# Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Lens Next? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2015)

```
We’re told the next Art series lens from Sigma will be an 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art. However, it’s not coming any time soon. There’s still a small possibility that a new 135mm Art series lens will arrive first, but Sigma feels there will be a higher sales volume likelihood with the 85mm focal length, and will do their best to get it to market first.</p>
<p>A new 24-70 f/2.8 OS DG HSM Art is also a possibility, as the chance of an f/2 version has diminished due to costs of development and production. One of Sigma’s biggest marketing strategies is a significantly lower price than the Canon or Nikon version of a lens. That just wouldn’t be possible with an f/2 wide angle zoom for a full frame camera. One example of a lens that hasn’t done well because it wasn’t cheaper than the comparative Canon has been the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/01/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-discontinued/" target="_blank">possibly discontinued 24-105mm f/4 DG OS Art.</a> Yes it would be a stop faster, but would people spend more on a Sigma lens that is a stop faster than the Canon of equal focal length? A stabilized f/2.8 Art version could probably be made for far less money and would carry much less risk for Sigma.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## candyman (Feb 17, 2015)

I see that I am not the only one suffering from strange HTML behaviour here at CR....


Anyway, I am more interested to see a 135mm preferable with OS


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2015)

Hey

New site is on the near horizon!

I figured out what it is, I'll fix it.


----------



## brianleighty (Feb 17, 2015)

Interesting that this is a CR2. Gives me some hope


----------



## candyman (Feb 17, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Hey
> 
> Yeah, strange one. I'll have to figure that out when I get back. *New site is on the near horizon!*




Ola, that is good news! That's a CR3 ;D


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 17, 2015)

Sigma already makes a very good 85 f/1.4 lens. The sales volume of a 85 f/1.4 Art lens might be greater than for a 135 f/1.8 or f/2 lens, but is that difference more than the difference between sales of a 85mm Art lens and the current 85mm lens? Or are potential buyers for the current 85mm lens deciding instead to wait for the 85mm Art lens?


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 17, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> Sigma already makes a very good 85 f/1.4 lens. The sales volume of a 85 f/1.4 Art lens might be greater than for a 135 f/1.8 or f/2 lens, but is that difference more than the difference between sales of a 85mm Art lens and the current 85mm lens? Or are potential buyers for the current 85mm lens deciding instead to wait for the 85mm Art lens?



Well, it matters to me. I have zero interest in the old Sigma 85, and I would very seriously consider getting an 85mm ART, having enjoyed my 35mm ART so much.

Maybe it is unjustified but "old" Sigma has a Stigma (pun intended) for AF issues, reliability. The ART line has been winning awards for sharpness and they look and feel great, and are at very least psychologically a break from the past.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2015)

I don't currently own any Sigma lenses but I have had a few in the past, two of them Art versions. I will return and pick up a 135 if they offer it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 17, 2015)

The tammy 24-70 VC was so good I haven't found a need for another 24-70. My only complaint would be the build quality isn't as reassuring as a sigma A lens. If sigma can get past the AF issues, Make a 24-70 more soild than the tammy for the same price, It will sell really well.

Every one is clamoring for 85mm's! The Bower 85mm, the zeiss 85mm otus and planar versions, the new 85mm 1.8G from nikkor... The 135mm Focal length needs some attention and has a need for IS. I'd love nothing more than sigma to make it with IS and/or F/1.8 if possible.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 17, 2015)

Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?


----------



## chukronos (Feb 17, 2015)

Yes, please!! ☺


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 17, 2015)

I too am in the camp where I'd like to see the 135mm prime get some love first.


----------



## iron-t (Feb 17, 2015)

Pretty much any of these lenses will be of great interest to me. I am in exactly the situation others have described: interested in the current 85mm but would so much rather get the new "Art" build. On the other hand if Sigma could put OS in a 135 f/2 I might be sold on that without too much trouble.

I have the Tamron 24-70mm VC and really enjoy it, but if Sigma makes an equivalent with better edge sharpness I'll certainly consider it.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 17, 2015)

.
My Canon 135 is the best lens I own. For me, there is no improvement that would be worth making a change.

If they produce an 85 Art while I'm still using Canon, I want one -- and have wanted one for almost two years now. But as Fuji, and their superior lenses, advances, Canon begins to fade for me.


----------



## donn (Feb 17, 2015)

I love my 50A, made me pre-order the 24, as I don't have a fast 24. Been waiting also for an 85A, am sure getting it. As for the 135mm, my 135L hasn't so far failed me. Looking forward on what Sigma has to offer.


----------



## lo lite (Feb 17, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?



I think quite the same, I don't understand why Sigma isn't focusing onto formulas no other produces. I, for instance, would consider a new 20mm f/1.4 ART (if that is doable, otherwise f/1.8) much more interesting than the 24mm they released recently. If I want a 24mm f/1.4 I can get that from Canon or even Samyang (if I want to get it cheap). No unique selling point in this formula. Sigma, please, bring on something outstanding.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2015)

It's all about the AF, Sigma.


----------



## photogaz (Feb 17, 2015)

What exactly is wrong with the current 85m f1.4? I own it and it's right up there with my Canon L lenses.

Do we need a 85 ART?


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 17, 2015)

Safe to assume the 135 Art won't follow the trend of other Art lenses and have a 1.4 aperture. That would be a monster. Maybe f/1.8 but if it is to compete with the current 135L then certainly no slower than f/2. Can probably also assume it won't have IS in the Art version. The 135L is old technology but by all accounts a stellar lense and not overly expensive as L lenses go. So the Sigma will have to be darn good optically and below the price of the Canon you would think.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 17, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?



I have a 24-105 L... and I've been waiting for the rumored 24-70 f/2 art... I don't use the 24-105 that much, and I can't justify sinking $2000 into a canon 24-70 f/2.8 mkii considering the amount I go to that focal length. 

But I would happily sell the 24-105 and get the f/2... a full 2 stops more than what I have now plus something different on the market. The Tamron, the Canon, and others just set a pecking order for that type of lens. But an f/2 would create it's own little pool for itself. 

Oh well.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> It's all about the AF, Sigma.



I have a 85mm f/1.2 L mkii... and the dof is so thin it often misses the eye. So I manually focus. Because the lens is special, I'm willing to do that... if it were mediocre... no thank you. That raises the question as to whether the 35, 50, and their 85 art will be special to the point to where I don't mind manually focusing.


----------



## dash2k8 (Feb 18, 2015)

For me, a Sigma 135 Art would not move my wallet because the Canon 135mm is already excellent AND very cheap. A Sigma 135 would have to be remarkably cheaper AND better optically to take away market share.

A Sigma 85/1.4 would fill the niche that Canon left between its 1.2 and 1.8 versions, and for that reason I would buy it even though I already have the Canon 85/1.8. The 85/1.2 is famously (notoriously?) slow in focus and therefore nearly useless for non-standstill portraits despite its remarkable IQ. If Sigma produces a lens similar to the Canon 85/1.2 with really fast focus, I'm in. I don't mind the 0.2 difference in aperture.


----------



## Zv (Feb 18, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> The tammy 24-70 VC was so good I haven't found a need for another 24-70. My only complaint would be the build quality isn't as reassuring as a sigma A lens. If sigma can get past the AF issues, Make a 24-70 more soild than the tammy for the same price, It will sell really well.
> 
> Every one is clamoring for 85mm's! The Bower 85mm, the zeiss 85mm otus and planar versions, the new 85mm 1.8G from nikkor... The 135mm Focal length needs some attention and has a need for IS. I'd love nothing more than sigma to make it with IS and/or F/1.8 if possible.



+1. Exactly what I think. I could totally go a Sigma 24-70 2.8 OS for under a grand. An f/2 version would be at least double that or more, no thanks. The Tammy version looks interesting but I'd rather have Sigma A build quality and sexy looks! (it matters to me!)

Bring on the 85 and 135. I've been thinking about the current Sigma 85 for a while but it's pricey. Rather pay a bit more for the Art version. That has to be the most wanted Sigma lens right now.


----------



## Ripley (Feb 18, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> It's all about the AF, Sigma.



I purchased the 35A and 50A over the holidays and their autofocus has been great.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 18, 2015)

lo lite said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?
> ...



I mostly agree but a unique focal length alone isn't what makes these lenses popular. I thought with the 35A
and 50A that they had figured out sharpness sells, and when you combine that with a world record aperture
it flies off the shelf (18-35A), the 24-105 was not sharper, cheaper or faster than the competition, anyone
should have been able to tell you it was going to bomb.
The only caveat here is we haven't seen a Sigma Art lens for more than $1,000 yet, so whether or not a
24-70f2 would sell well at $2,000 is still a good question. $1,000 is a huge mental barrier and Sigma would
have to nail everything down perfectly to sell a lot of those even with a world record aperture.
I think they're right to be pessimistic about an expensive wide aperture zoom, if their design estimates
weren't turning out good sharpness it may be for the best, but I would dearly liked to have seen another
crisp wide open f2 zoom lens.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Feb 18, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8. I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 , et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?



Bro, it just doesn't make financial sense, so there is no "too bad". There is absolutely no way it would sell better than a 2.8. Yes, it would be unique. But you know what unique requires? Additional research and development cost. Also, a 2.0 is going to require a lot more glass than a 2.8. That also adds to the expense. Look at other similar lenses that are semi-fast and add an additional stop. There is no small price increase, small size increase, or small weight increase. It's dramatic in all aspects. As an example, looks at the difference between a 200mm 2.8 and a 200mm 2.0. They're world's apart, yet only one stop apart.

Lenses approaching $1000 are already a small market. A lot of my friends can swing one nice lens for about a thousand. When you get closer to $2000 (which is at least what you'd approach for a 24-70 2.0), your market reduces significantly more. Here's an n=1 anecdote. I've been able to convince my wife to let me buy many lenses over the last few years. The total value on those equals almost $8000. I asked her permission to buy an Canon 85mm 1.2, promising her I'd hold off on purchases for a few more years, and she flat out refused, wouldn't have any of it. There absolutely IS a psychological effect when between buying something costing three figures versus four figures. 

You bring up a good point, however, when you do, you deflate your argument even further. True, the market IS flooded with mid range zooms. There's even less incentive to create a unique, but very expensive, 24-70 f2.0. People already have mid range zooms. Most aren't going to upgrade to something that will easily cost double of what they're already using, especially when they're going to have to deal with a much heavier and bulkier lens. Of course, some will, but those people, again, will be a small minority.

Listen, it'd be cool to see it, but it doesn't make any sense for a company to create it. Trust the company. They're the ones with money at stake. They've already done research to find out how viable it is. The simple fact that work towards that lens is no longer continuing means there is little financial benefit, if any, for creating that lens.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 18, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> For me, a Sigma 135 Art would not move my wallet because the Canon 135mm is already excellent AND very cheap. A Sigma 135 would have to be remarkably cheaper AND better optically to take away market share.
> 
> A Sigma 85/1.4 would fill the niche that Canon left between its 1.2 and 1.8 versions, and for that reason I would buy it even though I already have the Canon 85/1.8. The 85/1.2 is famously (notoriously?) slow in focus and therefore nearly useless for non-standstill portraits despite its remarkable IQ. If Sigma produces a lens similar to the Canon 85/1.2 with really fast focus, I'm in. I don't mind the 0.2 difference in aperture.



BINGO. I don't understand the rush to a 135 over an 85 for THAT precise reason. The Canon 135 f2 L is 20 years old and is STILL one of THE sharpest lenses made today. Sells new for about $1000. Where does Sigma go with an ART 135?? It would have to be as good as the Canon or better with OS to make me think. Doubtful. But the $2000 and notoriously slow AF as the Canon 85L is...it's begging to be picked off.

Are Nikon people clamoring for a 135? I don't know. But their biggest 3rd party market (Canon) sure doesn't need a Sig 135 ART at $1000. But the 85ART would fit beautifully at $1000-1200.


----------



## jhanken (Feb 18, 2015)

photogaz said:


> What exactly is wrong with the current 85m f1.4? I own it and it's right up there with my Canon L lenses.
> 
> Do we need a 85 ART?



Well, I have the older 50MM and love it, I think the autofocus complaints are so overblown. Hoping to pick up the current 85MM once the 85A is announced for a song!  

Not that I don't appreciate the improvements in the Art line. I now have the 35MM Art, and it is crazy nice. I love the images, contrast, color, lack of distortion, amazing.


----------



## Perio (Feb 18, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > For me, a Sigma 135 Art would not move my wallet because the Canon 135mm is already excellent AND very cheap. A Sigma 135 would have to be remarkably cheaper AND better optically to take away market share.
> ...



Come on guys. 85 1.2ii is obviously slower than 135 2.0 but is not notoriously slow, especially when lighting is good.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 18, 2015)

With respect to the new 85A, I have been waiting for sigma to announce it. For portrait 85mm FL is special. I owned in the past the current sigma 85mm and I had no complains after doing AFMA.
The 135A will gain customers only if OS is added because the Canon 135mmL can be found as low as $800 and lens is sharp and its AF is spot on and fast.
Mid-range zooms is very crowded so the logic to make a killer lens is to produce a 24-70mm f2.8 OS lens with IQ and performance at the level of the killer 18-35mm f1.8 Art. Otherwise its fate will be similar to the possibly discontinued 24-105 f4 OS Art


----------



## e_honda (Feb 18, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?



The 24-105 lens was unique in that the market was flooded with used lens from people who wanted to upgrade and new lens from people who had one already and obtained another when they bought a body and it came as a kit lens.

So even though the Sigma was an optical improvement and it cost less than the MSRP of the Canon, people were just paying $600 and under as a street price for the Canon. There really wasn't a market to be had for Sigma.

On the other hand, people are always more than willing to hear about a new 24-70 lens.


----------



## brianleighty (Feb 18, 2015)

photogaz said:


> What exactly is wrong with the current 85m f1.4? I own it and it's right up there with my Canon L lenses.
> 
> Do we need a 85 ART?



There's nothing wrong with it perse. My reasons for not getting it is that compared to the Canon 70-200 IS ii I've found the 70-200 more useful with about the same sharpness. Compared to the Canon 85 1.2, I feel while the Canon focuses slower it tends to hit AF better when it does hit. I would call Sigma's AF a little more sloppy and it gets pretty close but not quite right all the time. I have the Sigma 35 ART and have rented the Sigma 50 ART and both had much better AF then Sigma's old lenses. Add onto that that the new ART lenses can be adjusted with the dock if there's an issue and it gives me some some reassurance regarding AF. The current lens is fine but I'm looking for something that I can use wide open or at f/2 that's still super sharp. The current one is pretty good but I feel I'm giving up the flexibility of a zoom for an extra stop or two without the extra sharpness that primes once gave. I think Sigma can up their game on this one just like they have with the 35 and 50 give me a reason to get this lens.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 19, 2015)

I don't own a Canon 135mm L for one reason - no IS. The Sigma 135mm Art will certainly have IS, as will their 85mm.

Please can we stop the 24-70mm f/2 nonsense. It was based on a photoshopped image.


----------



## brianleighty (Feb 19, 2015)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I don't own a Canon 135mm L for one reason - no IS. The Sigma 135mm Art will certainly have IS, as will their 85mm.
> 
> Please can we stop the 24-70mm f/2 nonsense. It was based on a photoshopped image.



While a 85 IS would be nice I'd be very surprised if they added it. The 135 definitely makes sense to add it if they can though.


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 19, 2015)

I have the current 85 and its a great lens. A little but of fringing wide open but I normally go for f2 anyway. I am looking forward to using it a lot more outdoors this summer! Of course everyone wants the latest and greatest model which will also future proof your purchase so while the current one is great I can see why people are holding off.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 20, 2015)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I don't own a Canon 135mm L for one reason - no IS. The Sigma 135mm Art will certainly have IS, as will their 85mm.
> 
> Please can we stop the 24-70mm f/2 nonsense. It was based on a photoshopped image.



I use my 135L for indoor sports... around 1/400 of a second give or take. Usually around that speed... you don't need IS... or at least is becomes less important. This is versus shooting at f/2.8 and the same iso speed, where I would shoot at 1/200 of a second... so that extra stop can make all the difference.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Chapman Baxter said:
> 
> 
> > I don't own a Canon 135mm L for one reason - no IS. The Sigma 135mm Art will certainly have IS, as will their 85mm.
> ...



Yeah exactly if you need IS you might as well be using any other tele lens as it's a static subject and you can use whatever shutter speed. Maybe Chapman is not shooting pics of people? The 135L is a great lens for people. Of course I'd still take IS in the lens to make it more useable but it's not really made for that.


----------



## pulsiv (Feb 24, 2015)

I'd definitely put one of these up!

I bought an "old" 85mm 1.4 Sigma a few years back... It was an absolute AF-nightmare! front-focussing in the far distance, back-focussing in near distance. Nothing I could equalize with the in-camera AF-micro adjust. 

Since I bought the mighty 35mm Art, I gained my trust in Sigma again... I'm already saving money for the 24 and the 85, if it's on the right side of 1000,-


----------



## beckstoy (Feb 24, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> I too am in the camp where I'd like to see the 135mm prime get some love first.



I agree that they'd probably make an amazing 135 (I'm a huge ART-Line fan), but I'm pretty sure they can't compete with Canon's Price Point of about $1k for their VERY good 135 f2. If they come out with a lens faster than f2 or with OS, I'd be interested. However, I doubt there's really any money in it for them with Canon's stellar lens.

I'm pretty sure they could really cut into Canon's market share with a good new 85 ART since Canon's equivalent (and amazing) lens is $2K+. I'd been waiting for Sigma's 85, but couldn't wait any longer and pulled the trigger on the Canon. I'll be selling it if Sigma's 85 is as good as their other ART lenses.

I think you've gotta follow the money here, and Sigma's gonna make more with an 85 coming first (imho).


----------



## Ripley (Feb 25, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I too am in the camp where I'd like to see the 135mm prime get some love first.
> ...



Sigma Art lenses are sold in multiple mounts, not just Canon.


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 25, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> My Canon 135 is the best lens I own. For me, there is no improvement that would be worth making a change.
> 
> If they produce an 85 Art while I'm still using Canon, I want one -- and have wanted one for almost two years now. But as Fuji, and their superior lenses, advances, Canon begins to fade for me.


 +1 Yep I just picked up a 135 up this morning and loving it...I'm very interested in the Sigma 85 so bring it on....


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 25, 2015)

Ripley said:


> Sigma Art lenses are sold in multiple mounts, not just Canon.


 +1


----------



## lintoni (Feb 25, 2015)

Ripley said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...


Which is a fair point, but there are more Canon EF mount cameras sold than any other mount - which may be one reason why Sigma have possibly stopped producing their 24-105 Art...


----------

