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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 9, 2017)

```
We’ve received word from various retailers that the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM has started shipping today or tomorrow.</p>
<p>Demand is pretty high at the moment, and the first shipment may not cover all the preorders from the big retailers. However, if we hear of any in stock at smaller retailers, we’ll let you know.</p>

<p><strong>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS $1599: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1354803-REG/canon_ef_85mm_f_1_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://aax-us-east.amazon-adsystem.com/x/c/QrpQAiTnfQniuJbtPsexsT4AAAFfePcBFwEAAAFKAdHXgGY/https://assoc-redirect.amazon.com/g/r/http://www.amazon.com/Canon-85-85mm-Fixed-Digital-Camera/dp/B074VQ6SGM/ref=as_at/?imprToken=lYqSfms92-MttVioUXf.BQ&slotNum=0&ie=UTF8&qid=1503979389&sr=8-1&keywords=2271C002&linkCode=sl1&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=ffa791915ae4de484fba999c4e2ae1b3">Amazon</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a> | UK: <a href="http://tidd.ly/3daf76c3">Park Cameras</a> | CA: <a href="http://www.gopjn.com/t/TUJGRU1GTEJGRk5HSklCRkhMRklH?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrys.com%2F98798-CANON-EF-85MM-F1-4-L-IS-USM.aspx">Henry’s</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 9, 2017)

I woke up to my card being charged for the lens. Called Adorama and they confirmed mine is shipping from their warehouse this afternoon.


----------



## mikekx102 (Nov 9, 2017)

Hopefully this means that reviews will be out soon


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 10, 2017)

Can't wait to see the photos and read the reviews. Thinking about having a garage sale to raise money if this turns out to be a good'un!


----------



## danfaz (Nov 10, 2017)

Mine is to be delivered tomorrow, but I won't be home to sign for it. GAAAAA!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 10, 2017)

danfaz said:


> Mine is to be delivered tomorrow, but I won't be home to sign for it. GAAAAA!



DAMN! Mine arrives Tuesday, according to UPS tracking.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Nov 10, 2017)

Hopefully this means a 135mm f/1.8 or f/2* with IS *will be announced. Hurry up and take my money Canon!


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 10, 2017)

I cancelled my Amazon pre-order this afternoon and bought one at a store in Seattle instead.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Nov 10, 2017)

Canon EF 85mm f/1,4L vs Canon EF 85mm f/1,2L vs Sigma 85mm f/1,4 Art vs Z.e.i.s.s.......


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 10, 2017)

Looks nice mclaren777... I'll be comparing the Sigma and the Canon this weekend (hopefully).


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2017)

Brian already has a hands on review up.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## goldenhusky (Nov 10, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I cancelled my Amazon pre-order this afternoon and bought one at a store in Seattle instead.



Thanks. Nice pic, looks super sharp. Which camera it is?


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2017)

Looking forward to you lens samples gents


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 10, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I cancelled my Amazon pre-order this afternoon and bought one at a store in Seattle instead.



Congrats on your new purchase!

Do you have the 85/1.2 L II? I am most curious to know how it compares. Sharpness doesn't really interest me much, I'm more interested in the rendering, how the bokeh looks, does it have that "magic"? Sorry I know that's an awful word but I think that's how many of us feel about the 1.2 and I am hoping the 1.4 has it too (with the AF and IS etc etc).


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Brian already has a hands on review up.
> 
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


A sketchy review. He had access during some kind of event, but very qualitative comments. Mentions he will do more when he actually purchases the lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Brian already has a hands on review up.
> ...



Yep, that's why I said a hands on review not an in depth review.

Having said that he does have some relevant shots, and mentions, a lack of CA, which had been a concern for some people after seeing the DPR sample gallery.


----------



## infared (Nov 10, 2017)

Looks good...but I will just hold on to my 85mm f/1.2L II.
I never get tired of looking at the results.....


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 10, 2017)

I like to use 85mm lenses for ring pictures at weddings and an 36mm extension tube works great on this lens.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 11, 2017)

Just got home, and Fedex came back a second time to deliver it! Sun has gone down, so can't really get out but my initial thoughts are that it's fast focusing, nice bokeh, very sharp at f/1.4. Beefy, but weight is distributed better than the 1.2. The IS...sooo very nice! I feel like I can shoot in the dark with this thing.

Behind the box is a couch, front window of living room, a plant in front of window, picture frame on wall to the left, and the light source is the neighbor's porch light across the street.


----------



## infared (Nov 11, 2017)

danfaz said:


> Just got home, and Fedex came back a second time to deliver it! Sun has gone down, so can't really get out but my initial thoughts are that it's fast focusing, nice bokeh, very sharp at f/1.4. Beefy, but weight is distributed better than the 1.2. The IS...sooo very nice! I feel like I can shoot in the dark with this thing.
> 
> Behind the box is a couch, front window of living room, a plant in front of window, picture frame on wall to the left, and the light source is the neighbor's porch light across the street.




Exciting....have fun with it!!!!!


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 11, 2017)

@mclaren777 & danfaz: Thanks for the images. The out of focus regions are rendered very pleasently.

Wish you a lot of fun and satisfaction with your new tools ...!


----------



## neurorx (Nov 11, 2017)

Anyone use the Sigma Art Lens or Canon 85mm 1.2 for comparison?

So far the sample images aren't helping me decide which to purchase. 

I've got the Canon 85/1.8 and find it ok but nothing like my L lenses.

I've never purchased a Sigma lens but have heard that the autofocus systems aren't always reliable. 

Congratulations on those who get to play with their new toy this weekend, while we others wait in anticipation of samples and reviews,


----------



## edoorn (Nov 11, 2017)

Ok, having used the lens at three gigs now including two events with shitty low light - the working reality of many pro’s - I can say this thing is awesome. AF is among the best of any lens I have, I would say at least on par with 35 II but maybe even better. Sharp too, and very well built. This will be a bread and butter lens for me making money )


----------



## danfaz (Nov 11, 2017)

@infared and mb66eneregy...thanks! I will be adding pics I take today to my smugmug gallery if you want to take a look. All pics shots at f/1.4...cause that's why we buy these things, right? LOL

https://1fineklick.smugmug.com/Canon-EF-85mm-f14-IS-USM/


----------



## neurorx (Nov 11, 2017)

danfaz said:


> @infared and mb66eneregy...thanks! I will be adding pics I take today to my smugmug gallery if you want to take a look. All pics shots at f/1.4...cause that's why we buy these things, right? LOL
> 
> https://1fineklick.smugmug.com/Canon-EF-85mm-f14-IS-USM/
> 
> Great photos! Thank you for sharing.


----------



## lightthief (Nov 11, 2017)

Hi,
can one of the owners of the new 85 1.4 IS try to get such flares, please?
I don't want to say that all my pictures made with the 85 1.2 II show flares, but i like them very much.

How is the bokeh/background when the focus distance is 25-50 ft? I use my 85 very often at this long distance and i fear, the bokeh of the new one is optimized for short distance head- / head-shoulder- shots - may be at the cost of longer distances.

Thank you very much!

lightthief


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 12, 2017)

‍


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2017)

danfaz said:


> @infared and mb66eneregy...thanks! I will be adding pics I take today to my smugmug gallery if you want to take a look. All pics shots at f/1.4...cause that's why we buy these things, right? LOL
> 
> https://1fineklick.smugmug.com/Canon-EF-85mm-f14-IS-USM/



Vignette looks horrendous!


----------



## Viggo (Nov 12, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> danfaz said:
> 
> 
> > @infared and mb66eneregy...thanks! I will be adding pics I take today to my smugmug gallery if you want to take a look. All pics shots at f/1.4...cause that's why we buy these things, right? LOL
> ...



Bryan said it cleared with 1.3 ev correction, hopefully that’s the case


----------



## slclick (Nov 12, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Brian already has a hands on review up.
> ...



I'd use a different word. Sketchy is reserved for PetaPixel. Bryan said he'd followup with a proper review, he's in the top reviewers tier imho.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 12, 2017)

Viggo said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > danfaz said:
> ...



Indeed it is very pronounced at f/1.4. It almost clears up by f/2.8. I added three pics to my gallery, showing f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8 on a wall.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 12, 2017)

danfaz said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Will be interesting though. I’m not stopping a lens down almost ever, and certainly won’t stop this lens down to clear vignetting. If it’s so bad you can’t really call it a f1.4, then I’ll have to reconsider again.... thanks for the sample shots


----------



## slclick (Nov 12, 2017)

Viggo said:


> danfaz said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Wait, did I read that right? You only shoot wide open no matter the lens or scene? It's like welding a pair of vice grips to only open up to 1/2"


----------



## Viggo (Nov 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > danfaz said:
> ...



It really isn’t ;D the way shoot I don’t need or want more dof. If I wanted 2.8 I would buy a 70-200 and 24-70 and that’s it. But while those two will get the shots in any situation, they are the most boring lenses I can think of. My three favorite lenses are 35 L II, Zeiss 100 f2 and 200 f2.0.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2017)

Viggo said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > danfaz said:
> ...



The 85/1.2L II has 1.5-2 stops of corner vignetting wide open. If you want horrendous, try the 24/1.4L II with >4 stops in the corners.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Indeed, and it looks to very gradually and should be easier to correct with getting the bright pink corners at high iso...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2017)

I'm leaning towards swapping my 85/1.2L II for this new 85/1.4L IS.


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 13, 2017)

I took pictures of some people at church today and this nice homeless guy wanted his picture taken as well.

So far, I'm really liking this lens.


----------



## neurorx (Nov 13, 2017)

Hello Mclaren777,

Great picture. Thank you for posting. Do you happen to recall the settings you used for this photo?


----------



## danfaz (Nov 13, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I took pictures of some people at church today and this nice homeless guy wanted his picture taken as well.
> 
> So far, I'm really liking this lens.



Nice one! Great sharpness on eyes, and then the smooth transition into the out of focus areas.


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 13, 2017)

neurorx said:


> Great picture. Thank you for posting. Do you happen to recall the settings you used for this photo?



1/160, f/2.8, ISO 400, flash power 1/64

The lens was probably 30-36 inches from his face.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 13, 2017)

Lucky me! Just ordered 85 IS and will have it by the end of the week, can’t wait to test it! The store got ONE, lol;D


----------



## blobmonster (Nov 13, 2017)

@ mclaren77 regarding the photo of the homeless guy, I think that is a very penetrating gaze you captured there, it reminds me of the afghan girl photo. It and the subject seem hauntingly sad and relate-able, and I say this as someone who doesn't often show softness in such contexts. It ought to be published more widely, also the lens is obviously very capable.

To the person above who said they were still confused and considering Sigma, I don't get why you wait if you're in the market and have the money. The Canon f1.4 is obviously the better buy and investment. Everyone is saying the autofocus is fine on this; therefore get it, the f1.2 was otherwise a dream lens. Besides, buying off brand jeopardises your existing investment in Canon photography as it arguably impinges on Canon's profitability...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> ... To the person above who said they were still confused and considering Sigma, I don't get why you wait if you're in the market and have the money. The Canon f1.4 is *obviously* the better buy and investment...



A.M.: no, not that obviously a better buy with Canon at A$2,250 vs Sigma Art at A$1,125 in Australia. Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).



> ... Besides, buying off brand jeopardises your existing investment in Canon photography as it arguably impinges on Canon's profitability...



A.M.: ;D ;D ;D who buys expensive products just to support a vendor's profitability these days? We buy them to satisfy our professional or consumer needs. Healthy competition is good. Monopoly is a recipe for financial and technological stagnation.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 14, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I cancelled my Amazon pre-order this afternoon and bought one at a store in Seattle instead.



Sweet pic.

I don't need this lens, but that pic sure makes it tempting!

Scott


----------



## Wedding Shooter (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).



rendition, bokeh, CA... For my part It's just to early to judge as to few Canon pictures are available to compare them

AF... Canon WON'T be worse

Vignetting... The sigma has some too... https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=1122

sharpness... That's a big one. I read a photography book once saying: "A tripod is the sharpest lens you can buy". With Canon having 4 stop IS... well...

What about size, weight, weather sealing, resale value, future cameras compatibility,...???

And yes. The Canon comes with a price twice the Sigma, but lower then anticipated by most.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Just a quick one in response : weight size can be an issue for some that never shot with Canon 70-200 F2.8L II + 5D combo. Trust me: Sigma 85 Art + 5D level body feels much lighter in your palms let along hanging of your shoulder or heaps as you run and gun. Yet, majority of events togs shoot with dual 5D bodies + 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses attached.
Vignetting : Sigma 85 Art literary is vignette free stopped down to F1.8. Again, trust me I own the glass. 
Resale value: I sold all my Sigma prime lens collection (but 85 Art) at profit and in a matter of days. Literary at profit as Sigma Art prices gone up in last year by nearly 30% in Australia. Definitely no problem in value department.

AF consistency: 

the question is how consistent do you need the AF to be?

At centre AF point Sigma as consistent as Canon F1.2 glass
At peripheral AF points and in low light is nearly as consistent as the Canon F1.2 glass

IS: can be useful, there is no doubt about it. 

I was thinking about upgrading to Canon 85 F1.4 IS for 2 reason:

1. IS
2. First party AF quality in low light 

#2 - I proven (and documented ) to be non issue 
#1 - is evedently an important Canon 85 F1.4 IS selling point

I am not prepared to shell out extra A$1300 for the IS along though. 
I would rather crank up my shutter speed to 1/125s at least if I had to.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 14, 2017)

the thing is, with Sigma you never know if your copy focusses right or not. I used to have a 35A which was fine! (not as good as the 35 II but still good enough). But I have also tried sigma lenses where that particular copy was just a miss. I know people who also have the Sigma art but don't have as much luck (problem seems to be outer focus points, in particular in less than ideal light - mind you, they use the lens in real world applications such as weddings, events, etc. - no tripod tests). So it is not proven at all that this lens performs as well as a first party lens. 

Another thing is that you might need to rely on service responsiveness. Depending on where you are, Sigma's turn around can be long . Speaking from experience, because before said 35A was sold, it broke twice (different problems) and it took weeks before I had the lens back. 

Ps: have not yet seen a good extensive review where both lenses are pitted against each other so your conclusion seems very premature.


----------



## slclick (Nov 14, 2017)

edoorn said:


> the thing is, with Sigma you never know if your copy focusses right or not. I used to have a 35A which was fine! (not as good as the 35 II but still good enough). But I have also tried sigma lenses where that particular copy was just a miss. I know people who also have the Sigma art but don't have as much luck (problem seems to be outer focus points, in particular in less than ideal light - mind you, they use the lens in real world applications such as weddings, events, etc. - no tripod tests). So it is not proven at all that this lens performs as well as a first party lens.
> 
> Another thing is that you might need to rely on service responsiveness. Depending on where you are, Sigma's turn around can be long . Speaking from experience, because before said 35A was sold, it broke twice (different problems) and it took weeks before I had the lens back.
> 
> Ps: have not yet seen a good extensive review where both lenses are pitted against each other so your conclusion seems very premature.



The 85, 135 and the 11-24 I believe use a different AF motor with much more power. The AF accuracy and speed of these 3 Art lenses is up to par with Canon. True the 35 Art had those issues, I had two copies. The 24-35 was much better but these new 3 are supposed to be amazing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Wow I, premature conclusions... not proven facts. 

Sigma 85 Art peripheral AF consistency in low light is 95.6%. Well in excess of what one calls even acceptable. This is a very good result. 

You are referring to some people that allegedly have experience with or unhappy with the Sigma Art peripheral points consistency?? Right, do you have an evidence to support your claim? I guess no 
I have first hand and extensive commercial level experience with Sigma Art and Sport lenses AFMA calibration. 
I offer this a service. I have for hundreds of them in recent years. I can tell you much more about the Sigma glass even from that perspective. In fact 35A lens is the most AF inconsistent out of the bunch. 85A has 0 AF consistency issues. I produced very detailed AF consistency test report jus recently and made it available to forum members. 
54 shots were taken in a very low light. Peripheral AF poiny was used. All of shots were in focus. 
That is why I call my point being proven and documented. 

Sigma service turnaround: yes, may be an issue same as Tamron or any other third part lens manufacturer. 
I am living in Melbourne and only a short drive from Sigma service centre. Therefore my circumstances are not typical. 



edoorn said:


> the thing is, with Sigma you never know if your copy focusses right or not. I used to have a 35A which was fine! (not as good as the 35 II but still good enough). But I have also tried sigma lenses where that particular copy was just a miss. I know people who also have the Sigma art but don't have as much luck (problem seems to be outer focus points, in particular in less than ideal light - mind you, they use the lens in real world applications such as weddings, events, etc. - no tripod tests). So it is not proven at all that this lens performs as well as a first party lens.
> 
> Another thing is that you might need to rely on service responsiveness. Depending on where you are, Sigma's turn around can be long . Speaking from experience, because before said 35A was sold, it broke twice (different problems) and it took weeks before I had the lens back.
> 
> Ps: have not yet seen a good extensive review where both lenses are pitted against each other so your conclusion seems very premature.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2017)

I’ve read about AF issues with all Art lenses, including the 85 and 135, and all the five Art’s I had, so for me it would never ever matter what Sigma does, I will never buy one again


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Wow I, premature conclusions...
> 
> That is why I call my point being proven and documented.





SecureGSM said:


> Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).



Where is your proven and documented evidence that, compared to the Canon 85/1.4L IS, the Sigma 85A has, "...(much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA." 

Yes, 'premature conclusions' certainly applies.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Sharpness: You aren’t really questioning the fact that Sigma Art is sharper than Canon 85 F1.4 IS wide open Are you? 

CA: there quite a few images that were taken with the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS were posted here by lens owners and an excessive CA levels are so obvious that one has to be blind not to notice. There is less CA in Sigma 85 Art images. Still a fair amount as I have mentioned but not as much. 

Bokeh: again, quite a few images are available that point to bokeh quality of the new Canon lens being not superb. Again, I see what the bokeh is like in Sigma 85 Art images taken wide open. 

And finally Vignetting: Sigma 85 Art is known to be nearly vignetting free wide open due to its super large front element. Stopped down to 1.8 the lens is virtually vignetting free. 
If you don’t believe my words, then ask Bryan of The Digital Picture or some one else who’s opinion you can trust. 
In fact, Sigma 85 Art is Bryan’s favourite 85mm wide aperture prime and this is for reason.
Do you think this may be an indication of what Sigma 85 Art performance is like?

In conclusion, I would like to stress the point that Canon 85 IS is a solid performer just not as exciting as Canon 35 F1.4 II for an instance. 
Speaking of which, I recently acquired slightly used Canon 35 F1.4 II and by the time I was done with initial lens optical tests, my jaw literary dropped when I looked at the results. This lens is insanely sharp and perfectly AF consistent. CA levels are virtually non existent, fast, contrasty and vibrant. Easily the best glass in my bag at the moment. 



neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Wow I, premature conclusions...
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Not trying to convince anyone. I made my decision to keep Sigma 85 Art in my bag based on sold facts and first hand experience and what images owners of the new Canon lens have made available here and other resources. 
One thing I can tell you for sure: there is a lot of noise on internet. You have to be careful about what information you can trust. In case of Sigma 85 Art I was skeptical about its peripheral AF points performance in low light as I have never took a time to verify that. I alway run centre AF point test as by default. 
It appears that reality is that Sigma 85 Art being a decent AF performer. Not the best but very very solid. 
I totally understand that you may dislike Sigma products based on you personal experience. That’s fine. But objectively, Sigma 85 Art is a very good glass. 
Canon is a sure, no risk bet. Is it an exciting glass as your Canon 35 F1.4 II though? I seriously doubt it.



Viggo said:


> I’ve read about AF issues with all Art lenses, including the 85 and 135, and all the five Art’s I had, so for me it would never ever matter what Sigma does, I will never buy one again


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Sharpness: You aren’t really questioning the fact that Sigma Art is sharper than Canon 85 F1.4 IS wide open Are you?



Yes, I am. Mostly because I have not seen any testing of the 85/1.4L IS. You aren't really relying on the theoretical MTF charts published by manufacturers, are you? Those theoretical MTFs are calculated from the optical designs without any consideration for lens construction or design implementation, and different manufacturers calculate and report them differently, so they are not directly comparable. 




SecureGSM said:


> CA: there quite a few images that were taken with the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS were posted here by lens owners and an excessive CA levels are so obvious that one has to blind to not notice. There is less CA in Sigma 85 Art images. Still a fair amount as I have mentioned but not as much.



The Sigma does handle CA well. Jury is still out on the Canon. Bear in mind that most RAW converters have lens modules to correct things like CA, and while those modules are available for the Sigma 85/1.4A, they are not yet available for the just-released Canon 85/1.4L IS. So, you're comparing images from the new Canon lens where the CA has likely not been corrected, or at least not properly/completely, vs. those from the Sigma with empirically-derived lens-specific corrections applied. 




SecureGSM said:


> Bokeh: again, quite a few images are available that point to bokeh quality of the new Canon lens being not superb. Again, I see what the bokeh is like in Sigma 85 Art images taken wide open.



Comparing a limited number of different images is not the same as a head-to-head comparison. I should think that would be obvious.




SecureGSM said:


> And finally Vignetting: Sigma 85 Art is known to be nearly vignetting free wide open due to its super large front element. Stopped down to 1.8 the lens is virtually vignetting free.
> If you don’t believe my words, then ask Bryan of The Digital Picture or some one else who’s opinion you can trust.



Looking at Bryan's testing, the Sigma 85/1.4A has 1.5-2 stops of corner vignetting wide open. You just stated it is, "...known to be nearly vignetting free wide open." Since I _do_ trust Bryan, and you are stating something quite different from his findings, that means your statements are not worthy of trust. Or to put it more colloquially, you're full of crap.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the point that you are drawing completely premature conclusions, and telling some outright falsehoods. I'm not saying the Sigma 85A is a bad lens, it looks like a solid performer. I am saying that concluding anything about the performance of the Canon 85/1.4L IS, alone or relative to other lenses in the class, is not rational at this point in time. Of course, there are plenty of irrational people out there who jump to conclusions at the drop of a hat lens hood.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2017)

I suspect the 85 IS better than the 1.2 in a lot of areas, and here’s a comparison between the 1.2 and Art at 1.4, doesn’t exactly show the Sigma as the big winner.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Neuro,

In regards to vignetting levels wide open. I said nearly. See the difference?
Yes, 1.5EV and 2.0EV in the extreme corners. Stop it down to F1.8. Now what?
To your knowledge and since you trust Bryan:

What other 85mm wide aperture prime lens are you aware off that exhibits such a low level of vignetting at F1.4 or F1.8? Zeiss Otus, Milvus, Tamron, Canon 85/1.2, Nikon, Sony GM?

In regards to sharpness issue: what MTF charts are you talking about?
There are tons literary tons of images are available out there lens is on sale in Australia for much longer than in North America. Can’t you see that there is not much sharpness there wide open to call home about? If you cannot see, then wait until Bryan will put the test results up for you. I am sure it is not much time to wait now. Lensrentals will be another resource to trust when it comes to optical sharpness tests. 
When their results are up please do yourself a big favour and stop calling people names it is a non brainer or is it?

And can I say this is conclusion: my 13 y.o. son knows that call someone “full of crap” is a misnomer.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> What other 85mm wide aperture prime lens are you aware off that exhibits such a low level of vignetting at F1.4 or F1.8? Zeiss Otus, Milvus, Tamron, Canon 85/1.2, Nikon, Sony GM?



Yes, the 1.2, see link above...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Viggo, 0.5EV difference at the edges of the frame left and right. Look at extreme corners. 
But..... this is what I was referring to Sigma being compeltly vignette free by F2.0:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

If this is not vignetting free for you then i don’t know what else is. 

Neuro, is this vignetting free for you to at least apologise for calling me names? 



Viggo said:


> I suspect the 85 IS better than the 1.2 in a lot of areas, and here’s a comparison between the 1.2 and Art at 1.4, doesn’t exactly show the Sigma as the big winner.
> 
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2017)

Try this:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> In regards to vignetting levels wide open. I said nearly. See the difference?
> Yes, 1.5EV and 2.0EV in the extreme corners. Stop it down to F1.8. Now what?
> To your knowledge and since you trust Bryan:
> 
> What other 85mm wide aperture prime lens are you aware off that exhibits such a low level of vignetting at F1.4 or F1.8? Zeiss Otus, Milvus, Tamron, Canon 85/1.2, Nikon, Sony GM?



The Canon 85/1.2L II has less vignetting than the Sigma 85/1.4A at comparable wide apertures. Viggo provided a link, did you bother to click it? Set both to f/1.4, the Canon has less vignetting. Stop it down to f/1.8. Now what? The Canon still has less vignetting. 

Heck, even though the Canon 85/1.2L II has less vignetting than the Sigma 85A, maybe in designing the 85/1.4L IS, Canon made the vignetting sufficiently worse than the f/1.2L version such that the Sigma has less vignetting that the new lens (despite the 85/1.4L IS having a narrower max aperture and a larger filter thread). 




SecureGSM said:


> In regards to sharpness issue: what MTF charts are you talking about?
> There are tons literary tons of images are available out there lens is on sale in Australia for much longer than in North America. Can’t you see that there is not much sharpness there wide open to call home about? If you cannot see, then wait until Bryan will put the test results up for you. I am sure it is not much time to wait now. Lensrentals will be another resource to trust when it comes to optical sharpness tests.



Oh, I see. Again, you're comparing shots with lens modules that apply appropriate microcontrast adjustments vs. an uncorrected image. You're relying on the post-processing skills of random people on the internet and assuming they're all similar. You don't know if the images are even correctly focused. But the Sigma is better, you know this. That's what we call jumping to conclusions. It may be that you're correct, and that the Sigma is better that the 85/1.4L IS in all respects. But as a scientist, I am accustomed to data-driven conclusions. To date, there's no real data on the 85/1.4L IS. 

Sorry that you can't seem to get past your conception of the Sigma 85A's superiority. The lens must make an uncomfortable lump when you sleep with it under your pillow each night. 




SecureGSM said:


> And can I say this conclusion: my 13 y.o. son knows that call someone “full of crap” is a misnomer.



True, you are not literally full of crap. More properly phrased, you are either a liar or you are grossly misinformed and propagating that misinformation. Take your pick.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, is this vignetting free for you to at least apologise for calling me names?



You stated that the Sigma 85/1.4A is better than the Canon 85/1.4L IS in many ways, including vignetting. The Sigma lens is *not* better than the 85/1.2L II in terms of vignetting. It is possible that the 85/1.4L IS has more vignetting than the 85/1.2L II, such that the Sigma is indeed better. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? I will point out that compared to the 1.5-2 stops with the Sigma, Bryan suggested the 85/1.4L IS has ~1.3 EV in the corners.

So, would you like retract your premature conclusion? Or would you prefer continue spreading misinformation, which is effectively the same as lying?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

This is the link I posted above yes 0.2 EV Canon advantage in extreme corners. 
Still vignetting free, Viggo. That’s nothing you know that. Nothing to even sneeze at. 




Viggo said:


> Try this:
> 
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=1


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Neuro,
What I see in images available is certainly more than 1.3EV in extreme corners. Wait until Bryan put his test results up and then we will revisit this issue. For now I much prefer for you not to call me or anyone else for that matter names ever. You are entitled to buy what you pleased based on information available. 

Roll back to my initial point: it is not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of. 



neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, is this vignetting free for you to at least apologise for calling me names?
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

Neuro, why are you keep referring to Canon 85 F1.2 II lens? 
I said better that new Canon 85 F1.4 lens. 
Yes, 0.2 EV stop worse than canon 85 F1.2 in extreme corners at F2.0. Is that much?

I said once I will repeat second time : stop calling people names

Being rude and erogant is not a skill to be proud off. 
Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with. 
Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point. 
Equally I had none shot with new Canon 85 Is lens but CA levels in images available, bokeh, sharpness and rendition ( and vignetting I detect) is nothing like what Sigma glass is capable of. 
You are entitled to your own opinion as I do. Lets accept that calling people names is unacceptable behaviour around here. 
Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue. One condition though: stop calling people names. Alright.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Roll back to my initial point: it is *not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS*. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of.



Yes, let's roll back...was that your initial point?



SecureGSM said:


> Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).



Your initial point was that the Sigma 85/1.4A is a much better lens than the Canon 85/1.4L IS. Now, you are saying that the Canon 85/1.4L IS is 'not obviously superior to' the Sigma 85A. Those are rather different concepts: originally, the Sigma was better, now it's not obviously worse. The hard thing about revisionist history is that the forum remembers your previous statements. 

My point is that we have such limited data on the 85/1.4L IS that forming conclusions about it's performance is premature. Apparently you're quite happy to draw conclusions in the absence of data. I'm not. 

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's unsupported by data. As I've pointed out before, some people have the opinion that the earth is flat. They are welcome to hold that opinion, and to share it, even if doing so makes them look like idiots. 




SecureGSM said:


> Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with.
> Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.



Please, try to stick to relevant points instead of wandering off on tangents. How is my experience (or lack thereof) relevant to the discussion? I am saying nothing negative about the performance of the Sigma 85A, by all accounts it's an excellent lens. All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is _better than_ another lens about which there is extremely limited data. 

You are the one arguing that the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon. I am simply stating that in the absence of data, that's not a valid conclusion. I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know, and we won't know without data on the 85/1.4L IS. It would be like me concluding that I weigh more than you, because I weigh 82 kilos. Silly, right? 




SecureGSM said:


> Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue.



Sounds good on the surface, but why bother? You've already decided that the Sigma is the better lens. Maybe you're the exception, but in my experience, people who make up their mind before seeing any real data don't subsequently allow the real data to change their mind. Like a fist, closed minds strike harder.


----------



## Wedding Shooter (Nov 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.



Curious: how many frames have you shot personally with the Canon? Exactly his point.

But all in all... this discussion is getting somehow boring.

I have the Canon ordered. Because it has a better AF then my current f1,2 and it has IS.
I don't mind the Canon or Sigma being sharper in the lab. I shoot weddings for a living and the Canon has the better package for my needs.


----------



## slclick (Nov 14, 2017)

They are both getting outstanding reviews and I'm sure anyone would be happy with either.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 14, 2017)

LMAO! The Sigma 85 Art is Vignette free? Not true.

I just spent all of today testing the Sigma 85 Art alongside the new Canon 85 and will be selling the Art. The Canon is extremely sharp but still a little behind the Sigma...but my Sigma missed focus a lot in my testing and when the shutter speeds got slower the Canon remained sharper.

The Sigma is better with axial chromatic aberration.

Bokeh is nearly identical wide open and ACTUALLY, I found the bokeh to be nicer and smoother stopped down on the Canon.

I'm posting a thread in the next day or so. Maybe tonight.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> LMAO! The Sigma 85 Art is Vignette free? Not true.
> 
> I just spent all of today testing the Sigma 85 Art alongside the new Canon 85 and will be selling the Art. The Canon is extremely sharp but still a little behind the Sigma...but my Sigma missed focus a lot in my testing and when the shutter speeds got slower the Canon remained sharper.
> 
> ...



Looking forward to that posting ! I’m getting mine, hopefully, by the end of the week


----------



## jaell (Nov 14, 2017)

One of my favorite aphorisms lately is:

"That which has been asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchen's Razor)

There is not evidence right now about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 L IS regarding its sharpness, CA, AF speed, etc.

I'm sorely tempted to purchase the Sigma 85mm Art, myself. But I'm going to wait until there is data available regarding the Canon before I make that decision.

In my opinion, if the Canon's IQ is comparable to the Sigma, the IS and at-least-as-good-if-not-likely-better AF of the Canon will be worth the $400 (US) more the Canon costs. But until I see some data, I cannot make that decision, even though I just sold a lens and have enough money to pull the trigger on the Sigma in time to take Christmas pictures of my kids.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Roll back to my initial point: it is *not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS*. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of.
> ...



A.M.: yes, l it was:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33808.msg695376#msg695376

*... In conclusion, I would like to stress the point that Canon 85 IS is a solid performer just not as exciting as Canon 35 F1.4 II for an instance...*



SecureGSM said:


> Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).





> Your initial point was that the Sigma 85/1.4A is a much better lens than the Canon 85/1.4L IS. * Now, you are saying that the Canon 85/1.4L IS is 'not obviously superior to' the Sigma 85A.* Those are rather different concepts: originally, the Sigma was better, now it's not obviously worse. The hard thing about revisionist history is that the forum remembers your previous statements.



A.M.: well that was my inital point: Canon is not that obviously ( not necessarily ) a better buy than Sigma. read below 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33808.msg695298#msg695298

A.M.: no, not that obviously a better buy with Canon at A$2,250 vs Sigma Art at A$1,125 in Australia.



> My point is that we have such limited data on the 85/1.4L IS that forming conclusions about it's performance is premature. Apparently you're quite happy to draw conclusions in the absence of data. I'm not.



Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass. 
It is OK if you cannot see it. Being an scientist and owning a ton of super expensive Canon gear is not a recipe for noticing things or see what others fail to see. That is how it is. some people cannot see the forest for the trees. skills, experience, etc. it is ok to have an opinion. the earth is not flat 

and here is a post form someone you may consider credible:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33747.msg693825#msg693825



> Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.



and that message was way before other images were made available. by now it is being quite obvious for many.
for many is the key word. not the sharpest lens with plenty CA wide open. solid performer but not the champion.

here. plenty of real world images and none of them suggest this lens is strikingly sharp, rendering champion or bokeh delicious:

http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/

please observe these images. professionally taken by the way.

By looking at the following image. from your experience would you say that CA levels in the image are normal or elevated? 











> You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's unsupported by data. As I've pointed out before, *some people have the opinion that the earth is flat. They are welcome to hold that opinion, and to share it, even if doing so makes them look like idiots.*



Are you talking to yourself?  you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior. it turns out not being the case from time to time. not always, but from time to time. in this case Canon delivered a solid performer but not a champion. not a 35 F1.4 II level of performance.

one observation though: for some very strange reason, anyone who dare to have an opinion that is different from the opinion you have, becomes your personal enemy, an idiot, full of crap, a lair or revisionist. Just look at yourself... what is up with this ego. 






SecureGSM said:


> Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with.
> Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.





> All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is _better than_ another lens about which there is extremely limited data.
> 
> You are the one arguing that the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon. I am simply stating that in the absence of data, that's not a valid conclusion. I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know, and we won't know without data on the 85/1.4L IS. It would be like me concluding that I weigh more than you, because I weigh 82 kilos. Silly, right?



no, not absence of data. plenty of data out there. plenty. and you guess correctly: you weigh more than me. I weigh 76 kilos. now there is enough data to draw the conclusion that you weigh more than me. because we both know how to compare 2 digit decimal numbers and know kilos from pounds.



SecureGSM said:


> Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue.





> Sounds good on the surface, but why bother? You've already decided that the Sigma is the better lens.
> 
> Maybe you're the exception, but in my experience, people who make up their mind before seeing any real data don't subsequently allow the real data to change their mind. Like a fist, closed minds strike harder.



not unless those people are intelligent and open minded. there is a host of super talented individual roaming around this place. Intelligent people are capable of facing facts and changing their mind when confronted with strong evidence or data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass.



Images are anecdotes, not data. Are they properly focused? Who knows. How were they post-processed, if at all? Who knows. I notice you have completely ignored the fact which I mentioned twice: RAW converters have dedicated lens correction modules for the Sigma 85/1.4A, but those modules are not yet available for the Canon 85/1.4L IS. That single fact alone completely invalidates your premature conclusion.




SecureGSM said:


> Are you talking to yourself?  you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior.



And with that, you've made it clear there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote, and are instead going to egregiously misrepesent my position (there's that full-of-crap-liar-propagating-misinformation thing again), it makes discussion impossible. For the record, from the post you quoted liberally and selectively, but either failed to read fully or failed to comprehend:



neuroanatomist said:


> I am saying nothing negative about the performance of the Sigma 85A, by all accounts it's an excellent lens. All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is _better than_ another lens about which there is extremely limited data.
> 
> I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know...




Please go on your merry way, secure in your knowledge that your Sigma 85A is superior to the Canon 85/1.4L IS. Don't let any future data to the contrary affect your opinion in the slightest. As for me, I'll keep an open mind and wait for actual data on the 85/1.4L IS, then I'll draw conclusions and happily discuss them...with anyone able to conduct a discussion honestly (and to be very clear, that doesn't include you).


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass.
> ...



A.M.:Neuro, I am looking at bunch of _uncorrected_ Sigma 85A files here. pure OOC RAWs. I know what I am talking about. this single fact along completely invalidates your idea about my idea being premature conclusion. 

here is one for you. go ahead and do you judgement for Sigma 85A glass. if that is not good enough than let me know and I will send you more.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/VHMnlxn4jGI19AAr1





SecureGSM said:


> Are you talking to yourself?  you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior.





> And with that, you've made it clear there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote, and are instead going to egregiously misrepesent my position (there's that full-of-crap-liar-propagating-misinformation thing again), it makes discussion impossible. For the record, from the post you quoted liberally and selectively, but either failed to read fully or failed to comprehend:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How scientific is that? call someone full of crap, a lair and what is not and this is a honest discussion in your books. you do what you please but stop insult people. I have no problem with people disagree with my opinion. I have problem with people being rude, arrogant, selfish and disrespectful. I hope this is something that a scientist is able to cope with.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 15, 2017)

So anyone that thinks the Canon isn't sharp...relax, you don't know what you're talking about. LOL

All images are straight out of camera RAW without touching them.

Make sure you click on the the "Load Full Resolution" icon.

*Zoomed in 200%*


 

Observation - What I'm seeing at 200%? First the Canon has a higher T value and it's extremely sharp. The Sigma may have backfocused slightly in this shot, but...that happens a lot with that lens.

*Bokeh*




Observation - The bokeh is beautiful on both lenses, the color temperature hasn't been matched, so please ignore that until I make the thread.

*Stopped down to f/4*


 

Observation - Stopped down to f/4, the Canon renders backgrounds MUCH smoother. I was actually noticing the backgrounds seemed slightly smoother in most shots.

*Axial Chromatic Aberration*




Observation - Here is a more real world axial chromatic aberration example versus a sheet of white paper with black text...because we all take photos of those, right? LOL The Sigma is basically flawless here. The Canon? Not entirely flawless, but still a very good showing. The 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2L would be a mess here.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 15, 2017)

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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.



That is kind of a dumb attitude, one to tell somebody who clearly knows what they are doing to AFMA_ "I mean properly"_, two to think he hasn't already done that, and three, why? If those are the results he personally is getting with his gear then those are relevant comparisons, at the very least, for him.

You keep banging on about how brilliant your Sigma is for AF, there are dozens of people who say theirs isn't. If you rely on AF then take the comparison images with AF, what use is a lens twice as sharp if it won't AF reliably?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 15, 2017)

Pbd,

according to LSXPhotogs words, his Sigma 95 does back focus alot. it that is a consistent behaviour, then the lens is out of tune. simple logic. the results he is getting are likely due to the lens requires AFMA,

there are many and many local photogs that come to me are unhappy about their Sigma lens producing out of focus images alot and walking out completely satisfied.

photographers are good at taking photos and not necessarily at lens calibration. in fact many would not have a clue.

with Canon lens it is much easier to get the lens in tune right. with Sigma it is a loooooong and boring process. it has to be done at all 4 distances and once done 85A will focus consistently for you.

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

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrtuQdT3Zm2eagtjt2K7g5_V8AwkA4ix

p.s. there is no need for me to think twice if the lens is back focused in sample images provided. the characteristics of CA patern evidently suggest that lens has back focused indeed.

p.s.2 i suggested live view mode comparison just to avoid AFMA routine for SIGMA for the moment. 





privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 15, 2017)

To correct you, I said it back-focused and that it happens often with the lens. But it is not a consistent behavior, it's consistent for the lens to occasionally go wacky and miss. The next 5-6 shots will be perfect, then it will be off. There is no way to dial out autofocus that is inconsistent. I have this thing pretty damn near perfection with the amount of time I've spent with it - even sending it into Sigma to have checked. Sigma, or Tamron for that matter, just can't create a lens that's as consistent as native Canon. This is speaking from my experience.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 15, 2017)

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 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 15, 2017)

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 (Nov 15, 2017)

pure gold. 



Viggo said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2017)

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.



raptor3x said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > here. statistically proven AF consistency report. 54 shots, one after another.
> ...


----------



## Kanelbulle (Nov 15, 2017)

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 (Nov 15, 2017)

Kanelbulle said:


> 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... 




Kanelbulle said:


> - 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 (Nov 15, 2017)

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 (Nov 15, 2017)

Kanelbulle said:


> - 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 (Nov 15, 2017)

danfaz said:


> Kanelbulle said:
> 
> 
> > - 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
> ...



Vignetting can be heavily affected by focus distance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2017)

Viggo said:


> danfaz said:
> 
> 
> > Kanelbulle said:
> ...



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 (Nov 15, 2017)

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


----------



## Apop (Nov 15, 2017)

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 (Nov 15, 2017)

«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 (Nov 15, 2017)

Viggo said:


> ...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 (Nov 15, 2017)

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.



Apop said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 15, 2017)

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 (Nov 16, 2017)

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 (Nov 16, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 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.....


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.



I'm confident in Canon. Wouldn't pay for a Zeiss either. AF is important to me. It would still be important to me if I had a studio. I could always turn off the AF. Can't turn it on if it isn't there. If it is a Sigma lens it might as well not have AF. Don't like wasting shutter count when it can be avoided.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Exacto mundo!!!


----------



## jd7 (Nov 16, 2017)

Viggo said:


> «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”



I get the impression that is how most reviewers assess build quality - that and whether the exterior is metal or plastic (despite the high quality plastics available these days) - so personally I don't put much store at all by what reviewers say about build quality. The tear downs that Lens Rentals do are an obvious exception, although even then the real test is how a large number of copies of a lens perform over the course of years (if you can possibly get that information).

From what I've seen so far - but realising there isn't that much information available yet for the Canon - I would prefer the Canon 85 1.4L IS over the Sigma 85 Art for its lighter weight, smaller size and IS, but I would prefer the Sigma for its optics and price. From everything I have read, I am yet to be convinced there is a problem with the Sigma's AF (although I am sure there are bad copies out there, of course, just as I am sure there are bad copies of the Canon).


----------



## Viggo (Nov 16, 2017)

Does anybody know if the 85 IS has a panning-mode with the IS? I know it doesn’t have the physical switch, but aren’t some of the new IS lenses auto-detecting when panning?


*EDIT* found the manual and indeed it does auto detect in both orientations. NICE!


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 16, 2017)

An interesting blog post by Lens Rentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-best-individual-focus-mtf-curves/

Sigma Cine 85mm T1.5 (A.M.: 85 Art lens in cine body)

_“... I am unworthy. There is moderately mind-boggling goodness all the way to the edge...”_

(C) Roger Cicala







There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.


----------



## Apop (Nov 16, 2017)

I guess (hope) it could mean there will be a successor to the 85 1.2 (without IS) 2600-3200$ somewhere in the coming years to go for stellar IQ.

The canon 85 1.4L IS still has my interest , but i'd have to treat it more as a F1.8 - F2.0 lens with the option of shooting 1.4 if incredible IQ is not a requirement 

Looks to be a really nice jack of all trades , master of none type of lens


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.



Who cares?

What you are saying is a $1,600 AF lens with IS couldn't be as sharp as a $3,500 manual focus only cinema prime? What is your point? Something that has much less functionality and cost over twice as much is better in some areas?

Some of you guys really need to get a life. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.
> ...



+1

Guess what? I bet the Canon CN-E 85mm T1.3 is optically better than the Sigma 85/1.4A. But no one with a modicum of sense would compare the two.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 16, 2017)

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. 

Neuro,

There is mtf for your Canon cine 85 T1.3 lens in that blog post as well.
Not even close. at least you tried. 

Canon







Sigma







I suggest you read the article and what Roger and others have commented on the subject.

I am pretty confident that I am getting this life very well paying how much I paid for what Sigma 85 Art is.

Provided that in portraiture one rarely put his subject in the dead centre of the frame, the Sigma is the lens for portrait togs who get the life. 

There some spectacular comments by Roger here as well. 

Now, both of you guys do not care. That’s is obvious. Fine. Others do.





privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.
> ...


----------



## Apop (Nov 16, 2017)

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?
> ...



Nice to have information/data... , sharpness is only one of the aspects i take into consideration.

On a forum like this there seems to be a correlation between the numbers of posts and level of objectivity ;p.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

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?
> ...



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. 

_"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? 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.

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'.


----------



## Apop (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > PBD,
> ...



Interesting viewpoint, i take it then we should all conform to your interpretation.. 
supporter of subjective relativism by any chance?

I'll determine for myself what my requirements are ; I like a nice and comfortable observer to register the external world as perceived by us ; canon fits my hands better than other cameras i've tried

nothing wrong in comparing the different qualities of the glasses we give our observer ; those who don't care don't have to read anything about it....

, for those that do care about certain aspects of a lens (sharpness, contrast, aberrations , AF(speed , consistency) , IS effectiveness, vignetting , rendering , bokeh or whatever anyone is interested in.) it's only nice that there are lots of folks providing tons of information ( and a lot of unnecessary opinions )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 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'.



Sharpness is important – post processing can only create artificial detail, a sharper lens captures real detail. You can always soften an image, if desired.

But importantly, sharpness is just one of the myriad of characteristics of a lens. It gets hammered on by review sites, and thus receives an overinflated importance, simply because it is easy to measure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

Apop said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



You can do whatever you like, my suggestions are common sense and SecureGSM has been banging on and on across threads about how poor the sharpness of the Canon is against the Sigma, even though nobody has done comparative lab/resolution tests yet. Before that he was going on about how awesome his personal Sigma AF was, and wouldn't listen to any other Sigma owners who said theirs wasn't good.

My point was, if sharpness is your only purchasing metric then photography is probably not your main interest in camera lenses, and I don't have a problem with that, get whatever you want for whatever reason you want. But to make unfair comparisons opens a poster up to challenges. Comparing a same optical formula manual focus Cine Prime to a theoretical test of an AF and IS photo prime that cost less than half as much has limited real world relevance.

Further, if sharpness is your main goal you already have the options, just get an Otus, but that is not the market Canon are trying to compete in with the 85mm f1.4 L IS. Besides very few people, if any, could actually reliably tell the difference between shots taken with the Canon, the Zeiss or the Sigma when put in front of them as prints and if that is the case, which given other blind test results I don't doubt for a second, then other factors should be the deciding influences for people looking to buy a lens for the express purpose of taking pictures and showing them to people.

If the AF or IS or weight etc results in more keepers, then surely that is a more important metric than sharpness? Is that not just common sense?

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.



several years ago, I was trying to make up my mind between the 100L and the regular 100 macro..... I had both of them borrowed and couldn't make up my mind if the L was worth the extra money or not..... until I tried taking pictures of butterflies in flight. The L lens had about 25 percent of the shots in focus, the regular 100 failed to hit focus, except for one or two times.... If you can't get focus, the sharpness or cost do not matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.
> ...



Thanks Don, I thought I was alone for a while there.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It is a gear site..... sometimes we get lost in the specs and fail to consider how well (or not) items work.... and particularly when you get into poor conditions..... just about everything works great on a nice sunny day, but head out into the bush at dusk when the flies are out and the sun is low on the horizon and behind clouds and then see how well that picture of a 12 point buck turns out....


----------



## leadin2 (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Same experiences. I owned both but sold the old 100. The 100L was definitely the keeper due to the useability.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> 
> Further, if sharpness is your main goal you already have the options, just get an Otus, but that is not the market Canon are trying to compete in with the 85mm f1.4 L IS. Besides very few people, if any, could actually reliably tell the difference between shots taken with the Canon, the Zeiss or the Sigma when put in front of them as prints and if that is the case, which given other blind test results I don't doubt for a second, then other factors should be the deciding influences for people looking to buy a lens for the express purpose of taking pictures and showing them to people.
> 
> ...



If the 85 f/1.4L IS has AF as good as the 35L II, then I'll be interested in it. I tried taking pictures of indoor volleyball earlier in the week, and I was hitting ISOs around 6400-12,800 (shutter speed around 1/500s) with the 135L at f/2. The 135mm focal length was too long for where I was standing but 35mm was too wide. The 50L and 85L II don't focus (accuracy and speed) as well as 35L II and 135L.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 16, 2017)

I had a bit of a setback yesterday due to illness and I wasn't able to complete the testing I wanted. Now I'm behind on product images I'm doing, so I think I may have to put this project aside until the weekend. I have a shoot on Sunday where I plan to put the Canon 85mm through its paces...and I may almost exclusively use the lens, as it's a family portrait session.

So this new lens is incredibly sharp. I am honestly at the point where I think the lens is every bit as sharp as the Sigma. In the corners, the Art lens definitely has a slight advantage and it crushes it with axial chromatic aberrations. The Canon isn't on the same playing field in this regard, and that's a bit of a let down, but it's much better than any other 85mm aside from the Art and Zeiss - not bad company to come in third to.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 16, 2017)

One of the things that Sigma and Tamron have gotten "sort-of" right with their latest lenses is "the dock". With the dock, you can update firmware in the field so that if in the future they become incompatible with a new body, or flaws are found, you can update the firmware.... The lack of that ability in the past has kept many of us from investing in expensive third party glass...

I say "sort-of" got it right, because Olympus has had that ability for at least 10 years, and it is done through the camera body (no dock to buy). I must admit that I am surprised that you can not update the same way with Canon bodies and lenses....


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

I believe you can update lens and flash software via an appropriate body. Bodies are easily updated via the memory cards.

P.S. Also Canon have little need for a lens dock due to the fact they maintain almost 100% lens/body compatibility across the EOS/EF range. And the lenses are micro adjusted to the body, via the body.


----------



## Apop (Nov 16, 2017)

Canon 85mm 1.4L IS vs Canon 85mm 1.2L II vs Sigma 85mm Art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofR2qRcE6aw


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 17, 2017)

Apop said:


> Canon 85mm 1.4L IS vs Canon 85mm 1.2L II vs Sigma 85mm Art
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofR2qRcE6aw



Awesome! Well that saves me a lot of time having to do more testing. I honestly think this new Canon is just as sharp as the Sigma...and the fact it has IS makes it more likely to be sharper in more situations. The IS is truly great on this lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2017)

correction requires. please find my comments in blue.

for starters I never said that Canon 85 F1.4 IS is a bad lens or a poor performer. contrary I said it is a solid performer but not as exciting as |canon 35 F1.4 II. Does it makes sense? I hope it does.
secondly, I do not bang anything here. I respond to the comment of one of the forum members that stated that Canon 85 F1.4 IS is OBVIOUSLY is a better buy than Sigma 85 Art. I replied that it is not that obviously a better buy for a number of reason.

now lets see in details.




privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > PBD,
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2017)

pretty anecdotal video. I would not give it a very high credibility mark for the following 3 reasons at least.:

1. there is a tell tale sign that Sigma and the Canon 85 IS shots were not at its peak sharpness. both back focused at infinity.
2. edge of the frame sharpness being better on Canon 85 F1.2 statement: read alert for any sensible person,.
3. at around 3:40 statement that new Canon lens comes with a new coating that should help fight chromatic aberrations. I repeat: coating should help fight chromatic aberrations.. the coating... oh, please...

Lens Rental, Dustin Abbott, The Digital Picture, Lens Tip ( to some degree) - are reputable sources of information.





Apop said:


> Canon 85mm 1.4L IS vs Canon 85mm 1.2L II vs Sigma 85mm Art
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofR2qRcE6aw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I believe you can update lens and flash software via an appropriate body. Bodies are easily updated via the memory cards.
> 
> P.S. Also Canon have little need for a lens dock due to the fact they maintain almost 100% lens/body compatibility across the EOS/EF range. And the lenses are micro adjusted to the body, via the body.



I'm not aware of any user-applied flash firmware updates. But, I'm only aware one flash firmware update, for the 600EX-RT that was only needed if using 7+ slave flashes (I have four, and although my units are affected I didn't send them in). 

Lens firmware updates are also rare, I'm only aware of five. Four were for the MkII superteles (300-600mm), and required sending the lens to Canon (they covered shipping both ways, fortunately my 600/4 II came with updated firmware). The fifth was for the 40/2.8 pancake, and that could be installed by users with a compatible body (IIRC, any body post-2012).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I believe you can update lens and flash software via an appropriate body. Bodies are easily updated via the memory cards.



I did not know!

Thanks!


----------



## slclick (Nov 17, 2017)

But her Olympus menus!


----------



## Viggo (Nov 17, 2017)

Apop said:


> Canon 85mm 1.4L IS vs Canon 85mm 1.2L II vs Sigma 85mm Art
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofR2qRcE6aw



“The Sigma is near identical in speed, but it has to readjust a little where the Canon stays locked” right there, just right there is one of the reason I don’t even consider Sigma. Tracking subjects with that means it will be more uncertain and won’t stay on in the same way. And this was indeed the case with all my Art’s. And also true for the 50 Art that actually worked. One shot was fine, at least for 5 months, but Ai servo was not on par with my Canon glass.


----------



## markphoto (Nov 17, 2017)

BINGO!

I'm diggin' mine!




Viggo said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 85mm 1.4L IS vs Canon 85mm 1.2L II vs Sigma 85mm Art
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2017)

Oh, that looks good now doesn’t it?


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 20, 2017)

The Digital Picture has image quality comparisons up for the 85mm F/1.4L IS, and I am impressed:

vs. Sigma art 85mm 1.4
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1168&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

vs EF 85mm f/1.2L II
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1168&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Obviously the Sigma Art is a little stronger, but considering this is on the 50 megapixel 5DS, I am blown away with what Canon pulled off with IS and without making the lens gigantic. Definitely up next on my wishlist.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 20, 2017)

My first shoot with the lens.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33881.0


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2017)

Tried mine today in the, for me, worst case scenario; Horrible flood light which flickers like crazy, odd color temp, and tracking kids soccer. AND tracking with the outer points.

Although this pretty noisy and lacks detail, I'm impressed. I know that my, now sold, 200 f2.0 struggled in the same conditions, and of course a stop slower. So for a midrange f1.4 this is seriously nice AF performance.

1dx2+85 IS, f1.4, iso 25600, 1/1000s


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2017)

Basically 100% crop, same settings, iso 25600


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2017)

And the quickest possible portrait, I got ONE picture today, lol ;D I even bribed with a lollipop...

iso 50(L), f1.4 1/250s, Broncolor Siros 800 L in a silver P-soft BD with grid.


----------



## CDD28 (Dec 3, 2017)

Any news on what the production situation is/when Canon will start shipping them again to retailers?

I ordered one from Adorama two weeks ago when it was showing in stock, later got an email saying it's backordered. I messaged them and they're saying they have no idea when they'll be getting more.


----------

