# LensTip tests the brand new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art - sharpest lens ever :-)



## alek35 (Nov 16, 2016)

http://www.optyczne.pl/410.1-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Wst%C4%99p.html
The english version is apparently not up yet - google translate it into your prefferred language.

--Thomas


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 16, 2016)

sharper than Zeiss Otus . wow. :-X


another review by ephotozine. They come up with similar MTF chart results. CA results are impressive indeed.

www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-85mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review-30206#Performance


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 16, 2016)

Thank you Alek and Alex.

Hmm..this looks good for deep medium(?) sky astrophotography if the coma is well-corrected. And for other uses, as an enthusiast, I can probably live with inconsistent AF.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 16, 2016)

WOW - per LensTip, really good coma correction and very low distortion!


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 16, 2016)

Autofocus Performance (reported greatly improved):

http://www.optyczne.pl/410.10-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofokus.html

Sharpness:

"...*the previous record belonging to the resolution Otus 1.4 / 28 tested Sigma beat on each of the next three checked our stops*, or f / 2.0, f / 2.8 and f / 4.0. Formally, the highest score was achieved at f / 2.8, and it amounts to 49.7 ± 0.4 lpmm, which is our new high-resolution matrix EOS 5D Mark III.... *Chart leaves no illusions. Undoubtedly the sharpest optics on the market in its class, it does now Sigma*...."

Coma (very low):

http://www.optyczne.pl/410.7-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Koma__astygmatyzm_i_bokeh.html

Google web page translation Polish to English worked well for me. 

"... 
To make sure of our results, we conducted two additional tests similar to those we do in testing devices. We set Sigma EOS-5D Mark III em in front of one of our tables and aperture of f / 2.8 we made 50 pictures by setting sharpness each time anew. Footage of exemplary focus was 59%, photos with errors less than 20% of the maximum MTF50 was 39%, and shots that can be considered a miss only 2%.

*Then he raised the bar even higher and repeated the experiment, but at f / 1.4. Interestingly, the results were even better. A fully successful shots was 75%, acceptable 23% and 2% again unsuccessful..."*

Low Light Performance:

"... As for these inferior light conditions in conjunction with Sigma 5D Mark III it seems to work well compared to the competition. *During the session in the studio, when we turned off the light modeling, and it got pretty dark, Sigma focus was setting virtually every time without any search. *Under the same conditions set Nikon D3x with a new Nikkor AF-S 105mm f / 1.4 has underperformed, often repeatedly passing correct focus point and having problems with its setting.."

P.S. seems quite conclusive to me.. Order placed. Total: AUD$1,135.00 (USD850.00)






chrysoberyl said:


> WOW - per LensTip, really good coma correction and very low distortion!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 16, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> P.S. seems quite conclusive to me.. Order placed. Total: AUD$1,135.00 (USD850.00)



It does sound nice. Personally, I don't mind the weight. So the remaining question is product consistency. I am trying very hard to temper my desire to order this lens! But I trust LensTip greatly, so I feel I am grasping at straws. OK, I will wait for LensRentals (known for quality evaluations here in the states) to review this lens.

Thanks for the additional information.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 16, 2016)

The Petapixel test did a comparison between the Sigma 85 Art, the Canon 1.8 & 1.2, the Nikon 1.4, Samyang T1.5, Tamron 1.8 and Sony 1.4. I really thought they should've put the old Sigma 85 in instead of the Samyang.

Just judging from the pics Nikon was the sharpest wide open. At 1.8 the Nikon and Sigma are pretty much the same. At 2.8 everything is pretty much indistinguishable. 

Even wide open, though, the much smaller, lighter and cheaper Tamron did pretty well. It definitely wasn't as sharp but, as was noted in the comments, nothing likely to make/break a photo


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 16, 2016)

Sir, I don't think we looking at the same lens  I dont suppose you implied that nikon 85 lens is as good as Otus or Sigma. Tamron is an OK lens. Not in the same league though. Here is what Lenstip had to say about the Sigma 85 Art:

_"... I imagine Zeiss must gnash their collective teeth quite strongly. They invented the Otus series which was supposed to prove that, for a quite astronomical price, you can produce an optically outstanding lens practically without any flaws. Meanwhile Sigma presented their 85 mm device which is not only able to win a duel with the Otus 1.4/85 in the most important categories but also breaks the resolution record of the Otus 1.4/28 on the sensor of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. Mind you it is over three times cheaper. *Nothing to add I suppose – a fully deserved the Lenstip Editor’s Choice award*..."_




e_honda said:


> The Petapixel test did a comparison between the Sigma 85 Art, the Canon 1.8 & 1.2, the Nikon 1.4, Samyang T1.5, Tamron 1.8 and Sony 1.4. I really thought they should've put the old Sigma 85 in instead of the Samyang.
> 
> Just judging from the pics Nikon was the sharpest wide open. At 1.8 the Nikon and Sigma are pretty much the same. At 2.8 everything is pretty much indistinguishable.
> 
> Even wide open, though, the much smaller, lighter and cheaper Tamron did pretty well. It definitely wasn't as sharp but, as was noted in the comments, nothing likely to make/break a photo


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 16, 2016)

The Sigma 35mm was rightly lauded as a phenomenal performer and although marginally and at a significantly higher price, the Canon 35mm bested the Sigma. 

I'm excited to see what Canon can do with their version of an 85mm


----------



## JohnUSA (Nov 16, 2016)

The AF is still in question with the Sigma's... Read the "REGARDING AF: NOTE FROM PYE":
https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/


----------



## j-nord (Nov 16, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> The Sigma 35mm was rightly lauded as a phenomenal performer and although marginally and at a significantly higher price, the Canon 35mm bested the Sigma.
> 
> I'm excited to see what Canon can do with their version of an 85mm



It seems we are still a long way off from getting a new 85 1.2 or 1.4 from Canon, in the mean time, I bet this lens is going to sell like hotcakes and potentially hurt Canon sales of a new much more expensive 85mm.


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 17, 2016)

j-nord said:


> It seems we are still a long way off from getting a new 85 1.2 or 1.4 from Canon, in the mean time, I bet this lens is going to sell like hotcakes and potentially hurt Canon sales of a new much more expensive 85mm.


Sales may be difficult to judge, but on paper the only thing the 85L II seems to have going for it is its ability to shoot @ f/1.2. In some areas the 85L II gets crushed by the new Sigma. With a 5DS/R I expect the 85mm ART will shine like a diamond.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 17, 2016)

"... Threatened by shadows at night, and exposed in the light.
Shine on you crazy diamond..." 




Maiaibing said:


> With a 5DS/R I expect the 85mm ART will shine like a diamond.


----------



## AJ (Nov 17, 2016)

I wonder how the new Nikkor 105/1.4 stacks up.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 17, 2016)

AJ said:


> I wonder how the new Nikkor 105/1.4 stacks up.


I feel like Canon should respond to this one with a 135 f/1.4 IS  As long as it's cheaper and lighter the 200/2 - people will buy.


----------



## AJ (Nov 17, 2016)

Jopa said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how the new Nikkor 105/1.4 stacks up.
> ...


That would be nice, but methinks 135/1.8 would be more doable (and affordable).


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 17, 2016)

The initial results we're seeing look great, but I'd like to see identical shots made with the 85L II and the Sigma 85 Art, especially with a focus on bokeh quality. I had the 35 Art and have had the 50 Art for a while and in my experience, the bokeh from the Art series is simply NOT up to the level of the lauded Canon L glass. I also have to assume Zeiss' bokeh is substantially better as well. It's unfortunate that there's no way to "measure" bokeh. The only way I can describe the Art series bokeh (at least the two lenses I've used) is that occasionally, it looks "textured" or "crunchy". IF this lens eliminates that problem, I would happily sell my 85L II for it.


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 17, 2016)

The Art bokeh looks a bit "nervous" at times  that's due to elevated micro contrast levels in the bokeh areas. I was able to replicate the look by adjusting micro contrast of images taken by non Art lenses. According to Lenstip, new Sigma lens is much improved in that regard. 



jebrady03 said:


> The initial results we're seeing look great, but I'd like to see identical shots made with the 85L II and the Sigma 85 Art, especially with a focus on bokeh quality. I had the 35 Art and have had the 50 Art for a while and in my experience, the bokeh from the Art series is simply NOT up to the level of the lauded Canon L glass. I also have to assume Zeiss' bokeh is substantially better as well. It's unfortunate that there's no way to "measure" bokeh. The only way I can describe the Art series bokeh (at least the two lenses I've used) is that occasionally, it looks "textured" or "crunchy". IF this lens eliminates that problem, I would happily sell my 85L II for it.


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2016)

Great performance indeed. Still a non-starter in my studio unless AF consistency is proven to be fixed. Sigma can make very sharp lenses, but until AF consistency is completely solved and become a distant memory, their lens sales will never reach their potential. 

-pw


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 18, 2016)

It was solved according to Lenstip. My lens is on backorder with ETA in beginning of December. There is no stock in Australia until then. I will be able to report my findings shortly after. 



pwp said:


> Great performance indeed. Still a non-starter in my studio unless AF consistency is proven to be fixed. Sigma can make very sharp lenses, but until AF consistency is completely solved and become a distant memory, their lens sales will never reach their potential.
> 
> -pw


----------



## pwp (Nov 18, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> It was solved according to Lenstip.....
> 
> 
> pwp said:
> ...


I'll be looking for confirmation on the AF consistency from multiple reviewers and also people like yourself. 
Still, the initial LensTip position is certainly promising.

-pw


----------



## Jopa (Nov 18, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> It was solved according to Lenstip. My lens is on backorder with ETA in beginning of December. There is no stock in Australia until then. I will be able to report my findings shortly after.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congrats Alex! This lens is really fun to shoot.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 18, 2016)

Did I read it right that 75% of the shots sharp at f1.4 is a great and fantastic result? If so, then wow, I sure have a VERY different opinion of what is fantastic and not....


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 18, 2016)

*Virgo*

Sorry, not quite right.

Focus error : 2% of all shots only. that's an excellent result. 

75% was the number of shots that reached _Maximum_ MTF50 resolution. That's excellent again.
23% of photos with errors smaller than 20% of the maximum MTF50 <<<that's not a focus error.

Focus with errors less than 20% of maximum lens resolution are normal for a DSLR. Focus cannot be at max resolution at all times. The sharpness achieved will be no worse than 80% of MTF50 lens resolution. 

As far as I remember, *ahsanford* mentioned that for Canon 85 1.2 L lens focus error rate was around 5% ?

P.S.

According to Lenstip and ahsanford:

Canon 85L: 3% misses on a 1Ds3. 
Sigma 85A: 2% missed on a 5d mark III



Viggo said:


> Did I read it right that 75% of the shots sharp at f1.4 is a great and fantastic result? If so, then wow, I sure have a VERY different opinion of what is fantastic and not....


----------



## Viggo (Nov 18, 2016)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It sounds a bit better then. I must try to find what the 50 Art did in the same test, if it got similar results I know not believe them, lol ;D


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Thanks for clearing that up for me. It sounds a bit better then. I must try to find what the 50 Art did in the same test, if it got similar results I know not believe them, lol ;D


I´m with you on this one. Having tried a number of 35 and 50 Art lenses, all with inconsistent AF, I will be a hard one to convince. Another problem as I experienced it was that AF could be consistent for a while and then drift off.

Has anyone seen a firm statement from Sigma explaining that they actually fixed this problem? 

Besides, fresh rumours about new 50 and 85 primes from Canon may keep me patient for awhile longer


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 19, 2016)

No worries, Sir!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31294.msg635583#msg635583

From LensTip:

50L: 7% on a 1Ds3
50 Art: 6-7% on a 5D3 --* but 'oscillating' or toggling between two options was reported on the 1Ds3 (no hit rate given), and this is the nutty 'it won't repeat focus' lens that TDP called out*

85L: 3% misses on a 1Ds3
85 Art: 2%




Viggo said:


> Thanks for clearing that up for me. It sounds a bit better then. I must try to find what the 50 Art did in the same test, if it got similar results I know not believe them, lol ;D


----------



## Viggo (Nov 19, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> No worries, Sir!
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31294.msg635583#msg635583
> 
> ...



Yup, all my five Art lenses have 20 different degrees of sharpness in 20 shots in a controlled optimal setting for AF.


----------



## candc (Nov 19, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for clearing that up for me. It sounds a bit better then. I must try to find what the 50 Art did in the same test, if it got similar results I know not believe them, lol ;D
> ...



from the sigma site:

"The newly designed Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) offers 1.3 times the torque of its predecessor. Even at low speeds, it offers exceptionally stable performance, and the updated AF algorithm helps ensure nimble autofocus performance."

we will have to see if sigmas newly designed af motor and algorithms do what they claim.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 19, 2016)

candc said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



... and more importantly, if it makes it into the other two lenses...


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 19, 2016)

My impression is that AF algorithm updates will be offered for 35A and 50A at some stage later. That may fix AF inconsistency issue but to some degree only. What is more likely is that Sigma will release revised version of the lenses with new HSM motor and new AF alforithm as generation / version update.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 19, 2016)

you guys must have better luck with canon AF than i have. It's very good, but perfect? I have had many lenses, and many camera bodies and i can't say that my sigma 35 art is in anyway worse than my canon lenses. in fact, i had to sell my 85mm 1.8 as it was just so random. i had much better luck with my 300 at 2.8 at minimum focusing distance than i ever had with that 85.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 19, 2016)

risc32 said:


> you guys must have better luck with canon AF than i have. It's very good, but perfect? I have had many lenses, and many camera bodies and i can't say that my sigma 35 art is in anyway worse than my canon lenses. in fact, i had to sell my 85mm 1.8 as it was just so random. i had much better luck with my 300 at 2.8 at minimum focusing distance than i ever had with that 85.



And to think the 300 is only 25 times the money of the 85 8)

I've been using the 85 f1.8 for a couple of months and I agree with you, it's not very good at all! I use it only for portraits with light and 2.8. Everything else it's REALLY useless.
It


----------



## Ryananthony (Nov 19, 2016)

risc32 said:


> you guys must have better luck with canon AF than i have. It's very good, but perfect? I have had many lenses, and many camera bodies and i can't say that my sigma 35 art is in anyway worse than my canon lenses. in fact, i had to sell my 85mm 1.8 as it was just so random. i had much better luck with my 300 at 2.8 at minimum focusing distance than i ever had with that 85.



Any error focusing with a Canon lens is always 100% user error, nothing else.

Any error focusing with a sigma lens is always 100% sigma af issues, never user error. 

Didn't you know this?


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 19, 2016)

risc32 said:


> you guys must have better luck with canon AF than i have. It's very good, but perfect? I have had many lenses, and many camera bodies and i can't say that my sigma 35 art is in anyway worse than my canon lenses. in fact, i had to sell my 85mm 1.8 as it was just so random. i had much better luck with my 300 at 2.8 at minimum focusing distance than i ever had with that 85.


Problem is no one does real comparative controlled AF tests so we end up with a lot of "impressions" and very little facts. The result is that claims are all over the place.

Dpreview is trying with camera AF for their newest camera reviews. I give them credit for at least trying. But its not a very controlled test - to say it mildly.

With a lens you would also have to have several copies.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > you guys must have better luck with canon AF than i have. It's very good, but perfect? I have had many lenses, and many camera bodies and i can't say that my sigma 35 art is in anyway worse than my canon lenses. in fact, i had to sell my 85mm 1.8 as it was just so random. i had much better luck with my 300 at 2.8 at minimum focusing distance than i ever had with that 85.
> ...



The controlled AF tests are quite easy with FoCal. My worst lens (inconsistent) so far is the 70-200 f/2.8L II @ 200mm on the 5dsr. Suuuuuuuper random! And the funny thing it's 99.5%+ consistent on the 1dx2. Need to send the lens + the 5dsr to Canon, just don't have much time for this...


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 30, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



I use Focal but I do not think you can rely on it alone. Result consistency is simply lacking. I use it as a first indicator and test on from there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> I use Focal but I do not think you can rely on it alone. Result consistency is simply lacking. I use it as a first indicator and test on from there.



I've gotten very consistent results from FoCal, but I don't use their automated or semi-automated methods. Rather, I capture the images myself (with substantial oversampling) and run FoCal's manual analysis.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 30, 2016)

Viggo said:


> And to think the 300 is only 25 times the money of the 85 8)



Which canon 300mm (cine lenses notwithstanding) costs $30,000?


----------



## streestandtheatres (Nov 30, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



My experience is similar. My 35A is 99% accurate on my 5dsr, and 50% on my 7dii. (I don't have a dock, I do have focal.)


----------



## Jopa (Dec 1, 2016)

streestandtheatres said:


> My experience is similar. My 35A is 99% accurate on my 5dsr, and 50% on my 7dii. (I don't have a dock, I do have focal.)



Any idea why?

I have a bunch of other lenses and they are pretty consistent on the 5dsr. I also asked CPS if there are any compatibility issues 5dsr + 70-200, they said "no" and advised to send both the lens and the camera in. I would totally understand if the lens would be inconsistent on another body, or 5dsr would act funky with other lenses, but that's just one combination, like the camera and the lens hate each other  Magic...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 1, 2016)

Jopa said:


> streestandtheatres said:
> 
> 
> > My experience is similar. My 35A is 99% accurate on my 5dsr, and 50% on my 7dii. (I don't have a dock, I do have focal.)
> ...



I think it's just the nature of the beast. Manufacturing tolerances in the lens, the lens mount, the sensor mount, the AF unit, etc. all play together in affecting performance.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 3, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And to think the 300 is only 25 times the money of the 85 8)
> ...



A used 85 f1.8 here is 2000kr and the 300 f2.8 L II is way more than 50.000kr, so I was being conservative.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 3, 2016)

Jopa said:


> streestandtheatres said:
> 
> 
> > My experience is similar. My 35A is 99% accurate on my 5dsr, and 50% on my 7dii. (I don't have a dock, I do have focal.)
> ...



My 70-200 f/2.8 II auto focuses extremely well on my 5DsR, no issues whatsoever. I expect you have an issue with your specific body and/or lens.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 3, 2016)

bholliman said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > streestandtheatres said:
> ...



The body has no issues with other lenses, and the lens has no issues with other body. I'll send both the lens and the body to CPS early next year, right now just don't have time for it. The 70-200 stays mostly on the 1dx2 (I feel like they are made for each other  ), so I can wait.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 8, 2016)

Recent TDP tests:
vs Milvus http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
vs Otus http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Not bad for an $1150 lens...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> P.S. seems quite conclusive to me.. Order placed. Total: AUD$1,135.00 (USD850.00)



Yikes, it's £1199 here!


----------



## flux capacitor (Dec 8, 2016)

I got my Copy of the Sigma 85 today and will give it a try tomorrow, can't wait to see how it performs in the real world


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 8, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Recent TDP tests:
> vs Milvus http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> vs Otus http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Not bad for an $1150 lens...



Pretty good 
At least in the center the Otus is better, I'd say....but the Sigma is better in the corners. That's pretty amazing

-Sebastian


----------



## Viggo (Dec 8, 2016)

Would still buy the Milvus, been looking at it lately. Compared the Art and Milvus I do not like the dark purple numbers with the Sigma that should be black.

Wonder how the 85 F1.4 L but be priced, between the Otus and Milvus somewhere I guess.


----------

