# Sigma 85 looks better in corners



## sanj (Nov 20, 2017)

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=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 20, 2017)

sanj said:


> 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=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.



_...and the AF._ The Sigma 85 and 135 Art apparently appear to be better AF-wise than the 35 / 50 Art, but I'd still go first party AF unless the large aperture application I need the lens for allows for a tripod or the time to chimp & reshoot. 

If you are shooting folks off-tripod / on-the-fly at events, weddings, reportage, etc. I'd forego the smaller corner sharpness opportunities for more of a sure thing with the AF, but that's just one guy's opinion.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2017)

I shot a few today of a key ring in harsh lowing sunlight to produce the worst amount of fringing I could, to be honest, it’s nothing, seriously good.

I really like it so far, I don’t want to post any samples yet as I’m in the process of calibrating focus. To me, it looks like it’s the same with AF as any other brand new lens I’ve bought; The out of the box obvious calibration value does change over the first periode of use.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2017)

Thank you guys


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2017)

Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 21, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D



I blame my declining steadiness on age and parenthood. Especially parenthood. We now have a 1 year old who climbs like a monkey, moves chairs to get on tables, and will happily wave around a steak knife or a camera when found. So, yes, IS has become an urgent need!


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D
> ...



LOL!

Showed my son a bunch of pictures of adults before and after the became parents and he didn’t know and just asked; 

“What happened to these people, are they sick?” No, son, we parents are just your energy source, and we do wear out ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 21, 2017)

Sigma has less vignetting? how is that even possible? I have been told by local experts that new Canon vignetting level is only 1.3EV in extreme corners. and no CA to boot.

I have been called full of crap, that I need to get the life, Sigma crowd and what is not for calling it as it is. 
Sigma sharper across the frame and up to 2 full stop sharper in corners, less LoCA, less vignetting, better contrast and pop, equally as good rendition of out of focus areas and focus to out of focus transition.
no IS, 95% as good AF for One Shot situation centre and peripheral points. Sigma is a wrong tool for AI Servo subject tracking, not an event / run and gun lens. New Canon is jack of all trades type of lens, solid performer.
Sigma requires AFMA adjustment every few months due to internal heavy optics and mechanics wearing in. I was told by service centre that it takes up to 12 months for things to settle. 




sanj said:


> 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=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Sigma has less vignetting. But I would take the Canon for the IS.


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Sigma has less vignetting? how is that even possible? I have been told by local experts that new Canon vignetting level is only 1.3EV in extreme corners. and no CA to boot.



You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right? Given how much work Bryan does that the rest of us benefit from, and how up-front he is about the costs he incurs as a result, it's really bad manners to use his bandwidth and post his pictures here with nothing but his watermark for attribution. The least you could do would be to host the photos yourself so he's not incurring any costs for your posting.

And by the way, for those of us without a dog in your fight (I haven't made a decision yet about whether I'm going to buy a Sigma or the Canon 85 1.4 IS), your shtick is really wearing thin. You like the Sigma. We get it. Stop nailing yourself to the cross about it.

Personally, I don't feel like having to spend time every few months recalibrating a lens so it focuses right. Given that most lenses don't need such minute attention, I expect my equipment to work properly throughout its normal life. You obviously feel differently, and your Sigma 85mm works well for you. Can you just accept that not everyone has the same preferences and requirements for their equipment?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 21, 2017)

another one... i have no part in this sigma vs canon game. all I mentioned is true. there is a lot of bias on CR forum for obvious reason. 

deleted those links because it is apparently uncool. hope it helps.

buy what you please. you are on the fence apparently, I have data that may assist you to make an educated decision. just out of a good will. 
I service my car every 6 month approx. it is what it is. No, I do not feel differently about Sigma. 
Not suggesting what suits you best. but when people comes out with dubious claims in regards to subjects they have no knowledge about, I would not be afraid to raise my head and speak out.

it appears that you are the one that do not get it: I am not a blind brand supporter or a Sigma shill.
I sold all my Sigma Art primes but 85 Arft due to erratic AF behaviour on 5D IV.
there are facts and there is noise. the noise is that ALL Sigma lenses AF inconsistent. the fact is - not all of them do.

anyway, i think I am done with this subject. waste of efforts for nothing. off to a better things in my life.


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

And here's where I'm really conflicted. I like composing images with the subject not in the center of the frame where IQ is maximized. The Sigma is very appealing because the corner-to-corner sharpness, the lower CA, the lower vignetting, appeals to me.

But then, I spend months at a time abroad, and I simply cannot afford to have a lens that falls out of calibration and requires being attached to a dock and computer (with the right software installed) to be put back into calibration. I can't benefit from better corner IQ if the lens isn't focused where I want it to be.

Then on the other hand, I think, "Am I going to take a heavy 85mm prime with me in the field, in addition to my wide-angle & tele zooms and my general purpose lens? Isn't this mainly a portrait lens?" But then on a third hand, I remember that the majority of my photography is in the field, and I don't feel like spending $1200+ for a lens that will sit at home or in a bag most of the time.

Here's the big rub: there's a price difference between the two lenses, but the Sigma isn't low enough to simply say, "Get both; use the Sigma for X and the Canon for Y." And the Canon so far doesn't seem to be so good as to make this a slam-dunk decision. So there are a lot of people out there who want a good, definitive answer as far as which lens is "best." And the bottom line is neither one is "best." One is _better_ than the other at some things, but not everything.


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> another one... i have no part in this sigma vs canon game. all I mentioned is true. there is a lot of bias on CR forum for obvious reason.
> 
> deleted those links because it is apparently uncool. hope it helps.
> 
> ...



No, I'm not "one that do not get it." I'm a guy who comes here, reads, mainly lurks, and I see over and over and over you picking fights with people. Just like you're getting defensive and trying to pick a fight with me.

To your car analogy: I'm a pilot. Every time I fly, before I get in the cockpit, I do a visual inspection of the plane. Every bit of it. Now, when I drive, how often do I even _walk around_ my car to see if all 4 tires are inflated? Rarely. (Why? Because driving on a flat tire won't kill me in 10 seconds.) Does that mean I don't take care of my car, that I don't expect it to perform to my expectations? Absolutely not. It means that I have different expectations for different pieces of technology in my life. It's why we value cameras with magnesium bodies more than cameras with plastic bodies: we expect a magnesium-body camera to be more durable and less prone to breakage. So, ironically, we might be _less_ careful with a more expensive camera (or L-series lens) than with a cheaper piece of equipment. In the end, I don't expect a lens to need routine maintenance. Sure, I can't expect a lens to stay in perfect shape if I'm carrying it in a backpack through a desert in a country far from home. But that's a world of difference away from having to dock a lens and re-calibrate it after a few months of light use doing portraits in a studio.

Some of us want what we perceive to be a more reliable piece of equipment.

Now, your experience and opinion is that the Sigma is not too much trouble and hits at a more-than-acceptable rate of in-focus shots. Congrats. Realize that you might have a better copy of the lens than others who report less-than-acceptable experiences. Also realize that other people have different opinions.

You have data. I've seen your posts, so I know about your testing. How many copies of the Sigma 85mm Art have you tested? Is it a representative sample of the thousands of copies that are in circulation? Again, maybe you've had better luck than other people getting copies that focus more accurately and reliably.

Now, to wrap up. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said you're a Sigma shill. I _did_ say that your woe-is-me-I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong act is annoying. Some of your arguments rest on logical fallacies, because you've built up anyone who disagrees with you into a mass of people who say you're a shill. Anyone who questions your opinions and thinks that you're a bit too vehement is somehow questioning your expertise, your data, your facts, your incontrovertible logic. I don't have a single problem with the Sigma lens or your affinity for it. Quite the opposite: if I could be sure I'd get a 85mm Art that performed as well as your copy, I'd probably do so. But that's the problem: I am not willing to bet $1100-1200 that I'd get that. And that's why I've come here and asked if anyone has more data about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Sigma's focusing. Because if the focusing issues are just here and there, and most copies perform to the level you've experienced, then that's a whole lot different from--what I've seen in these forums--the narrative that the Sigma is hit-and-miss with AF. But good for you that the Sigma works for you; no doubt anyone who has such a positive experience with a product wants other people to know about it. It doesn't make you a shill; it makes you someone who appreciates a good-performing piece of equipment.

But one thing it _doesn't_ allow you to be is that jagoff who trashes anyone whose opinions or experiences are different from yours. Because ultimately, if you have better things to do with your life than argue with people on an online forum, by all means _stop arguing and do those better things!_


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 21, 2017)

ahhh, no. it does not work like this with Sigma. it is not a sudden drift and everything and all values are all over the shop. it is a sloooow process.. months and by a subtle amount. and even then you should be able to quickly recalibrate just by looking at the images you get. It is simple.

this is not a lens for a field work. far from it. if you after utmost resolution and detalisation even stopped down, then the Sigma may be what you are after. high resolution bodies, commercial settings, studio when you spend time and effort setting things right and would appreciate that extra bit of IQ - high level sort of work, precise stuff. not even apples to apples comparison. For a field run and gun work I am all Canon - holy trinity - F2.8 is good enough for most type of work that I come across. the light is crappy anyway but I manage to get shots out that seems to be good if not better.

On location portraits is a different story though. I would use prime lens as you can set things up to the level where one can utilise optical advantages in order to deliver an excitement to the client.





jaell said:


> And here's where I'm really conflicted. I like composing images with the subject not in the center of the frame where IQ is maximized. The Sigma is very appealing because the corner-to-corner sharpness, the lower CA, the lower vignetting, appeals to me.
> 
> But then, I spend months at a time abroad, and I simply cannot afford to have a lens that falls out of calibration and requires being attached to a dock and computer (with the right software installed) to be put back into calibration. I can't benefit from better corner IQ if the lens isn't focused where I want it to be.
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 21, 2017)

ok, my last post. it becoming unreasonable:

1. I am offering AFMA Canon and Sigma lens calibration for people for last couple of years as side miniscule size business ( AFMA calibration service). more like a fun. I charge peanuts for the service. it is more a service to community. fun club. 
I have calibrated 11 Sigma 85 Art lenses and hundreds of other Sigma Art lenses personally over last couple of years. does it ring a bell with you? do you think I can confidently say that I know a thing or two about Sigma Art lenses.

i am not picking up fight with people. I point out what seems to be bias or misinformation or mistake. some people reply with disrespect.

your statement: may be you have a better luck with your lens than others - I hope I was able to explain why what I say is what it is. next time I need to fly the plane I know who to ask for assistance. 

I am sure that you do not fly your aircrafts by luck, do you? 
I am sure that you expert in what you do. I do not question that for a second. why you are questioning someone else expertise in something that you are not proficient enough yourself? 
anyway, I am sure that there hundreds of other experts that can assist you with you Sigma or Canon dilema.

i am seriously done with this. All I wanted to share my experience with people that may be interested to know what is really going on. All I get is irritated replies and disbelief and all for no reason.
anyway, not a single post from me on CR from now on.




jaell said:


> Realize that you might have a better copy of the lens than others who report less-than-acceptable experiences. Also realize that other people have different opinions.
> 
> You have data. I've seen your posts, so I know about your testing. How many copies of the Sigma 85mm Art have you tested? Is it a representative sample of the thousands of copies that are in circulation? Again, maybe you've had better luck than other people getting copies that focus more accurately and reliably.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2017)

If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 21, 2017)

Viggo,

I am not saying that the Canon is is not good enough in corners.
my statement is: Sigma at F1.4 in corners is better than Canon at F2.0.. that is all. simple.
there statements that Canon is sharper in corners. obviously false . That Canon vignettes less. obviously false one.
Canon is a solid performer. joy to use. I keep saying this and all I get is opinionated replies from people who have no idea but judge about the subject based on god knows what. I respect your opinion and I had a very pleasing experience interacting with you. but let me explain why I take time replying to some statements of others:I have nothing against anyone out there but when people make ridiculous claims and question someone's expertise in something they have no a slightest idea about, I am either walk on them or take my time to explain as my experience may be useful for someone who needs to know. As I said, this place is great but I have no intention to continue.
Anyway, I will continue reading CR as this resource is a great source of information for someone that knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thanks for the company.



Viggo said:


> If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Viggo,
> 
> I am not saying that the Canon is is not good enough in corners.
> my statement is: Sigma at F1.4 in corners is better than Canon at F2.0.. that is all. simple.
> ...



I was referring to Jaell’s post.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 21, 2017)

NOT THIS AGAIN! haha

I just sold my Sigma Art last Friday after only 3 days with the new Canon, I made up my mind. Here is my reply from another forum about why I made the choice and why I even considered getting rid of the Sigma. If life were charts, I'd choose the Sigma. Unfortunately, things move around and so do I, and the Sigma falls short there.


Thanks, everyone. Sorry for the long post, but I would like to vent my frustrations and be open about my change from the 85mm Art to the Canon and why.

One thing to consider is that most of these images were captured in harsh back lighting - which emphasizes chromatic aberrations. I personally don't feel the lens did poorly at all, but I will admit that would have enjoyed a better performance on some of these. The question I ask myself is "would I rather the lens optics perform better, or would I prefer the shots to be in focus?" For me, that answer is a resounding "in focus" because I know that my Sigma Art lens wouldn't have been able to achieve the keeper rate I got with this lens.

*What problems did I have with the Sigma?*
_A:_ The only problem I had with the Sigma was autofocus. When I first got the lens it was nailing focus left/right, but didn't do too well in low light - this was fine. But about 3 months later? The lens started missing focus randomly, but would nail it on most shots. I took the lens to the Sigma Dock and performed a little calibration. This showed me that the lens needed a little modifications, but would still miss focus on around 10% of shots and various distances. After about a month or two of this and missing shots I could never get again, I went back on the dock and tweaked a little more. This had the same results - it was nailing focus crisply in about 90-95% of shots, but would miss that one shot every now and then. Rinse and repeat: I would perform the dock calibrations over and over thinking it was something I could work out, but the lens simply would beep in focus and be ever so slightly off or be wildly off. I second guessed every shot I took with the lens and I started to focus in live view on critical portraits - I was NOT happy with the lens anymore as a professional. I preordered the Canon day one simply because of autofocus, knowing full well that I would leave image quality on the table. I would like to emphasize that I'm a full-time photographer and use my gear quite a bit more than most others. At the same time, I take extra special care of everything I own and use, so my results aren't par for the course. Also, one or two months in my hands sees the lens being used and traveled with quite a bit.

*What I didn't like about the Sigma?*
_A1:_ Man, where do I begin with this without sounding like a sissy? LOL OK, so I shoot motorsports professionally and am usually using a 1DX Mark II with a 100-400 Mark II attached and maybe a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM or the occasional rental lens (I've found the big whites haven't benefited me at all and don't own any). So I'm used to walking around with heavier lenses and gear. But this lens doesn't mount from a tripod collar to my Black Rapid Strap, making the lens all nimbly bimbly as I walk around an event or wedding. It's a lot of weight to have moving around a lot, so I would find myself leaving the lens in the bag a lot more than I wanted or ever anticipated simply due to the handling. What I would do is break the lens out specifically for shots and then put it away and didn't really leave it on very much. Last Tuesday I received my new Canon and immediately went out to perform side-by-side testing. The very first thing I noticed was that when I walked around with the Sigma on my 5D Mark IV, I was annoyed by it!!! Then I would throw the Canon on and I wouldn't even think twice about it. It didn't get in the way, didn't feel too heavy because of the size/balance of the lens, and it felt more natural. In other words, it was a pleasure to walk around with. In my year of using the Sigma regularly, I've found that I much prefer using the lens on a gripped cameras versus one without a grip. I get better stability with the grip and more accurate AF and sharper images as a result. The Canon feels fine with no grip.

_A2:_ The filter size is truly unacceptable. When I saw how big the front element was, I said COOL! Maybe it won't vignette or fisheye as badly now? Then I used it and it did both pretty noticeably...soooo what was the point? I use ND filters a lot in my shooting to avoid High Speed Sync when shooting portraits when I don't have to - it's just nice to have the flexability in that department. I only use higher end NDs. My NDs cost me around $120 each and I have a set of three in 77mm. Those same filters - or close to them - cost $200 each in 86mm! To do this right, I would need to buy a set of three ND filters and drop around $600 on them and ONLY be able to use them on one lens?!? Man...this was a tough pill to swallow. So my compromise was to just swap to one of my 77mm lenses when I was in an ND situation. But here I am with the sharpest, best 85mm lens in the world, and I'm not using it on high-end big money projects because it didn't adapt to my work - not to mention the AF issues. LOL The Canon was designed with a 77mm filter thread and I was grinning from ear-to-ear! I must have checked back on B&H every damn day to see if pre-order was available after the announcement until it was.

*IN SUMMATION:* The optical quality of the Sigma 85mm Art is obviously incredible and I love the lens for that. But, as you can read above, there's more to living with and using a lens that its optical quality. The Sigma just seems to be a lens that fought me every step of the way to the point where I started not want to use it and couldn't trust it. I got some truly beautiful and amazing photos with that lens this year, but I should have gotten more out of it and I couldn't.

- Kevin


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > If one thinks that the Canon isn’t sharp enough to compose in the corners, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, you obviously haven’t tried it. I recommend try it before discarding it. I have shot to push it today and corners are looking very sweet indeed.



I was referring to Jaell’s post.
[/quote]

Thanks. That's what I don't know, so that's why I'm asking. I've seen some sample shots, and the Canon corners are a whole lot softer than the Sigma's at 1.4. Not owning either lens, I don't know if the difference is so dramatic that it's a deal-breaker for the Canon.

And SecureGSM, if I've flown 11 planes of a particular make/model, I'd never make an assumption that my experiences applied to all 1,000+ machines produced in that line. While I respect your experience with Sigma lenses--and it certainly far outweighs mine--statistically, you cannot make any conclusions with anything approaching certainty from a sample that is that small. Especially if the lenses you service are all exported to the same region, potentially manufactured on/about the same time, etc.

The fact that you have a "side business" doing lens calibration that has allowed you to "experience" so many Sigma lenses is worrisome. And the exact thing that you're saying--that it's a gradual drift--is _exactly_ the problem that concerns me and many others. The focus starts to drift, and as a photographer, you start off compensating as best you can. Then tolerating focus near-misses. Then the lens goes in the bag and doesn't come out until you decide to hook it up to the dock and do the re-calibration.

Point me to a lens that won't require compromises like that, though the the caveat that the corners aren't as sharp, and then I've got a tough choice to make. If the Canon was optically indistinguishable from the Sigma, but had better AF performance and IS, then hell yeah it's worth $400 more.

Bottom line, what I'm saying is it's not clear-cut (anyone who argues that the decision *is* clear and that one lens is *obviously* superior to the other in every case, in every context, is deluded and/or lying). So it's up to each individual photographer to figure out what they value more. To you, doing the "maintenance" on the lens isn't a burden, and your copy(ies) have good AF performance. Until I get a little more information on how many people experience AF issues, and to what degree, I can't make a decision.

Which--returning to the OP of the thread--is why it would be nice if Bryan re-visited his lens evaluations. The Sigma 85mm Art review is positively glowing, but he doesn't discuss any issues with AF or re-calibrating over time.


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

slclick said:


> I'd ask Bryan and Sean about this... your assumption about things being 'uncool' and bad manners is ridiculous imho. They are very easy going people and not so hung up on these minor particulars as your post makes you appear.



They might not care at all, you're right. But by and large, it's very much net etiquette *not* to post linked images someone else is hosting. Their bandwidth gets eaten up. Which is why so many commercial sites explicitly disallow it.

Given that Bryan has numerous disclaimers up about how much time/effort he puts into the site, and he solicits commissions and even donations, I go on the assumption that it's more polite to not do something that would cost him money (even if it is pennies on bandwidth).

Plus, it's not like it takes that much effort to host an image, or to simply link to the page so the owner gets some page-hits/advertising revenue.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2017)

jaell said:


> You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right?



Did I miss something? We re-post TDP stuff here all the time, esp. when the point of the post is to reflect upon what has been published there. 

This, in turn, draws folks back to TDP to inquire further, which racks up his page hits and potential 'Buy Here' clicks which are credited to the website. I'd imagine Brian and Sean would be delighted by that.

Also: this thread has (to my eyes, unless I missed something) zero HTML links to standalone pictures hosted at another site. Did you mean to post this in another thread, perhaps?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2017)

jaell said:


> Which--returning to the OP of the thread--is why it would be nice if Bryan re-visited his lens evaluations. The Sigma 85mm Art review is positively glowing, but he doesn't discuss any issues with AF or re-calibrating over time.



Agree, but that's a ton to ask a site that requires so much energy to just put up a review in the first place.

I'm not aware of any major review site revisiting lens performance other than retesting results when a new higher resolution sensor comes out. DXO does this on large numbers of lenses, TDP does a solid job of this and PhotoZone has done so on a scant few. But none to my knowledge look into AF drift over time or discuss how reliably a lens performs like it did at time of unboxing. In general, AF hit rate work (at all) is anecdotal for most sites, so drift is just an greater ask than the basics we may not be getting from those sites.

But yes, it would be awesome if folks looked into this. A few of the writers and editors at SLRLounge -- in fairness, more of a professional tutorial / community site these days -- have commented that they've seen Sigma Art lens AF drift over time, and I'd like to hear more about that. (FWIW, the folks claiming this at that site were working pros and not enthusiasts with photo websites.)

- A


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 21, 2017)

I feel like people are fighting over something so stupid here.

The Sigma is widely considered the greatest optics in an autofocus 85mm in the world and one of the best optically performing lenses ever made. Nothing from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have come close. The best comparison for the Canon is both the Sigma and the old Canon 1.2L II. In this comparison we find that it's right where it should be, and that's on the heels of the Sigma and vastly superior to the old Canon.

Why are there people trying to argue that the Canon is better optically? I know from using both that it's not, but it's damn sure close. The whole vignette argument is downright silly. I personally found them to be very similar and in some shots I felt it was worse on the Sigma, but then on a chart we see about a 1/3-2/3 stop difference in the corners. Is this really a win for the Sigma? I mean...it has an 86mm filter thread!!! It's asinine that its even a close call.


*Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art*
_Pros:_
- Nearly Flawless Optics
- Contrast levels

_Cons:_
- Autofocus inconsistency and repeated calibration needs.
- Size (filter size, dimensions)
- Weight (heavy...very heavy)


*Canon 85mm 1.4L IS USM*
_Pros:_
- Very high optical quality wide open
- Image stabilizer benefits
- Autofocus consistency and accuracy
- Top-notch weather sealing

_Cons:_
- Axial chromatic aberrations higher than the Art series, but better than any other 85mm prime.
- Price
- Softer than the Art series globally with mild drop in corners

*Canon 85mm 1.2L II USM*
_Pros:_
- Bokeh quality is truly legendary
- ........smaller size?

_Cons:_
- Soft wide open
- Loads of chromatic aberrations and purple fringing
- Truly terrible autofocus
- Very heavy, but shortest lens in the bunch - dense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> anyway, not a single post from me on CR from now on.





SecureGSM said:


> (another post)



Wow, your resolve lasted a whole 35 minutes and 27 seconds. Impressive...most impressive.   :-X


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> jaell said:
> 
> 
> > You know it's uncool to post photos hosted at a site, using their bandwidth, right?
> ...



A link is different from an image. And that's my point--an image with no credit (other than the watermark), hosted by the creator, _doesn't_ draw folks back to TDP. Bryan incurs the cost of the bandwidth yet doesn't get page hits, which in turn means he loses revenue.

And the TDP images that were posted here were already removed from the post.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2017)

jaell said:


> A link is different from an image. And that's my point--an image with no credit (other than the watermark), hosted by the creator, _doesn't_ draw folks back to TDP. Bryan incurs the cost of the bandwidth yet doesn't get page hits, which in turn means he loses revenue.
> 
> And the TDP images that were posted here were already removed from the post.



Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying. 

The former (_linking_ to pictures) I don't do, but the latter I absolutely do often. I download TDP pictures and re-attach them here all the time. I do that expressly to _not_ have CR traffic gobble up TDP bandwidth (unless folks decide to go to TDP to read more, of course). 

In the majority of cases I do this, it's in pursuance about a discussion about a TDP story/update/finding where the image credit is implied. But, to your point, I don't always explicitly credit TDP for the shot, and I certainly should do that more conscientiously. 

Appreciate the comment. I need to do better on this front.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2017)

I wonder if the design choices that Sigma makes (i.e. eliminate chromatic aberrations) affects their ability to focus on off-center points. I used a 20A with a 5DIII, and if I dialed in the AF on the center point, it front-focused at the outer points on both sides consistently.

A control feedback loop is simple, and I can't imagine that Sigma is willing to take a hit on focus issues if they can solve it easily. Which is why I'm positing whether or not the inaccuracy/incompatibility is inherent within the optical design. Does anyone know if Sigma lenses have similar issues on Nikon cameras? I wonder if the Canon lens profiles include anything about offsets for outer points...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder if the design choices that Sigma makes (i.e. eliminate chromatic aberrations) affects their ability to focus on off-center points. I used a 20A with a 5DIII, and if I dialed in the AF on the center point, it front-focused at the outer points on both sides consistently.
> 
> A control feedback loop is simple, and I can't imagine that Sigma is willing to take a hit on focus issues if they can solve it easily. Which is why I'm positing whether or not the inaccuracy/incompatibility is inherent within the optical design. Does anyone know if Sigma lenses have similar issues on Nikon cameras? I wonder if the Canon lens profiles include anything about offsets for outer points...



It’s the same for example with the 50 L also which has tons of CA. I thought it was field curvature that was the issue with the 50 L and others. But perhaps Sigma is just being sucky at reverse engineering the AF. Others may know better.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 21, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> Nothing from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have come close.


You are wrong - Sony 85GM is at least equal to Sigma...


----------



## jaell (Nov 21, 2017)

slclick said:


> jaell said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Ahh. I didn't realize that if you've donated to a site, you get to make your own rules.

Another poster--not you--posted images hosted by Bryan at TDP. I said, "hey, that's a bit rude. Think again." And I gave reasons why it's considered bad etiquette, and why it literally costs the image host money. Plenty of forums have rules explicitly forbidding this, and plenty of hosts block images from being posted like that.

You disagree? Fine. You don't think it's rude. And your contributions to TDP allow you to do whatever you want, apparently. I'm not the arbiter of Fairness and Justice on the Internet. I'm just sharing what is common practice.

If your undies are in a bunch about it, that's your problem and not mine, childish insults notwithstanding.

And, given that I'm a college professor, comparing me to a school marm isn't so far off the mark.


----------



## DaviSto (Nov 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Just a happy 85 IS camper comment here, I’m excited, how on earth did I ever use a 135, 100 and 85 without IS?? ;D
> ...


Well if your 1-year old gives you enough scares to cause you a constant nervous tremor, I get the usefulness of IS. If he/she is just scooting about all over the place and hasn't yet given you the 'shakes', I don't see what possible advantage there would be in IS. Widest possible aperture will help ... or just shoot with flash.

Edit: In fairness and on reflection, my own child of only slightly greater vintage has been very easy on the knife and camera juggling thing ... "It's a 'tool', it's not a 'toy'", he dutifully tells his friends ... makes me wince a little, since I put the words into his mouth. But he does abide by that mantra ... not shakes inducing at all. Hey ... but what will he be like at 16???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2017)

DaviSto said:


> Hey ... but what will he be like at 16???



Hopefully telling his friends, "It's a mode of transportation to school, not a racecar headed to the liquor store."


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 22, 2017)

jaell said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > jaell said:
> ...



You must have tenure if you have time to join a camera forum and start flaming and scolding right off the bat. Ivy League?


----------



## aceflibble (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has _never_ competed in that world. Can has _always_ taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.

Yeah, the Sigma is noticeably cleaner. And the Canon has IS and can be more readily repaired in more countries. In other news, the sky is blue and grass continues to be green.


----------



## jaell (Nov 22, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> You must have tenure if you have time to join a camera forum and start flaming and scolding right off the bat. Ivy League?



Let's see.. I signed up here in March of 2013. so nothing I've posted here recently is "right off the bat." I've flamed no one. Scolding? I'd say that's even a harsh interpretation of me suggesting someone not steal TDP's hosting/bandwidth to post images here.

But no, not tenured yet. And definitely not Ivy League. I wouldn't want that sort of headache.

It always does make me smile when someone online tells someone else that they must have a lot of spare time to post their thoughts. Aside from the pot/kettle thing, it amuses me that people assume it takes a lot of time to compose a post here (or on any online forum). And even if it did take more than 60 seconds for me to type this paragraph, given that I'm soliciting information and reading this forum to help me decide how to spend $1100-1600 on an 85mm prime, it actually _makes sense_ to spend a little time figuring out the best use of sizable chunk of money.

I apologize to anyone reading this if my digressions have detracted from the Sigma vs. Canon question.

But taking a few minutes periodically through the day to check in here to find out if there have been any new reviews or data to help me figure out how to spend $1100+ isn't, in my mind, a waste of precious time.

Especially over this past week, when my grading is light because I don't like loading up my students with work in the run-up to the extended holiday.

Cheers!


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has _never_ competed in that world. Can has _always_ taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.
> 
> Yeah, the Sigma is noticeably cleaner. And the Canon has IS and can be more readily repaired in more countries. In other news, the sky is blue and grass continues to be green.



«canon have never competed in that world” ? Do you mean just with 85mm or in general?


----------



## KirkD (Nov 23, 2017)

Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 23, 2017)

KirkD said:


> Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.



I agree, but compare them when both are attached to the lower resolution body 1Ds III, and it becomes hard to tell them apart. In real world use, to me, the resolution advantage the Sigma holds is unsignificant.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 23, 2017)

I would have thought Brian and TDP would like people linking their articles on other sites. I don't recall whether I found CR or TDP first, but I'm pretty sure I found one by seeing a post linking to it on the other. 

Incidentally, I just picked up the 5d4 on that insane Adorama package deal yesterday, but I was careful to go through the TDP link so that TDP gets a little commission.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 23, 2017)

KirkD said:


> Looking at the test results, I would say that the Sigma 1.4 Art is very slightly sharper in the corners. However, almost all of my photography is hand-held; those charts were not. I would go with the Canon 1.4 because, hand-held, the results with IS will likely be sharper than the Sigma. In other words, the very slight superiority in corner sharpness for the Sigma is undone by the fact it has no IS if one primarily shoots hand-held.



Love IS and agree it's valuable. It lets you walk the ISO down a few stops on static subjects.

But to make a _sharpness _argument for it implies you aren't watching your shutter speed. 

But if you're set for auto ISO 1/FL minimum shutter, it would see to it that you wouldn't have a shutter speed related oopsie and you'd be able to realize the resolving power of the lens handheld in the field.

i.e. if I'm shooting a 24-70 lens with IS off (or lacking IS), I'll set min shutter to 1/60th (as 1/70th isn't an option) or 1/125 if I'm tired, hiking, etc. But if the IS is on and I'm shooting static subjects, I'll tweak my auto ISO to 1/15 or so. Sounds tweakish, but I really only of do this once each time I mount the lens (IS is almost always on for me). So in the manner I shoot, IS never bails me out -- _I'm constantly counting on it_ to keep my ISO as low as possible. 

Love IS, I do, but 'it bails me out when I don't keep an eye on shutter speed or don't like to fiddle with my ISO level' is not a selling point for the way I shoot. 

- A


----------



## bereninga (Nov 27, 2017)

It's really a hard choice between these two lenses. Also, the Sigma deals right now make it hard to resist.

However, I think the IS for the Canon is useful, especially if you plan to use the lens for handheld video. Also, the 77mm filter thread is more common than Sigma's gargantuan 86mm. I'll be waiting for refurbs though as the price for the Canon seems sky high, esp since this is a hobby.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 29, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has _never_ competed in that world. Can has _always_ taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.



Well, the Canon 35L II is clearly better than the Sigma 35A and the 6 year old 24-70L II is still sharper than the new Sigma 24-70A (which has been somewhat of a disappointment).

Was obvious Canon clearly felt they needed to best the 35A when they later introduced the 35L II, so it stands to reason they wanted to do the same with the new 85L being released after its Sigma counterpart (again). But Sigma, with the size of the lens, obviously went for best possible sharpness while forgoing any concerns of size and weight.

The CA performance of the new Canon 85L is definitely a little disappointing, though.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 29, 2017)

e_honda said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why anybody would be surprised or dispute that the Sigma 85 would be sharper than the Canon considering the Sigma is widely-known to be sharper than anything without 'Zeiss' in the name, while Canon has _never_ competed in that world. Can has _always_ taken 2nd place in measured performance for the sake of keeping production times low and getting general use features in sooner.
> ...


+1

The purple fringing is gone at F5.6 on new Canon 85 and at F4 on Sigma 85A according to review pictures on TDP.


----------



## SRSW (Dec 1, 2017)

The price would be the deciding factor for me personally - does the price gap warrant that much of a image and build quality difference?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 1, 2017)

SRSW said:


> The price would be the deciding factor for me personally - does the price gap warrant that much of a image and build quality difference?



If weather sealing and IS means nothing to you and you’re okay with potential AF/copy issues the Sigma will be a good choice. If you value size weight, IS and sealing then the 85 IS might be the right way to go.

I’m really happy with the 85 IS even though it’s a bit far from my 35 L II in image quality.


----------

