SecureGSM said:
PBD,
So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.
Here:
“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”
(C) Roger Cicala
Roger gets it.
No the Sigma Art is not the Sigma Cine Prime, they have the same optical formula. They are not built to the same optical or mechanical standards.
The two lenses you compared are priced at $3,499 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%20cine%2085&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= and $1,599 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1354803-REG/canon_ef_85mm_f_1_4l_is.html
Those are facts.
I get it.
A.M.: yes, i know that. I am saying that this information is indicative of the Sigma 85 Art optical performance. there is mechanical ans somewhat optical difference. mainly in QA level, tolerances and uniformity. but come on. do you really expect me to be that dumb to state that cine lens is identical to consumer level product?
I am not a Dilbert , I hope you do realise. thank you.
there will be some deviation of course, but Roger talks about it in the comments. he also purchased his copy of Sigma 85 Art based on the optical test results he was getting.
Do you think Roger knows what he is talking about calling Sigma's optical performance a moderately mind boggling goodness?
"is representative of what will happen with photo lenses" NOT, the same as what will happen with photo lenses. He is saying these are not the results you will get with the same optical formula from a photo lens, but the general differences should translate. Yet you insist on comparing a Cine lens to the possible results from a photo lens, Roger doesn't.
Roger gets it.
Now to the the actual question you are burning up inside trying to hit everybody over the head with, is the new Canon 85 f1.4 L IS as sharp as the Sigma 85 Art? My answer is, who cares other than measurebators?
A.M.: Sir, you need a reality check and an urgent one. Roger's opinion is that on high resolution bodies it all started to show up now. Hi res bodies love sharp glass. sharpness is not the only factor I am looking at but lets start with obvious: Sharp glass is there for reason. Look at the Canon 35 F1.4 II sharpness levels - brilliant glass.
The question anybody interested in taking pictures with any lens should be, is it sharp enough for my intended use and output? To which the obvious answer is yes, the Canon is plenty sharp enough for all but the most foolish of pixel peeping measurebators. Then the question becomes, how much do I value first party engineering over third party, how reliable is the AF, how much do I value IS, is weight a factor, etc etc.
A.M.: exactly my point. you are seems to be getting wrong impressions. i repeat. I look at multitude of factor and ensure that major check boxes are ticked for me.
Anybody that gives sharpness a second thought in any modern lens is missing so much, sharpness is so overrated and is just a given for these things nowadays. As a photographer go look at other photographers work, in print, up close, you will see bad processing, distortion, aberrations, clumsy cloning etc way before you think, 'it's not sharp'.
I think I get it now. there is a communication problem here.
let see if it is fixable but open your mind and give up negativity, please.
1. I never said Canon 85 F1.4 IS is a bad glass. I said a solid performer but not as exciting as Canon35 F1.4 II
2. I do find CA levels in new Canon lens to be excessive.
3. in regards to your advise :... Further, if sharpness is your main goal you already have the options, just get an Otus.."
a. no sharpens is not my main goal. it is one of the check boxes that have to be ticked.
b. it is a A$5,500.00 lens. who can afford this? not an appropriate advise to give unless you are under impression that we are talking pocket money here.
4. you are talking about final product being prints exclusively but world moves rapidly away from this paradigm.
digital assets becoming an increasingly important form of communication and an artistic expression.
You Can't Drive Forward Looking Through a Rear View Mirror - do you agree?
5. Sigma is a optically better lens in following areas: sharpness, chromatic aberrations, micro contrast
6. Sigma is equally as good: rendition wide open, bokeh, saturation out of the camera.
Sigma not as good: vignetting, AF drift over time (please note: drift, not consistency), weather resistance level, larger and heavier
AF Drift: lens requires AFMA re-adjustment every few months. for many it may poses an issue.for others: not really. I service my car twice a year. I readjust my Sigma lenses twice a year. Canon is virtually maintenance free.
7. Canon cost twice of Sigma's cost in Australia: A$2,300 vs A$1,1150. a consideration for many people that actually have budget and who not earning $500K per annum.
8. Canon serviceability is superior to Sigma in Australia in general but I live 25km away frombthe Sigma Service centre. so not an issue.
9. quality of build: Canon is a better built lens. for studio work it does not matter at all. for run and gun, events and on location I would consider Canon.
10. Canon is smaller and lighter. superior of on location, run and gun, event photography. in studio Sigma is a better glass to use. for me it is a very well balanced lens on my 5D IV
11. weather resistance. Canon is better built lens in that regard. again, on location, run and gun, events - Canon wins.
12. Image stabilisation:
I found that on 5D IV i have to keep shutter speed at x1.5 faster than focal length level at least.(for pin sharp images) IS would be of great assistance even on 30Mp FF camera. for now, I am OK for now but image stabilised primes becoming a necessity in near future. it may be a consideration for many already today.
13. You are referring to some others that are unhappy with Sigma AF inconsitencies reported by others and that I am raving about my own copy. let me clarify:
a. there is no reliable information about Sigma 85 Art AF inconsistency exist. all reviewer reported otherwise.
b. there is reliable information regarding focus drift in time issue. confirmed. spoke with service. they suggested to re adjust once a year.
c. I provided full AF consistency report that validates my statement:Sigma 85 Art is AF consistent when centre and peripheral AF point were used even in low light. please provide alternative reliable data to prove me otherwise.
d. I have personally calibrated 11 Sigma 85 Art lenses. none of them exhibited AF inconsistency at calibration stage. I repeat: none. I can smell a drop of blood in the ocean of water when it comes to AF consistency misbehavior. I have done so many Sigmas it is not funny.
e. I have sold my Sigma 35, 50, 24, 135 Art lenses due to erratic AF behavior on 5D IV body. 85A is different.
in conclusion:
when I run and gun, I would much prefer new Canon.
I would prefer Sigma in studio when maximum IQ, resolution, details are required and weight and size is not that of an issue at the same time. ( |Sigma compares favourably even to canon 70-200 F4 lens, let alone F2.8 size and weight wise).
for run and gun, events situation I use Canon holy trinity of latest a greatest lenses but for studio work Sigma is the glass. Otus is out of question due to its outlandish price and lack of AF.
