The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Has Started Shipping in North America

[SecureGSM]

LSXPhotog,

you sounds like a very reasonable person. thank you for your input and clarification.

the focus drift issue you are referring to I cannot comment about as i do not have much clients coming back for a second AFMA run. it may well be the case due to the lens being such a behemoth. I actually would like to thank you for this information. it is great to know.
you are absolutely correct. you cannot afford adjusting and re adjusting the lens so many times. this behaviour alone negates the whole purpose of owning the Sigma. I totally appreciate what you are saying. the point is taken.

LSXPhotog, as you suggested "... The Sigma may have back-focused slightly in this shot.." and it happens a lot for you apparently. if that is consistent then you need to AFMA your lens properly, I mean properly.
there is no point in comparing of Sigma OOF shots with Canon in focus shots. can you please take couple of shots in Live View mode. thanks.
p.s. in Axial CA example Sigma is definitely out of focus. back focused again. there is a tell tale sign when it does. and Sigma is actually significantly worse in your example. just so that you are aware.

My Sigma 85mm Art has LIVED on the USB dock for better parts of the year. When I got the lens, it seemed to be pretty damn spot on, so I didn't touch it. After my first long race event shooting with it, I had several shots that were off. So I spent a good portion of time getting it dialed in with a FoCal Lens Cal target and it was working really well. Then, after a month or two, it suddenly seemed that I wasn't getting sharp focus again, so I put it back on. Rinse and repeat. I've been doing this every few months and I'm basically done with this lens in general as a result of the autofocus. The only thing consistent about it is its inconsistency. There's no rhyme or reason to when and where or what focus distance it will miss on, the lens misses. Also understand that I'm very strict on what I consider "acceptable" and throw away anything where a nose is sharp, but the eyes aren't.

Tomorrow I plan to do more tests with the lens. For determining critical sharpness, I will indeed be using live view. But in the real world, I don't walk around like a dink using live view to photograph professional work - is use it here and there, but I shoot 95+% of my work through the viewfinder...

I really don't understand why you're defending Sigma so much? I have owned the 50mm Art and 85mm Art since the day they came out. They're truly incredible pieces of glass, but for what I do and how I use gear, I can't keep the 85mm in my bag. The 50mm I use for isolated detail work and occasional portraits where it works just fine. But 85mm is too important.

 

[Viggo]

Exactly why I will never buy a Sigma again, af wise you never know if it will work or not. And even worse, like my last 50, it can work for 5-6 months then start to drift and miss. I can tell from my shutter count I don’t own Sigma anymore, lol , endless testing to try to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense.

 

[SecureGSM]

pure gold.

I can tell from my shutter count I don’t own Sigma anymore, lol , endless testing to try to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Wedding Shooter]

The Sigma may have backfocused slightly in this shot, but...that happens a lot with that lens.

I don't see Sigma backfokusing as the marked areas (that are behind the front of the sign) in this case should sharper with the sigma. But they are not.

 

[raptor3x]

here. statistically proven AF consistency report. 54 shots, one after another.

Anybody who says something is "statistically proven" understands neither statistics nor inductive reasoning.

 

[SecureGSM]

it is the latter and for an obvious reason. all the numbers are in the report. you are welcome to download slice and dice it the way you want. you are also welcome to spend and hour or two yourself doing an alternative tests in your own time and get your own result. that would be a better service to community rather than picking up on words used.

p.s. Canon 35 F1.4 II Consistency of Focus test results are better and are in vicinity of 99.1%-99.8% just to put this into perspective. these are the highest numbers for CoF of any lens model i have ever tested.

here. statistically proven AF consistency report. 54 shots, one after another.

Anybody who says something is "statistically proven" understands neither statistics nor inductive reasoning.

 

[Kanelbulle]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to bring some factual data to the emotional discussion that is taking place on this thread: renowned French photography website Focus Numérique just released a head-to-head test between the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 IS and the results are the following:
- Build quality: Draw
- Image quality (sharpness): Sigma, which shows excellent homogeneity across the frame at all apertures. The Canon matches or slightly surpasses the Sigma in the center from f/2 onwards, but is always significantly behind on the edges
- Image quality (vignetting): Canon, which seems to be totally free of vignetting! The Sigma needs to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 to reach the same level
- Image quality (distorsion): Draw
- Feature (stabilisation): Canon, confirmed by real world tests to provide 3 stops benefit!
- Final Verdict: Canon! Mainly due to the addition of Image Stabilisation, which more than compensate the relative underperformance in terms of edge sharpness

https://www.focus-numerique.com/duel/dossiers/duel-canon-ef-85-mm-f-1-4-l-is-usm-vs-sigma-art-85-mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-20991.html

I'm personally on the market for a fast 85mm prime lens, so I'm still going to wait for more reviews to come out - but so far, my vote goes for the Canon

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd like to bring some factual data to the emotional discussion that is taking place on this thread: renowned French photography website Focus Numérique just released a head-to-head test between the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art and the

Thanks for posting! Interesting results...

- Image quality (vignetting): Canon, which seems to be totally free of vignetting! The Sigma needs to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 to reach the same level

I was told the Sigma was vignetting-free and the Canon 85/1.4L IS has much worse vignetting. Seems that I was lied to... :

 

[Shane1.4]

Just got notice that mine shipped from B&H. Scheduled to arrive Monday. Had the 85 1.2 for a few years, sold it for the Sigma. Optically I much preferred the Sigma but the size of it has caused me to leave it in my bag most of the day. I found that with the size of the Sigma I had to shoot at least at 1/250 of a second to keep the images sharp, and at wedding receptions I would like to use a slower shutter speeds. My most used weddings lenses are now my Canon 35L II and the Sigma 50 ART which in my experience have been nearly perfect. I am really excited for the size and IS on the 85 1.4. Hoping to do some comparison photos before I sell my Sigma next week.

 

[danfaz]

- Image quality (vignetting): Canon, which seems to be totally free of vignetting! The Sigma needs to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 to reach the same level

I was told the Sigma was vignetting-free and the Canon 85/1.4L IS has much worse vignetting. Seems that I was lied to... :

Um, my photos posted earlier clearly show a significant amount of vignette at 1.4 through 2.0 (not horrible looking, but it's there). At 2.8 it is almost gone. Am I missing something here?

 

[Viggo]

- Image quality (vignetting): Canon, which seems to be totally free of vignetting! The Sigma needs to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 to reach the same level

I was told the Sigma was vignetting-free and the Canon 85/1.4L IS has much worse vignetting. Seems that I was lied to... :

Um, my photos posted earlier clearly show a significant amount of vignette at 1.4 through 2.0 (not horrible looking, but it's there). At 2.8 it is almost gone. Am I missing something here?

Vignetting can be heavily affected by focus distance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

- Image quality (vignetting): Canon, which seems to be totally free of vignetting! The Sigma needs to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 to reach the same level

I was told the Sigma was vignetting-free and the Canon 85/1.4L IS has much worse vignetting. Seems that I was lied to... :

Um, my photos posted earlier clearly show a significant amount of vignette at 1.4 through 2.0 (not horrible looking, but it's there). At 2.8 it is almost gone. Am I missing something here?

Vignetting can be heavily affected by focus distance.

In fact, I just read the Focus Numerique 'review', and while they show the data for sharpness, they do not show the data for vignetting, they merely post their conclusion. So, I'll retract my previous statement – the jury is still out.

 

[LSXPhotog]

The jury isn't out. I own both lenses and both vignette about the same.

 

[Apop]

Thanks for posting, hoping that the digital picture will finish it's full review soon

but meh, that 100%crop comparison is not promising..., darn i had my fingers crossed for it to be close or equal to the sigma...

A lot more sharpness and contrast for the sigma at f1.4 , the only other they show is f8 (but it seems the canon shot shown is still the 1.4 since it's missing sharpness and contrast and looks identical). I'm in the market for a 85 1.4 or and 135 f2 and am waiting for more reviews on the canon before deciding between (canon zeiss sigma tamron)

I was afraid when the price wasn't over 2k that it wouldn't be stellar , lets hope that focus numerique had a bad copy of the lens or made a mistake with focus

***edit: im not saying it looks like a bad or terrible lens, but that i was hoping for it to be better than this comparison seems to indicate .... although considering the size/price/IS it may have been wishful hoping

 

[Viggo]

«Build quality: Draw»

I’m feeling this is judged by feeling the weight, and bouncing them around in the hand and go; “yeeessh, they’re equal”

The 35 Art and 35 L II were also close in build with some reviewers, but Roger Ciala told a different story and he took them completely apart. I do not believe for a second that “canon just want more money for the red ring” no way. With a background in servicing electronics I’ve never seen two similar products with different price actually been equally built under the hood. Never.

 

[danfaz]

...but Roger Ciala told a different story and he took them completely apart. I do not believe for a second that “canon just want more money for the red ring” no way. With a background in servicing electronics I’ve never seen two similar products with different price actually been equally built under the hood. Never.

Yep, under the hood, the 35L II is almost bomb-proof.

Makes me wonder about the new 3rd party lenses that are now constructed with metal exteriors. I have the Tamron G2 24-70 and 70-200. Wonder if they are more fluff on the inside?

 

[SecureGSM]

I am glad you noticed. it does look that the Canon shot shown is still F1.4. notice how CA levels in Canon shot are still higher than usual. at F8 one would expect them to be gone completely.
Canon shot is also not as sharp in the centre at F8 but supposed to be better then or on par with Sigma according to their results. That said, if the Canon shot is indeed correct one and at F8, then for studio shooters Sigma may remain the better value unless one shoot subjects exclusively in the dead centre of the frame and with lower resolution cameras only.

note to local scientific community: Sigma exhibits 0.5EV worse vignetting level at F1.4. To my knowledge (disclaimer), vignetting is easily corrected in post and does not affect sharpness, contrast and details. It does affect noise levels when corrected somewhat but only somewhat at this level.

Thanks for posting, hoping that the digital picture will finish it's full review soon

but meh, that 100%crop comparison is not promising..., darn i had my fingers crossed for it to be close or equal to the sigma...

A lot more sharpness and contrast for the sigma at f1.4 , the only other they show is f8 (but it seems the canon shot shown is still the 1.4 since it's missing sharpness and contrast and looks identical). I'm in the market for a 85 1.4 or and 135 f2 and am waiting for more reviews on the canon before deciding between (canon zeiss sigma tamron)

I was afraid when the price wasn't over 2k that it wouldn't be stellar , lets hope that focus numerique had a bad copy of the lens or made a mistake with focus

***edit: im not saying it looks like a bad or terrible lens, but that i was hoping for it to be better than this comparison seems to indicate .... although considering the size/price/IS it may have been wishful hoping

 

[Ozarker]

With all I've read about Sigma's problems with AF I would never buy one. If somebody gave me one I'd not take it out of the box. I'd immediately sell the Sigma and put the money towards a Canon lens. Every Canon lens I have performs very well in the AF department (The ones with AF.). For me there is no reason to pay for an AF turd from Sigma. I get those for free every morning and apparently more consistently than Sigma's AF. I can buy a Canon lens and be confident the got dang thing will work. If it breaks I know Canon will fix it and do so quickly. I don't personally care how much less the price of the Sigma is.

Before anyone says that I must have a lot of money to not worry about price I must tell you that you'd be wrong. I live on less than $20k a year and have to make every penny count when I buy my gear. I'm not about to hand Sigma a penny. Canon works for me every time. Canon gets my money because Canon instills confidence when it comes to quality.

I'll wait a couple of years to see whether a new 85 f/1.2L is released. If not, I'll buy the Canon 85 f/1.4L IS. I am confident either will be very good lenses.

 

[SecureGSM]

the perceived AF consistency issue of Sigma 85 Art is quite irrelevant to most studio shooters as you typically shoot stopped down to F8 or thereabouts and (preferably) tethered. events shooters is a completely different story though. the size, weight and AF speed/consistency is of paramount importance for this crowd.
there is a nice manual focus ring on the lens and it does work i have been told., there are some interesting MF only lenses around that are also less than great in AF department but still cost 3 times your new Canon.
It is all about confidence.isn't it.

 

[Don Haines]

With all I've read about Sigma's problems with AF I would never buy one. If somebody gave me one I'd not take it out of the box. I'd immediately sell the Sigma and put the money towards a Canon lens. Every Canon lens I have performs very well in the AF department (The ones with AF.). For me there is no reason to pay for an AF turd from Sigma. I get those for free every morning and apparently more consistently than Sigma's AF. I can buy a Canon lens and be confident the got dang thing will work. If it breaks I know Canon will fix it and do so quickly. I don't personally care how much less the price of the Sigma is.

Before anyone says that I must have a lot of money to not worry about price I must tell you that you'd be wrong. I live on less than $20k a year and have to make every penny count when I buy my gear. I'm not about to hand Sigma a penny. Canon works for me every time. Canon gets my money because Canon instills confidence when it comes to quality.

I'll wait a couple of years to see whether a new 85 f/1.2L is released. If not, I'll buy the Canon 85 f/1.4L IS. I am confident either will be very good lenses.

This is the one thing that Canon can never compromise on... reliability! They are slow to introduce new features because they need to be work no matter what! Many of us will forgo the gadget of the day, or we will gladly pay a bit more for that feeling of trust and the knowledge that there is a real service department to back us up when shit happens.....