Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART Review

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi everyone. I just thought I would share linkage for those interested in my coverage of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART - a lens that I know a lot of you are interested in.

Text Review: http://bit.ly/2gIt0sy
Final Video Review: http://bit.ly/2gJ9prW

I've also got a specific video on resolution and image quality: http://bit.ly/2gPeRdS
And one on the bokeh and rendering: http://bit.ly/2g2gILb

It's a very sharp lens, though with more CA than I expected and comes in a bit shy of 85mm in true focal length (when compared to the Tamron 85 VC, Otus 85, and a 70-200 set to 85mm). Lowest vignette that I've ever seen on an 85, and I had very good focus accuracy in the center group on the 5D Mark IV with accuracy dropping some as I moved into the outer points.

 

[kaihp]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[Alex_M]

Kaihp,

It appears that Dustin was judging the vignetting and sharpness of the lens when focused at infinity while Lenstip took their measurements at shorter distances more appropriate for a dedicated portrait lens. That also explains how Shots of a distant tree branches were almost equally sharp with shots taken with Tamron 85 VC. That was expected as the Sigma being a dedicated portrait lens is optimised for short to medium range of distances with peak sharpness right where we need it. AF stability confirmation is a very welcomed news indeed. Thank you, Dustin. I think I can live with the lens being about 2mm "wider" than declared.

P.S. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1085&Camera=979&LensComp=957

please notice how Sigma performes a bit better in mid frame with vignetting levels growing only towards the extreme corners. Otherwise, not drammatically different results. -2.2EV vs - 2.7EV in most extreme corners?

sharpness and CA:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

To my eyes and according to this comparison, Sigma kills Otus sharpness wise in Extreme corners. Sigma CA levels are quite noticable even in dead centre of the frame. not sure how manageable these CA are in post as my lens has not arrived yet

 

[LordofTackle]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

He actually says in his review that the Art has about 1.5 stops vignette, which ist not that far off from "almost -2EV".

The Sigma is pretty fantastic in the vignette department. That huge 86mm front element pays dividends here with negligible vignette even at f/1.4. The Tamron is only a hair worse than the Sigma EX 85mm and reaches -2.5 EV in the extreme corners (the EX is about 2 stops in the corners). I would think that the 85 ART has no more than 1.5 stops (if that) of vignette in the extreme corners and is essentially vignette free by f/1.8. Very nice.

 

[dlee13]

Hi Dustin.

Where you able to compare the Art to the old EX model? I know a few people on POTN who own both say they are pretty much equal in center sharpness, but the Art wins in the corners.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi Dustin.

Where you able to compare the Art to the old EX model? I know a few people on POTN who own both say they are pretty much equal in center sharpness, but the Art wins in the corners.

I didn't have the 85 EX in hand for comparison. They definitely have very, very different personalities. If I could use this comparison: the 85 EX is analog, the 85 ART is digital. Which of those is more desirable will come down to your tastes.

The 85 ART is very, very sharp, though the CA does rob it of some contrast at wide apertures. And, by the way, a flat chart (like some tests people are referring to) doesn't really show off how much CA is present due to the completely flat plane of focus with a chart as opposed to photographing 3 dimensional objects (real world). It makes the Sigma seem closer to the Otus than what it is in real world shooting, where the Otus has much more "bite" and micro contrast that aids apparent resolution.

For most shooters, however, the Otus is unobtainable both in price and nature (MF only), so the Sigma is an incredible choice for people who prioritize sharpness over all else.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

As I note in the review, I estimated the actual vignette to be around 1.5 stops (Lens Tip measured a bit more). I do real world shooting, not chart tests, so mine was an estimate. In real world shooting the amount of vignette is so negligible as to be a non-factor, and is definitely well below the levels I've seen from any other 85mm lens.

P.S. Two stops of extreme corner vignette is actually very low.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Kaihp,

It appears that Dustin was judging the vignetting and sharpness of the lens when focused at infinity while Lenstip took their measurements at shorter distances more appropriate for a dedicated portrait lens. That also explains how Shots of a distant tree branches were almost equally sharp with shots taken with Tamron 85 VC. That was expected as the Sigma being a dedicated portrait lens is optimised for short to medium range of distances with peak sharpness right where we need it. AF stability confirmation is a very welcomed news indeed. Thank you, Dustin. I think I can live with the lens being about 2mm "wider" than declared.

P.S. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1085&Camera=979&LensComp=957

please notice how Sigma performes a bit better in mid frame with vignetting levels growing only towards the extreme corners. Otherwise, not drammatically different results. -2.2EV vs - 2.7EV in most extreme corners?

sharpness and CA:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

To my eyes and according to this comparison, Sigma kills Otus sharpness wise in Extreme corners. Sigma CA levels are quite noticable even in dead centre of the frame. not sure how manageable these CA are in post as my lens has not arrived yet

I observed vignette levels at near minimum, medium, and infinity distances. The Sigma is extremely sharp, though charts will slightly "artificially inflate" the appearance of that sharpness compared to real world shooting (where the CA impacts contrast a bit). Bottom line, though, is that lens has an incredible amount of resolution. That won't be problem for real world shooters.

P.S. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the notion that the Sigma 85 ART is more of a "dedicated portrait lens" than what any other 85mm lens is. I would say that portraits are one of the primary purposes for any 85mm lens, but that people also use them in a variety of other ways - from events to general purpose to landscapes. I don't know that I would say the 85 ART is more "tweaked" to a single purpose any more than any 85mm lens. It's very capable in a lot of settings - including at infinity:

In Honor of Resolution by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[LordofTackle]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

As I note in the review, I estimated the actual vignette to be around 1.5 stops (Lens Tip measured a bit more). I do real world shooting, not chart tests, so mine was an estimate. In real world shooting the amount of vignette is so negligible as to be a non-factor, and is definitely well below the levels I've seen from any other 85mm lens.

P.S. Two stops of extreme corner vignette is actually very low.

I find it quite interesting that you call 1.5-2 stops of vignetting "negligible" or very low, while others really condemned the 4 stops corner vignette of the new 16-35 III..... (really just an observation, no criticism intended). Personally, after playing around with it for some days, I don't find the vignette a huge problem (but I don't do astro).

The 85 Art really looks like a fantastic option from all the 85mm choices, but the CA is bit deterring. However, I will give it a try and rent it to make my own mind

-Sebastian

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

As I note in the review, I estimated the actual vignette to be around 1.5 stops (Lens Tip measured a bit more). I do real world shooting, not chart tests, so mine was an estimate. In real world shooting the amount of vignette is so negligible as to be a non-factor, and is definitely well below the levels I've seen from any other 85mm lens.

P.S. Two stops of extreme corner vignette is actually very low.

I find it quite interesting that you call 1.5-2 stops of vignetting "negligible" or very low, while others really condemned the 4 stops corner vignette of the new 16-35 III..... (really just an observation, no criticism intended). Personally, after playing around with it for some days, I don't find the vignette a huge problem (but I don't do astro).

The 85 Art really looks like a fantastic option from all the 85mm choices, but the CA is bit deterring. However, I will give it a try and rent it to make my own mind

-Sebastian

Sebastian,

I too strongly criticized the four stops on the 16-35L III. I call two stops low because I review a LOT of lenses, and I rarely see any lens with much less than 2 stops of vignette in the extreme corners. In real world use having anything under 2 stops (wide open) is a very strong performance.

 

[dlee13]

Hi Dustin.

Where you able to compare the Art to the old EX model? I know a few people on POTN who own both say they are pretty much equal in center sharpness, but the Art wins in the corners.

I didn't have the 85 EX in hand for comparison. They definitely have very, very different personalities. If I could use this comparison: the 85 EX is analog, the 85 ART is digital. Which of those is more desirable will come down to your tastes.

The 85 ART is very, very sharp, though the CA does rob it of some contrast at wide apertures. And, by the way, a flat chart (like some tests people are referring to) doesn't really show off how much CA is present due to the completely flat plane of focus with a chart as opposed to photographing 3 dimensional objects (real world). It makes the Sigma seem closer to the Otus than what it is in real world shooting, where the Otus has much more "bite" and micro contrast that aids apparent resolution.

For most shooters, however, the Otus is unobtainable both in price and nature (MF only), so the Sigma is an incredible choice for people who prioritize sharpness over all else.

Thanks for the reply Dustin! I still have my 85mm EX and I think I'm going to stick with it. My copy has spot on AF without any adjustment and performs amazingly wide open. Weight is a big factor for me due to my back problems so I think the Art would be too heavy for me as the EX is already pushing it.

 

[Alex_M]

Dlee13,

I received my Sigma 85 Art just now. It is huge ... as heavy as an average 70-200 2.8 would be. Just thought that I will let you know.

 

[Alex_M]

Hi Dustin,

The dimensions / weight of the lens are as such that leaves very little doubts regarding its purpose from the design stand point. In addition, Sigma CEO noticed that the request was for an ultimate portrait lens. So here it is.
shooting weddings and events with the lens - yes, perfect! That implies short to medium distances anyway.
As to shooting landscapes with such a beast - I am seriously not sure about it. It is way to heavy and bulky for that purpose especially that I shoot landscapes stopped down quite a bit. 50 Art was a substantial glass, but this beast... ! OMG! There is no way I am taking it on a hike with me.

P.S. Just finished with lens calibration on USB dock and here is my conclusion based on solid data rather than on perceptual guesstimate.

results of the Reikan FoCal lens sharpness test, lens carefully calibrated, average sharpness for 5 runs of test at each distance. meassured in Focal units, whatever that might be, not important as provided for distance to distance relative sharpness comparison:

@0.85m to target and F1.4 (MFD?) - Sharpness: 1724
@1.30m to target and F1.4 - Sharpness: 1840
@2.60m to target and F1.4 - Sharpness: 1978 << Wow! This is a keeper! Try to pry this glass from my cold hands!
@16.00m to target and F1.4 (infinity for the lens) - Sharpness: 1475 << very poor performance. 50 Art beats these numbers hands down.

Dustin, as you can see, Sigma 85 1.4 Art is at it's absolute unquestionably worst sharpness at infinity. in fact, this is the worst Sigma Art performance at infinity I have ever come across (first hand experience) !! Most dissapointing!

Does this explain Sigma 85 1.4 Art performance at infinity being similar of the same of Tamron 85 VC?
I think you might consider an addendum to your review addressing mediocre Sigma 85 1.4 Art performance at infinity. I would not personally recommend this lens for at infinity applications (landscape, Astro comes to mind, etc. )

P.S. just looked at the calibration data once again and Sigma sharpness @2.6m with AFMA OFF by +/- 10 calibration units is BETTER than the same @ infinity (16m) perfectly calibrated !! if this is not the confirmation of the lens performance at infinity being poor then I do not know what else could convince you that the lens performance was in fact short to mid distances optimised.

[quote author=Dustin Abbott]
... P.S. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the notion that the Sigma 85 ART is more of a "dedicated portrait lens" than what any other 85mm lens is. I would say that portraits are one of the primary purposes for any 85mm lens, but that people also use them in a variety of other ways - from events to general purpose to landscapes. I don't know that I would say the 85 ART is more "tweaked" to a single purpose any more than any 85mm lens. It's very capable in a lot of settings - including at infinity...

[/quote]

 

[kaihp]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

As I note in the review, I estimated the actual vignette to be around 1.5 stops (Lens Tip measured a bit more). I do real world shooting, not chart tests, so mine was an estimate. In real world shooting the amount of vignette is so negligible as to be a non-factor, and is definitely well below the levels I've seen from any other 85mm lens.

P.S. Two stops of extreme corner vignette is actually very low.

Dustin,

Thanks for your followup(s). I normally do not pay much attention to the vignetting (I just press the "Periferal Illumination" button in DPP and be done with it), so I learned something new today.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,

Thanks for the review. The 85A is well anticipated by many (myself included.

I have a question, though: you write that the vignetting is "Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent."
LensTip, on the other hand, measures the vignetting to be almost -2EV (link. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Could you elaborate on this?

As I note in the review, I estimated the actual vignette to be around 1.5 stops (Lens Tip measured a bit more). I do real world shooting, not chart tests, so mine was an estimate. In real world shooting the amount of vignette is so negligible as to be a non-factor, and is definitely well below the levels I've seen from any other 85mm lens.

P.S. Two stops of extreme corner vignette is actually very low.

Dustin,

Thanks for your followup(s). I normally do not pay much attention to the vignetting (I just press the "Periferal Illumination" button in DPP and be done with it), so I learned something new today.

And that is usually all there is to it. The reason why I was disappointed with the Canon 16-35L III is that the vignette was extreme enough that correction left additional noise in the edges of the frame even of the 5D Mark IV - very good on shadow recovery. That's not great!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi Dustin,

The dimensions / weight of the lens are as such that leaves very little doubts regarding its purpose from the design stand point. In addition, Sigma CEO noticed that the request was for an ultimate portrait lens. So here it is.
shooting weddings and events with the lens - yes, perfect! That implies short to medium distances anyway.
As to shooting landscapes with such a beast - I am seriously not sure about it. It is way to heavy and bulky for that purpose especially that I shoot landscapes stopped down quite a bit. 50 Art was a substantial glass, but this beast... ! OMG! There is no way I am taking it on a hike with me.

P.S. Just finished with lens calibration on USB dock and here is my conclusion based on solid data rather than on perceptual guesstimate.

results of the Reikan FoCal lens sharpness test, lens carefully calibrated, average sharpness for 5 runs of test at each distance. meassured in Focal units, whatever that might be, not important as provided for distance to distance relative sharpness comparison:

@0.85m to target and F1.4 (MFD?) - Sharpness: 1724
@1.30m to target and F1.4 - Sharpness: 1840
@2.60m to target and F1.4 - Sharpness: 1978 << Wow! This is a keeper! Try to pry this glass from my cold hands!
@16.00m to target and F1.4 (infinity for the lens) - Sharpness: 1475 << very poor performance. 50 Art beats these numbers hands down.

Dustin, as you can see, Sigma 85 1.4 Art is at it's absolute unquestionably worst sharpness at infinity. in fact, this is the worst Sigma Art performance at infinity I have ever come across (first hand experience) !! Most dissapointing!

Does this explain Sigma 85 1.4 Art performance at infinity being similar of the same of Tamron 85 VC?
I think you might consider an addendum to your review addressing mediocre Sigma 85 1.4 Art performance at infinity. I would not personally recommend this lens for at infinity applications (landscape, Astro comes to mind, etc. )

P.S. just looked at the calibration data once again and Sigma sharpness @2.6m with AFMA OFF by +/- 10 calibration units is BETTER than the same @ infinity (16m) perfectly calibrated !! if this is not the confirmation of the lens performance at infinity being poor then I do not know what else could convince you that the lens performance was in fact short to mid distances optimised.

[quote author=Dustin Abbott]
... P.S. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the notion that the Sigma 85 ART is more of a "dedicated portrait lens" than what any other 85mm lens is. I would say that portraits are one of the primary purposes for any 85mm lens, but that people also use them in a variety of other ways - from events to general purpose to landscapes. I don't know that I would say the 85 ART is more "tweaked" to a single purpose any more than any 85mm lens. It's very capable in a lot of settings - including at infinity...

[/quote]

You are obviously pretty emotionally invested in this (much more than me ), but at least you have done your homework. I suspect that you would find a fairly similar pattern with most portrait focal length lenses (though one thing I noted with the Otus is that it was unusually sharp at infinity. It was one of the first wide aperture primes I had used that was well corrected for all focus distances). Most more mortal lenses are typically optimized for use within their primary focus "zone".

I guess my point is that I don't think the Sigma 85 ART is more unusually optimized than other portrait focal length lenses for the portrait range, and I tested it at all focus distances and didn't see a big deviation like what you are describing. You seem pretty fixated on my infinity test, but that was but one of several. I did three portrait sessions with the Sigma and shared some of those results. I tested it near minimum focus and at medium distances as well. I ran calibration at four different focus distances. You seem to be insinuating that I only test the lens at infinity, or only compared it with the Tamron or the Otus at infinity. That's simply not the case.

P.S. The Tamron performing well in comparisons doesn't minimize how good the Sigma is. It's just a point of reference.

 

[Viggo]

Dustin: Do you know how the performance of the 85 Art compares to the Milvus 85 ? I recently bought the Classic 100mm f2.0 makro-planar and was wondering about getting the best 85 out there and the Milvus looks solid. And the 100mm is outstanding.

 

[dlee13]

Dlee13,

I received my Sigma 85 Art just now. It is huge ... as heavy as an average 70-200 2.8 would be. Just thought that I will let you know.

Thanks Alex! I have used a friend's 70-200 but that was before I hurt my back so would be interesting to use one again.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin: Do you know how the performance of the 85 Art compares to the Milvus 85 ? I recently bought the Classic 100mm f2.0 makro-planar and was wondering about getting the best 85 out there and the Milvus looks solid. And the 100mm is outstanding.

The Milvus is smaller but a bit heavier (Zeiss density!). I would say in absolute sharpness they are very similar but with a slight edge to the Sigma. Sigma has far less vignette. Milvus has better CA control and microcontrast, so images might look a bit sharper overall from the Milvus. Build and weather sealing edge to the Milvus, though the Sigma is very nicely made and does have some weather sealing. Of course the big deal is that the Sigma has autofocus, which is all that most photographers need to hear. You're obviously okay with MF glass, but I still think that should be a part of your decision process. The Sigma is cheaper, too.

I would say that I (slightly) prefer the Zeiss rendering and bokeh, but that's really a taste thing.

One thing I wasn't crazy about on the Milvus is that it is so squat that I found there wasn't a lot of finger room between the grip and lens barrel.

There's give and take all around. I can't really tell you one is better than the other. They are different.

 

[Viggo]

Dustin: Do you know how the performance of the 85 Art compares to the Milvus 85 ? I recently bought the Classic 100mm f2.0 makro-planar and was wondering about getting the best 85 out there and the Milvus looks solid. And the 100mm is outstanding.

The Milvus is smaller but a bit heavier (Zeiss density!). I would say in absolute sharpness they are very similar but with a slight edge to the Sigma. Sigma has far less vignette. Milvus has better CA control and microcontrast, so images might look a bit sharper overall from the Milvus. Build and weather sealing edge to the Milvus, though the Sigma is very nicely made and does have some weather sealing. Of course the big deal is that the Sigma has autofocus, which is all that most photographers need to hear. You're obviously okay with MF glass, but I still think that should be a part of your decision process. The Sigma is cheaper, too.

I would say that I (slightly) prefer the Zeiss rendering and bokeh, but that's really a taste thing.

One thing I wasn't crazy about on the Milvus is that it is so squat that I found there wasn't a lot of finger room between the grip and lens barrel.

There's give and take all around. I can't really tell you one is better than the other. They are different.

Thanks for your thorough answer, much appriciated !

Perhaps I will hold off and wait to see what the new Canon 85 L will be like 8)