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

[ExodistPhotography]

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!

Yea I rather wait my self.. Not spending money on another sigma for its focusing to be jacked up..

I am not taking a chance on being burned a 3rd time.. For that matter, Tamrons 85 f/1.8 VC is stinking sharp and has image stabilization.. I'd try it if I didn't already have the Canon 85mm f/1.8..

 

[ExodistPhotography]

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.

Dustin points at a very good point also.. For portraits I almost never use the center focusing point. I have one of the focusing points over up around were I would want the eyes or closest eye to me. That way I am not moving the lens side to side moving my focal plane out of whack.. Only time I use the center one is for landscapes ..

 

[Alex_M]

sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.

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

 

[Alex_M]

Thanks Dustin,

24mm Art AF consistency was quite bad for me. I never understood how Sigma managed to stuff up AF on such a wide lens. The one with better AF performance was, likely, 20mm Art. Other than that 120-300 Sports and DC 50-100 1.8 Art.

in regards to Outer AF points. It may well be just what it is. I trust your findings. Cannot help in getting to the bottom of the issue, unfortunately, due to my Canon 6D known design limitations.
what I would do though if I had a camera with multiple outer AF cross type points:

I would run Reikan Focal with central AF point and then with number of outer AF point at x50 focal length of the lens distance to target to see what numbers Focal would come up with for each individual point.

P.S. I coined the term for the Sigma first generation Art lenses. Rather than call them Auto-focusing Lenses, I called them Auto Focus Assisted Lenses. in reference to how the lenses were able to focus but only good enough to assist in providing an approximate AF reference point rather than precisely focused composition... sadly, but true...

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.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.
...................

"That Person" :-/


The point I was trying to make to you is that just becuase if your copy is good. That not every copy would be as good or as bad. Most people who have never working in manufacturing have no clue what copy variation is. So please understand I am not or was not trying to be rude or offensive. But I am also not going to sugar coat anything to make anyone feel better either. Cheers, Joe..

 

[Alex_M]

I never said that every copy of Sigma 85 Art is good. that is rediculos claim. I claim that good copy, as per manufacturer's specification, Sigma 85 Art AF lens AF performance when centre AF point used, is consistent.

my copy is average sigma 85 1.4 Art, same as Dustin's copy or many other reputable reviewers that conducted their solid AF performance test. not someone that pointed the lens at the bush and claims AF issues.
Why would not you suggest that that reviewer needs to educate himself and condiuct tests in controlled environment? How do you know about my personal level of manufacturing experience, engineering , educational level, or even what I do in life, my personal experiences, methodologies? ritoric question.. yet you suggested I should educate myself on copy to copy variation subject by googling the net... I spent 4 hours of my life to provide community with well documented and structured information that will be, no doubt, usefull for anyone who is evaluating possibility to puchase Sigma 85 Art lens. I am here to learn , share knowledge with like minded individuals and learn about best industry experience of photogs and Canon enthusiasts that know (veryfiably) what they are talking about. I will take beating and panishment any day from Neuro or Jrista and many others I respect for their service to community, there are hundreds if not thousands cases where they helped forum members. I am one of those people that learned a trick or two from this place.
And what do I learn from you? that Canon L glass Phase Detection AF consistency is 99.5% ( 1 ot 200 out of focus) or that you took 135 shots at 15 feet distance to subject at F7.1 on crop camera and all of them were in perfect focus.. and that at f7.1... that dof of you lens (85mm?) is still razor thin at 15 feet to subject on crop camera.. . Well, that wasn't usefull.
Anyway, I am done with this BS. Go about your business, photography, whatever you do in your life and leave me along.

sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.
...................

"That Person" :-/


The point I was trying to make to you is that just becuase if your copy is good. That not every copy would be as good or as bad. Most people who have never working in manufacturing have no clue what copy variation is. So please understand I am not or was not trying to be rude or offensive. But I am also not going to sugar coat anything to make anyone feel better either. Cheers, Joe..

 

[ExodistPhotography]

I never said that every copy of Sigma 85 Art is good. that is rediculos claim. I claim that good copy, as per manufacturer's specification, Sigma 85 Art AF lens AF performance when centre AF point used, is consistent.

As I said if you read, good or bad.

Why would not you suggest that that reviewer needs to educate himself and condiuct tests in controlled environment? How do you know about my personal level of manufacturing experience, engineering , educational level, or even what I do in life, my personal experiences, methodologies? ritoric question.. yet you suggested I should educate myself on copy to copy variation subject by googling the net...

As I said "most".

I spent 4 hours of my life to provide community with well documented and structured information that will be, no doubt, usefull for anyone who is evaluating possibility to puchase Sigma 85 Art lens. I am here to learn , share knowledge with like minded individuals and learn about best industry experience of photogs and Canon enthusiasts that know (veryfiably) what they are talking about. I will take beating and panishment any day from Neuro or Jrista and many others I respect for their service to community, there are hundreds if not thousands cases where they helped forum members. I am one of those people that learned a trick or two from this place.
And what do I learn from you? that Canon L glass Phase Detection AF consistency is 99.5% ( 1 ot 200 out of focus) or that you took 135 shots at 15 feet distance to subject at F7.1 on crop camera and all of them were in perfect focus.. and that at f7.1... that dof of you lens (85mm?) is still razor thin at 15 feet to subject on crop camera.. . Well, that wasn't usefull.
Anyway, I am done with this BS. Go about your business, photography, whatever you do in your life and leave me along.

No one is beating you. As I said I apologize if you thought other wise. This was just a friendly conversation. But when you take what people write out of context and not read it as a whole. Do not get upset when someone tries to clear up the confusion.

Cheers mate <-- note this is a happy smiley face.. not a angry arguing face..

 

[Pandy]

Would it be safer to wait for reviews on the Sigma 135mm Art before deciding on picking up the 85mm Art? I'm just curious to what ya'll think.

 

[slclick]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.

 

[Viggo]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.

Except the 50 also sucked.

 

[slclick]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.

Except the 50 also sucked.

Not mine, My 35 sucked so I sold it for more than I bought it for as the prices were fluctuating a ton for early adopters. My 50 Art is just as good as a typical ring USM lens. Not stellar like a 135L or a 24-70 Mk2 mind you, but very good. Copy to copy variation is a bitch.

 

[Viggo]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.

Except the 50 also sucked.

Copy to copy variation is a bitch.

Indeed it is, however, the five Art lenses I had where very consistently inconsistent...

 

[slclick]

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?

I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.

Except the 50 also sucked.

Copy to copy variation is a bitch.

Indeed it is, however, the five Art lenses I had where very consistently inconsistent...

I think I'd stop with that line way before 5!

 

[jdramirez]

I'm jumping into the conversation late... so just point me to a pay number and I'll go and look at what it says...

but my question is... is the bokeh magic? I saw one set of real world images, and I was underwhelmed. first, it looked liked they stopped down to at least f2.8, and if it was wide open, no thank you.

 

[Viggo]

I'm jumping into the conversation late... so just point me to a pay number and I'll go and look at what it says...

but my question is... is the bokeh magic? I saw one set of real world images, and I was underwhelmed. first, it looked liked they stopped down to at least f2.8, and if it was wide open, no thank you.

The thing I don't like is that the fall off between the sharp area and blur area is way to sharp, so the sharp subject looks almost like a cut out, compared to for example Zeiss where the transition is very smooth and creates a more 3D look with a lot of pop.

That and what you said, it's not as smooth and looks stopped down a bit.

 

[jdramirez]

nailing focus at f1.2 is like catching lightning in a bottle... so I'm ok with a 5% hit rate and post production to remove the chromatic aberration.

The thing I don't like is that the fall off between the sharp area and blur area is way to sharp, so the sharp subject looks almost like a cut out, compared to for example Zeiss where the transition is very smooth and creates a more 3D look with a lot of pop.

That and what you said, it's not as smooth and looks stopped down a bit.