I spent hundreds of hours trying to sort AF issues out with 18-35, 24, 35, 50 Art for months with no resolution. replaced lenses, have lenses calibrated by Sigma. no result. then I sold all of my Sigma Art lenses 6 months ago. And you are saying I have to imagine what it takes to be disappointed by Sigma products?

good question. I found that for some reason numbers a target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.

peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?

I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape about photographers frustrated with Sigma. If you've had good luck, great, happy for you. But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors.

And then, when you seek help from Sigma, they go into the whole, voodoo magic USB dock routine. So you try that and find the exact same results after wasting hours with the silly thing.

As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?

And then you seek help online and get the same inane questions and advice from anonymous know-it-alls who tell you that you simply don't understand AFMA or even how to take a snapshot.

Of course many photographers--the ones who got multiple bad copies of Sigma Art Series lenses--don't want to get burnt once again!

Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so.

Thank you!

In many states in the USA, we have what is called a three strike rule. Somebody commits two serious crimes, gets prison for a few years, then a relatively minor crime, but because it is the third conviction, they go away for decades. Looking at the past is incorporated in, not only human nature, but the criminal justice system!

Companies go out of business for a series of failures. If the last thing they ever produce happens to be the one they finally got right, too bad.

 

[Alex_M]

you do not like/trust Sigma product. I get it. No problem. this is your choice. what is that has to do with AF consistency of the lens you have never had a chance to shoot with? I would take solid facts over speculations any day. the fact is: Sigma 85 1.4 Art lens AF performance is consistent, copy to copy variation is excellent. there you have it. I am off to a better things in live. keep talking about the past.

In many states in the USA, we have what is called a three strike rule. Somebody commits two serious crimes, gets prison for a few years, then a relatively minor crime, but because it is the third conviction, they go away for decades. Looking at the past is incorporated in, not only human nature, but the criminal justice system!

Companies go out of business for a series of failures. If the last thing they ever produce happens to be the one they finally got right, too bad.

 

[IglooEater]

I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!

Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.

(And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)

They don't need to steamroller them, they just change the AF motor and sell them as refurbished Mark II lenses.
Better yet they could offer an AF motor and software upgrade for a small, reasonable fee. If they did that, I would have zero hesitation on a Sigma lens.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.

software does much better quantitative work in judging how much your shot is off from the peak sharpness. some people can notice 15% difference in sharpness. I start noticing things at around 10-15% depending on the scene contrast and lighting levels.

anyway, here is the outcomes:

50 shots taken, camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod, distance to target : 4.25m, natural light, indoors, cloudy. F1.4, ISO 100, AV - but all shots at T=1/60s, AWB, mirror locked up, remote shutter release.
each shot taken with lens defocused away from the camera to infinity. OVF focusing (Phase detection AF), not a Live view contrast detection.
in camera AFMA: 0 all AFMA adjustments are set to the lens firmware via Sigma USB dock. RAW, single shot mode, central AF point selected. all shots are taken in sequence, no shots were pre-selected or discarded.. you have got them all. check the EXIF data to confirm the test conditions are as per above.
target Focal Standard Target at 200% (A2 size).

all 50 files can be downloaded at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wzwzfrt5eqa28bm/AAA_AxaK3Xx3KIEgylTeZoP0a?dl=0

I encourage interested parties to conduct independent evaluation of the test files in order to confirm Sigma 85 1.4 Art lens AF consistency level.

I also loaded all 50 files in Rekian Focal for focus consistency analysis.


end result, as per Reikan Focal : ConsistencyofFocus 96.4%

the absolutely worst sharpness achieved: 1556.6
the peak sharpness achieved:1691.4

maximum deviation from peak focus: 7.97%
please note: if the worst and the best shot were excluded, the focus deviation is within 5%

not a single shot was OOF. all 50 shots are in focus (less than 10% focus deviation from the peak sharpness)

ReikanFoCalFocusConsistencyTestReport can be downloaded here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbw2bah6h51luil/170205_143252_AFC_Canon%20EOS%206D_308051002045_EF24%20f_1.4L%20II_85mm.PDF?dl=0


Reikan Focal identified the lens as Lens EF24f/1.4LII FocalLength 85.0mm apparently, if you twist the focal length ring of the EF24f/1.4LII hard enough you can get to 85mm with the lens

ExodistPhotography

I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF

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

My own test experience for my review was similar to yours...when using the center point. (5D Mark IV body, lens fully calibrated in Sigma USB dock using FoCal as reference tool for arriving at those values, all FoCal tests run multiple times) The closer I went towards the outer focus points, however, the less happy I was with my focus consistency. I have a video test where I demonstrate this (http://bit.ly/2gJ9prW).

My conclusion was that overall the autofocus was vastly improved when compared to previous Sigma ART lenses I've reviewed (which is all of them save the 24mm, I believe), but that there was still some room for improvement on outer points. Overall, however, I was happy with the focus consistency during my review period, and yes, I watched it very closely.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!

Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.

(And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)

They don't need to steamroller them, they just change the AF motor and sell them as refurbished Mark II lenses.
Better yet they could offer an AF motor and software upgrade for a small, reasonable fee. If they did that, I would have zero hesitation on a Sigma lens.

Third party lens makers have a uphilll battle with Autofocus for a simple reason. They must tell the camera to set its internal parameters, and that includes AF tweaks to match a Canon lens. Only Canon lenses are in the camera firmware.

Usually, this means they try to optimize the lens for a popular FF camera (crop bodies usually have focus errors lost in the depth of field).

A Dock lets a person setup the lens for one camera only, which can reduce the AF errors, or even make it focus perfectly. Move the lens to a different camera model, and you can have a big mess. That's why focusing tests should be done on multiple bodies without fooling with the dock.

If you are a individual with just one camera, its no issue to adjust your lens with a dock so its optimized for that camera, but if you own several cameras and lenses, it becomes a issue.

The fact remains that third party lens makers cannot make a lens which performs exactly the same as the Canon lens they emulate.

 

[ahsanford]

You may wish to learn that copy to copy varation test was already conducted by a very reputable company and if you doubt their findings you should have your reality checked as soon as available.

here:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

In fairness, Alex, that's IQ copy to copy variation. That is not related to AF at all.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?

I 100% hear you on not wanting to get burned again, I do. Nor do I think it's wrong to be cagey / skeptical of Sigma's AF. The entire gear reviewing cottage industry is skeptical of it and is testing the crap out of every new Sigma release. They are not shills for Sigma and I trust them (thanks to Dustin for his thorough read on this!)

That said, no one it saying your feelings are misplaced or you don't know what you're talking about. We're saying the 85 Art is a different animal.

No firmware fix is coming for the 50 Art (we presume) because it's not 'AF routine fixable' or they would have done it right away. The fix comes in the form of a new AF design for the 85 Art which (apparently) draws more power, and most everyone's reviews / testing I've seen on this -- with the exception of one guy on youtube -- says that the inconsistency boogeyman is either greatly reduced or altogether slain. I'd love to see this similar performance in 35 and 50 Art, but that's a new product, not new firmware. (We'll apparently have to wait for a 35 Art II and 50 Art II to get this reliable AF performance, which is disappointing.)

So feel free to distrust Sigma's track record with AF (I sure do) but respect that this design is indeed different and worthy of testing. So in this case, I will personally base my opinion of the 85 Art independently of what came before it.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!

Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.

(And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)

They don't need to steamroller them, they just change the AF motor and sell them as refurbished Mark II lenses.
Better yet they could offer an AF motor and software upgrade for a small, reasonable fee. If they did that, I would have zero hesitation on a Sigma lens.

Very reasonable if possible for the engineers. I'd guess a new motor would mean a new casing, possibly repositioning of the elements, etc.