Review: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG Art Series Lens

[michi]

The new 35 is 1799. I would be willing to be that the new 85 will be at least that. It wouldn't surprise me if it reached or broke over the 2k mark.

Yeah, if that's the case, it will have to be the Sigma for me.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Oddly enough I have enough issues calibrating a copy of the 35L II (yes, I was shocked too!) that I purchased at the beginning of the year that I was about to return it. I did one last AFMA, got a new value, and that seems to be working. I had run AFMA about six times previously (multiple times per test), and hadn't gotten this value. Sometimes a new lens almost seems to need a bit of a break in period.

I remember that Eldar also said his 35LII had problems with the AF at first, but suddenly was perfectly fine. Odd!

Yes, that´s correct. I struggled quite a bit to get it right with the 35L II. I even sent it to CPS, twice, to figure out what was wrong, but they said everything was fine. So I continued to try and as Dustin experienced, I retried FoCal a number of times, tested real life shooting at different distances and suddenly I got it right. A weird experience, but It has been working well ever since, so, apart from all the time spent on calibration, I can´t complain.

That's very interesting. I didn't have that issue with my review copy at all, but I was just about to give up on my own copy and have it replaced, but it seems to be focusing well at a +1, which is surprising as I wasn't getting consistent results at AFMA points all around that.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

..........

I suspect that at least part of the reason (speaking as a reviewer) is that doing AFMA calibration on lenses is time consuming, and that is many times over as true when a lens requires calibration at different focus distances (using the Sigma USB dock) to achieve accurate focus. I get rather weary just thinking about doing it sometimes.

Sigma's USB dock is a utter pain. You have to keep taking it off the camera and putting it on the dock. Then back to the camera.. LOL.. Nah.. I am selling mine.. I rather go apple bobbing in a bucket of salt..
I often use FoCal at first and see how it performs and let it set it in camera. Then I do my own test at the distance I will be using and see if I need to bump it up or down a notch. But really DP review could have did this in 20 mins, even if they did it manually.


@Larsskv
Speaking of their AF test. Yea I caught that too. They didn't use PDAF. :-/ So IMHO this makes their AF test results invalid for any DSLR shooter. Case in point my 18-35mm Art works perfect in Live View and on a mirrorless body. However using Phase Detect it will not focus correctly at all.

IMHO I will pass. For the price, no IS, no form of weather sealing.. The fact that most will shoot at about f/2.8 anyway.. Makes the Tamron look like a much better buy for a portrait photographer.

 

[Viggo]

Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.

Had the same thing with all new lenses and bodies

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.

Had the same thing with all new lenses and bodies

I've become a believer. I had similar focus results across 6D bodies, but then had more work in calibrating existing lenses when moving to the 5D Mark IV. Once everything is dialed in, though, I get even better focus results. It just takes longer to get there.

 

[Viggo]

Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.

Had the same thing with all new lenses and bodies

I've become a believer. I had similar focus results across 6D bodies, but then had more work in calibrating existing lenses when moving to the 5D Mark IV. Once everything is dialed in, though, I get even better focus results. It just takes longer to get there.

100% agreed, at least I'm not crazy ;D

 

[Alex_M]

1. Sigma 85 F1.4 Art comes with weather sealing at the mount. Just so that you are aware.
2. Tamron lens is also dock calibrated = hassle.. no good then?

3. what else apart from IS makes Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a better lens? smaler, lighter, cheaper a bit? yep. it is. I did shoot with both of these lenses side by side for a test. conclusion: I am sorry, but one has to be blind to not detect performace difference. Tamron is good all rounder lens. no question about it. Not a spectacular lens, not a champion.

..........

I suspect that at least part of the reason (speaking as a reviewer) is that doing AFMA calibration on lenses is time consuming, and that is many times over as true when a lens requires calibration at different focus distances (using the Sigma USB dock) to achieve accurate focus. I get rather weary just thinking about doing it sometimes.

IMHO I will pass. For the price, no IS, no form of weather sealing.. The fact that most will shoot at about f/2.8 anyway.. Makes the Tamron look like a much better buy for a portrait photographer.

 

[JoFT]

It would be interesting to know, how the Sigma compares the the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4...


The Milvus is weather and dust proof.....

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

1. Sigma 85 F1.4 Art comes with weather sealing at the mount. Just so that you are aware.
2. Tamron lens is also dock calibrated = hassle.. no good then?

3. what else apart from IS makes Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a better lens? smaler, lighter, cheaper a bit? yep. it is. I did shoot with both of these lenses side by side for a test. conclusion: I am sorry, but one has to be blind to not detect performace difference. Tamron is good all rounder lens. no question about it. Not a spectacular lens, not a champion.

Less CA, better real world contrast, softer, less busy bokeh highlights, better minimum focus distance and maximum magnification, full weather sealing.

The ART lens has [slightly] more sharpness at wide apertures (though the Tamron has [slightly] more sharpness stopped down), the ART has better vignette performance, and I think a slightly more nuanced handling of light falloff in the studio.

They are both excellent lenses for people with different sets of shooting priorities. I don't get why people have to bash one lens to praise the other.

As for "having to be blind to not detect performance difference", I would encourage you to look at this: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-85mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F016-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1776_1009_1685_1009.

It mirrors my own findings, save that DXO's chart test misses the real world CA issue for the ART lens in more difficult lighting. The Art lens resolves 2 more megapixels (40 vs. 38) and lets in .2 stop more light despite its aperture advantage and massive front element (1.8 T stop vs 2 T stop). I would argue that you would have to have incredibly good sight to notice the sharpness difference in real world shooting.

Here's a crop from my own test...I must be blind. The Sigma 85 ART is a fantastic lens...but to argue that the Tamron is not is to ignore the evidence.

 

[Ozarker]

I just wish I knew when the new Canon 85mm will be released. I'm looking for a excellent portrait lens in this range. My Canon 85 1.8 is just too soft. If the new Canon is under $1500 I would purchase it if it is as good as most of the new Canon lenses. Otherwise I would try the Sigma.

$1,800+