# Review: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Receives Highest DXOMark Score Ever



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 3, 2017)

```
DXOMark has completed their review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art series lens, and apparently they like it!</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>With its Art series, Sigma has done much to improve its standing as a high-end lens maker. Until only recently, Canon and Nikon were on safe ground with their high-speed primes, but makers such as Sigma and Tamron (and Zeiss) are beginning to make inroads. While all the full-frame Art series lenses are excellent performers optically, the latest model in the range is also its best. It also happens to be the most expensive to date, but the $1,199 asking price seems reasonable. That it outperforms the Zeiss Milvus and outrageously expensive Otus equivalents probably says enough for most people — and that’s even before discussing the merits of autofocus versus manual on high-speed lenses like this. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-F1.4-Art-lens-review-New-benchmark">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>That’s definitely some amazing praise bestowed on the new king from Sigma. I love the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, but this may have piqued my interest in trying out this Sigma 85mm lens.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://bhpho.to/2ky91Cj">Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG Art at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 3, 2017)

Congratulations!!! Sigma. Hope DXO mark would do the test on Canon version as well. Not that I am great fan of their scores...


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 3, 2017)

I will rent the Sigma and the Zeiss Planar to see which one I will buy later this year.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 3, 2017)

I don't expect to ever be in the market for a 3rd party lens, but it's great to see Sigma upping their game, and getting recognized for it.


----------



## Talley (Feb 3, 2017)

When I got my 85 Art I tested it vs the 200 F2 and I was amazed how similar in sharpness they are. Very powerful lenses both of them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 3, 2017)

Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...

Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> 
> Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?



Wasn't there a rumor, speculation, or something that Sigma had used an underpowered motor in the 50mm and that was a culprit in some of the inconsistent focusing... furthermore that Sigma recognized that and put in a beefy motor for the 85mm to correct that shortcoming.


----------



## poias (Feb 3, 2017)

goldenhusky said:


> Congratulations!!! Sigma. Hope DXO mark would do the test on Canon version as well. Not that I am great fan of their scores...



Dxo scores are paid to show low Canon scores.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

there is a new AF motor in Sigma 85 Art indeed. it has been in the official lens announcement and also picked up by reviewer:

https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/

"... Auto-Focus – With a new AF motor, this lens is the star-performer of the Art lineup and is engineered to be unparalleled to its predecessor, and rivals top-of-the-line competitors..."



Luds34 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

It is a false logic.. excuse me being direct. That would be a case of Looking at the Future in the Rear View Mirror..
I am going to sell my first generation 35 and 50 mm Art lenses the moment the second generation with better AF motor in them was announced. 



YuengLinger said:


> Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> 
> Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 3, 2017)

While optics are getting stellar on a regular base with new lenses I miss one feature which makes lenses attractiv for me:
A compact design.

I really like the 2,0 100 for it's tinyness compared to current lenses. While having some optical flaws and a very moderate MFD it is a very useful lens (at least for me).l

Hopefully Canon addresses compactness and optical quality with their 1.4 85 and the maybe in the far future updated 1.4 50 lenses!


----------



## sanj (Feb 3, 2017)

poias said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations!!! Sigma. Hope DXO mark would do the test on Canon version as well. Not that I am great fan of their scores...
> ...



Would love to see proof to this statement.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

As posted elsewhere, PB, DPR and others had an advanced scoop on this before it was published. PB actually got a screenshot from DXO, see attached.

(Link here, pic below)
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/02/02/sigma-85mm-f1-4-beats-zeiss-otus-dxo-tests/

It's a little fuzzy, but if my eyes do not deceive me:

Nikon D800E + 85mm Art:

Sharpness: 36
Distortion: 0
Vignetting: -1.4
Transmission: 1.7
Chromatic Aberrations: 6

Canon 5DS R + 85mm Art:

Sharpness: *40*
Distortion: 0
Vignetting: *-0.5* (must be a typo)
Transmission: *1.8* (a hair worse)
Chromatic Aberrations: *2*


And then DXO just *does what it does*:

Overall Score - Nikon: 51
Overall Score - Canon: 48

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 3, 2017)

Although I give a **** on DXO and their scores this makes me listen. 

I was impressed by what Sigma was delivering throughout their latest releases. 
But I wasn't in the market for such big primes like the 35 and 50 mm.

The 85 mm FL is one of my most liked and as Canon still needs time to introduce a successor of the 85/1.8 this lens starts to become interesting. 
If I had the real choice I would take a small size with f1.8 over such a really big chunk of glass.
But if the performance and consistency of the new AF proves to be much better than what I heard and read from the other "Arts" I'll be tempted.

Right now here in Germany there a no rebates on this lens as it is absolutely new, but with some 25 - 30 % like the other "Arts" it is worth considering.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> And then DXO just *does what it does*:
> 
> Overall Score - Nikon: 51
> ...


  ??? : :-X


----------



## hubie (Feb 3, 2017)

If only the zoom ring would turn in the right direction ... :


----------



## Nininini (Feb 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> 
> Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?



THIS, I have already read AF issues with this 85mm. I am NOT buying ANY Sigma lens until the AF problem is 100% solved.

A $100 Yongnuo with some AF issues? uh, sure

A $1200 Sigma lens with AF issues? uhm, get real, I expect no AF issues whatsoever at that price

It is always the same old story, right after launch there are a bunch of paid shills getting free Sigma lenses doing reviews,they can't stop talking how awesome the lens is, how well AF works.

_"OMG Becky, this lens is half the price of Canon's L lens and it's just as shap!"_

Wait 2 months and the reviews of actual consumers with AF problems start popping up left and right. And you found out why this Sigma is so much cheaper.

UNTIL, Sigma fixes the AF problems, they're no longer getting my money.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> As posted elsewhere, PB, DPR and others had an advanced scoop on this before it was published. PB actually got a screenshot from DXO, see attached.
> 
> (Link here, pic below)
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/02/02/sigma-85mm-f1-4-beats-zeiss-otus-dxo-tests/
> ...


How can the transmission change? Does a mount change involve additional elements?
I find a T-stop of 1.8 to be really bad for an f1.4 lens. The Sony/Zeiss primes often have no transmission loss according to dxo at all.

Overall I find this lens too large and heavy. What if Canon or Nikon would have introduced such a large lens? Then the complaints regarding large and heavy dinosaur technology would have been deafening. Already the Sony 85GM (our main portrait lens) is criticised for its size. But transmission seems to be much better as well as rendering (to my taste).


----------



## Jopa (Feb 3, 2017)

Nininini said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...



They're doing just fine without your money  The 85 doesn't have any AF consistency issues, and the AF is faster than the 85 L II.


----------



## heretikeen (Feb 3, 2017)

poias said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations!!! Sigma. Hope DXO mark would do the test on Canon version as well. Not that I am great fan of their scores...
> ...



Of course they are.
Never believe the facts, always listen to your heart.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 3, 2017)

Hflm said:


> How can the transmission change? Does a mount change involve additional elements?
> I find a T-stop of 1.8 to be really bad for an f1.4 lens. The Sony/Zeiss primes often have no transmission loss according to dxo at all.
> 
> Overall I find this lens too large and heavy. What if Canon or Nikon would have introduced such a large lens? Then the complaints regarding large and heavy dinosaur technology would have been deafening. Already the Sony 85GM (our main portrait lens) is criticised for its size. But transmission seems to be much better as well as rendering (to my taste).



If a lens has vignetting, it can't be no transmission loss.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 3, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > goldenhusky said:
> ...



Well, according to DxO, Sigma intentionally cripples their lenses for Canon: worse transmission, more vignetting, etc...


----------



## Nininini (Feb 3, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Dxo scores are paid to show low Canon scores.
> ...



A company rating their own camera as excellent is like Apple reviewing their own iPhone by giving it 10/10. DxO Mark is a joke.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Feb 3, 2017)

Nininini said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...



Try the Sigma USB dock firmware upgrade, that fixed a lot of problems for me. In addition, around the same time, I had my Canon 6D recalibration done by Canon for any focus and metering issues. It has made a huge difference in focusing, and metering I feel. The service is performed by Canon with some pretty high quality levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvasaaoepr0
For me, Canon Service is what sets them apart.


----------



## Nininini (Feb 3, 2017)

Jopa said:


> They're doing just fine without your money



Sigma is a one-trick-pony with a business model that hinges on selling lenses. Considering the yearly decrease in ILC, I doubt Sigma is doing fine. If cashflow was good they would have diversified years ago.

I heard sigma reps saying they are not affected by slowing camera sales, a typical japanese response, everything is going great until the ship is at the bottom of the sea. 

Toshiba said they were also doing fine right before their stock plumetted 35% last year, and now they're selling half their company to the highest bidder. Doh!


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 3, 2017)

Nininini said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...



Where did you find people complaining about AF problems with 85A? Everything ive read or seen so far has stated the opposite. Im very tempted by this lens, even after selling my 50A for issues I had in the past, so I am genuinely curious.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 3, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > How can the transmission change? Does a mount change involve additional elements?
> ...


Interestingly, I don't find this to get together. Look at Sonys 24-70/2.8GM: Transmission 2.8, vignetting -1.6ev; 70-200/2.8GM transmission 2.9, Vignetting -1.7; 55/1.8 transmission 1.8, vigntetting -1.6ev etc. etc. 
So do they measure only in the center? The Tamron 85 has T-stop f2, but Canon version has a transmission of -2.1ev and the Nikon version -1.6ev. So vignetting seems not to affect it considerably.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 3, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


----------



## Nininini (Feb 3, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



lesnumeriques forum

(not giving out names, I don't need sigma zealots ridiculing friends)


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

where abouts do you read abouts 85 Art AF issues? what sort of isues?
Paid shils- you mean our own Dustin Abbott is one of those shills? I beg to differ.

I own this lens since 21.12.2016. AF of this lens is absolutely consistent. there is nothing to fix.




Nininini said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

ah, that is why I had to preoder the 85 1.4 Art lens and wait for nealry 4 weeks. they still drip delivering stock to the Australian distributor... stock is very low. Sigma is a small family business and cannot keep up with such a high demand. We are lucky to have Kazuto Yamaki as Sigma CEO. this man is is the spirit of innovation.

re: forum posts and AF issues. : the lens has to be calibraterd properly. I mean properly! if not calibrated at infinity you are going to get OOf shots at variable distances to subject between 2 to 10 meters approx.


Nininini said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > They're doing just fine without your money
> ...


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 3, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...



Yes. Sigma used a new HSM motor with 1.3 times the torque https://www.sigmaphoto.com/85mm-f14-dg-hsm-a They blamed the lower torque motors used prior for this for effectively missing the AF destination. [citation needed]
But that doesn't really tell us much, just that they want to sell lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 3, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> there is a new AF motor in Sigma 85 Art indeed. it has been in the official lens announcement and also picked up by reviewer:
> 
> https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/
> 
> ...



So when does the 50mm Art II come out with the new and improved motor? And how long did it take Sigma to identify the flaw?


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

not until we see commodity lenses released being 24-70 F2.8 A / 70-200 F2.8 S - shold be not too long before anounced now. the patent was filed about a year ago so it is reasonable to expect the lenses to anounced withing few months from now or even earlier.
I spoke with Sigma techs on number of ocasions. Apparently, Sigma manufacturing capacity is not that great. They tend to manufacture lenses in batches and then once done move onto next model. so my reasonable expectation to see 24-70 / 70-200 lenses anounced first and then we might see updated 35/50 mm lenses in about a year from now give or take.

Sigma identified the flow at the time it was identified by Art lens users. it takes time to develop solution, implement design, test prototypes and then manufacture the motor. It is a bit convoluted, I know..



YuengLinger said:


> So when does the 50mm Art II come out with the new and improved motor? And how long did it take Sigma to identify the flaw?


----------



## heretikeen (Feb 3, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



First thing I heard about that, and the 50 1.4 A is my go to lens for close-up concert photography. Although my 70-200 does indeed have more full-on-focus-hits, the 50 isn't off worse than my other lenses and MUCH better than my Canon 85 1.8.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

here comes citation. the key words are "stable performance":

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/features/#features03sigmaphoto is not the 

"_ ... Newly designed HSM for nimble AF control

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. ..._"




IglooEater said:


> Yes. Sigma used a new HSM motor with 1.3 times the torque https://www.sigmaphoto.com/85mm-f14-dg-hsm-a They blamed the lower torque motors used prior for this for effectively missing the AF destination. [citation needed]
> But that doesn't really tell us much, just that they want to sell lenses.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 3, 2017)

Gets highest optical score ever. Still misses focus every 3 out of 10 shots.. No thank you..


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 3, 2017)

and where did you get that numbers from? how about 98 out of 100 in focus (shots with sharpness achieved better than 80% of peak sharpness). first hand experience, lens tested with Focal software. custom test. 100 consecutive shots. good lighting. indoors. focal target at 4m. central AF point only. Camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod. 
I can confirm that canon 24-70 F2.8 L II lens results are not any better. 



ExodistPhotography said:


> Gets highest optical score ever. Still misses focus every 3 out of 10 shots.. No thank you..


----------



## heretikeen (Feb 3, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Gets highest optical score ever. Still misses focus every 3 out of 10 shots.. No thank you..



Sounds like you need a tripod, not a new lens.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 3, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> and where did you get that numbers from? how about 98 out of 100 in focus (shots with sharpness achieved peak better than 80% sharpness or better). first hand experience, lens tested with Focal software. custom test. 100 consecutive shots. good lighting. indoors. focal target at 4m. central AF only. Camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod.
> I can confirm that canon 24-70 F2.8 L II lens results are no better.
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for those tests Alex, good to hear. That's incredibly good news for photographers on a budget.

Oh and thanks for the citation, I missed that. Also I thought I read somewhere where they specifically mentioned static focussing of previous AF motors, but couldn't fin it off the cuff.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 3, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Aren't you becoming a part of the show if you are doing CLOSE UPS with a 50mm during a concert? Just curious!

Too bad about your 85 1.8--that is one of the fastest, most reliable AF lenses I've ever used. Glad you are doing well with the 50mm Art!


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 3, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> and where did you get that numbers from? how about 98 out of 100 in focus (shots with sharpness achieved better than 80% of peak sharpness). first hand experience, lens tested with Focal software. custom test. 100 consecutive shots. good lighting. indoors. focal target at 4m. central AF point only. Camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod.
> I can confirm that canon 24-70 F2.8 L II lens results are not any better.
> 
> 
> ...



Don't take my word for it.. Check out Christopher Frost video. He got the same results.
To the dipstick that says I need a tripod. That has nothing to do with focusing issue. I am not a newb. I shoot in studio or outdoor fashionscape photography using flash. 

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 3, 2017)

Sigma alerted me to this yesterday. I'm not surprised by the sharpness metric at all - the 85A is extremely sharp. But here's where lab results don't always tell the whole story, too. The Otus has far more contrast (and less chromatic aberrations) and thus will LOOK sharper in the field. I also find the rendering from the Otus to be much more special. But for 99% of users that is neither here nor there. They don't want to pay for the Otus and they don't want to manually focus. Kudos to Sigma for building an accessible resolution monster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

Hflm said:


> How can the transmission change? Does a mount change involve additional elements?



DxO measures lens + sensor. So, for example, if there's more light loss due to the CFA or microlenses on one sensor than another, that will show up as a difference in transmission.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 3, 2017)

So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?



Did you check out the link to Christopher Frosts review of the lens. Its missing focus over 30% of the time..


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Wow, we hit a nerve here. Far be it from me to be a defender of Sigma's AF -- I regularly harpoon the AF on the 35 and 50 Art lenses -- I think the 85mm Art is a different animal for the better. Hear me out.

*First* -- when we malign the rep of Sigma's AF, it's not about front or back focusing, so please stop bringing a USB Dock to a gunfight. Front or back focusing the dock can address, yes, but most people's beef with the Art lenses is *inconsistent focusing* where trying to hit the same damn target (even on a tripod in controlled conditions in good light) can inexplicably whiff 1 or 2 times in 10 -- the dock can do nothing to address that short of delivering a new firmware update. _Calibration does not solve inconsistently hitting/missing the same target._

*Second* -- not all Art lenses are plagued by this inconsistency. I've personally experienced it on the 35 Art, and the 50 Art's problems are well documented by trusted reviewers.

But the 85 Art appears to have turned a corner. I do not know if this is due to the new additional power the focusing motor has or if they just worked out a bug with their EF communications routines. But the proof is in the pudding:


http://www.lenstip.com/491.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofocus.html

In their general lab test, the miss rate was so low it was not reported. For perspective, the 35 Art had a 2.5% miss rate and the 50 Art had a 6-7% miss rate and exhibited a nutty AF stuttering/indecision problem on one of the test bodies. So one reviewer says the 85 Art is a very solid AF performer. Consider: the 85L II had a 3% miss rate in their testing. 

LensTip even went a step further and ran a separate battery of more stringent tests and at f/1.4 the 85 Art only exhibited a 2% miss rate. That's actually a phenomenal result -- there are certainly some L lenses that would not hit that bar.


Bryan Carnathan at TDP -- who rather famously nailed the 50 Art AF problem -- gave a much better review to the 85 Art: 

_"After capturing over 600 tripod-based images of various subjects strictly for the purpose of testing AF, each capture starting in an out-of-focus condition, I found that this lens focuses consistently accurately. Not every image is perfectly sharp, but a very considerable percentage of them are."_

I am not saying the 85 Art is flawless. I am saying Sigma appears to have greatly diminished the Art lenses' biggest limitation. The reasons to avoid buying this particular lens are very small -- lack of IS, lack of sealing, it's too big, etc. -- but optically it is dynamite, the AF is significantly improved, and it's a value for the ages. And lest we forget, I'm no Sigma apologist. I've been one of their biggest critics on this issue. If I needed an 85, I'd get this one in a heartbeat.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?



'Fix' implies a firmware change solves it. If they could do this, they would have.

The 85 was not a fix -- it's a _new product_ that has a different AF design. So what you call a fix for the 35 and 50 may actually require Sigma to deliver a new product in the form of a full-blown Mk II. 

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> 
> Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?



The Sigma 85mm is a huge lens (size and weight). Based on several reviews I have read, the reviewers have had 0 (that's "zero") issues with the autofocus ability of the lens. This one from Sigma truly looks like it's a giant killer. And with the Dock, it future proofs it for later Canon (or Nikon, or pick a mfg.) bodies... I can't wait until we start getting some solid info on the new Canon 85mm 1.4 that's reportedly coming later this year. To see how it matches up.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > So, does this mean that Sigma actually acknowledges the AF issues with 35 and 50, yet only fix it with the 85?
> ...



Yes and no, they made a new motor for the 85, because they KNEW it was a big problem with the 35 and 50, yet they make no attempt to make the 35 and 50 work, not even a firmware. How about a callback? How about starting to produce the 50 and 35 with new motors as well?

I realize that would cost them greatly, but do I care when I paid a bunch of money for a useless product?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 3, 2017)

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HN6shIWJY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m25s

...to be exact (to save you some time).

Methods weren't stated for that battery of shots (was he using off-center points, auto point selection, did he de-focus each time, was he on a tripod, how dark was the scene, etc.), but it's clearly not a good finding if true.

- A


----------



## grainier (Feb 3, 2017)

Like everyone else says - who cares about image quality if you can't get your lens to focus?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

grainier said:


> Like everyone else says - who cares about image quality if you can't get your lens to focus?



Because this _may_ be a mountain v. molehill situation with this particular lens. We honestly don't have great data to compare to _other lenses we take for granted as working_. (Where are the hit rate studies for L lenses?)

In the only head to head* I've seen (from LensTip), we have:

85 Art: 'hardly ever missed' -- no hit rate reported in the general test
85L II: 3% AF miss rate

*Not a perfect comparison: the 85L II was tested on the 1Ds3 and the 85 Art was tested on the 5D3, I believe. 

In light of that data, why would anyone ever buy an 85L II? 3% of your never-can-be-retaken wedding reception shots just went poof. Why is _that_ not also outrageous and unacceptable?

I'm not arguing the 85L II is a problem, of course, so much as pointing out that we are putting Sigma somewhat unfairly under a microscope based on the 50 Art experience. Reviewers need to up their game and thoroughly test AF consistency on everything from here on out.

But between Dustin's work, TDP, and LensTip, I'd say to go get the 85 Art without reservation. By their same body of work on the 50 Art, I would _not_ buy that lens unless what you shoot allows you to chimp as you go and reshoot.

- A


----------



## testthewest (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> As posted elsewhere, PB, DPR and others had an advanced scoop on this before it was published. PB actually got a screenshot from DXO, see attached.
> 
> (Link here, pic below)
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/02/02/sigma-85mm-f1-4-beats-zeiss-otus-dxo-tests/
> ...



Well, getting 36MPix out of a 36,3 MPix camera is outstanding. Getting 40MPix out of a 50MPix camera is merely great. So how could the combination of the Canon/Sigma ever score higher if it loses 20% of the pixels, while the Nikon/Sigma combo does barely lose any?


----------



## Nininini (Feb 3, 2017)

https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY?t=2m37s

viewfinder shots on an easy static subject in bright daylight:

*30 shots in focus
9 out of focus
11 completely out of focus*

That's 20 misses for every 50 shots. That's *40%* of shots being out of focus in conditions that aren't even challenging. Completely unacceptable. I don't even want to know how terrible the hitrate would be on moving subjects or dim light.

This lens has major AF problems, just like every Sigma lens before it.

There is a reason these lenses cost half of what Canon lenses cost.

Getting a lens to focus properly is primordial, I don't care how sharp a lens is, if it has AF problems, it's useless to me.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 3, 2017)

I dont know why anyone takes DXO seriously. They have flawed testing techniques period. 

Thats not to say the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens is not great by the way.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


I suppose your sitting at Sigma engineering meetings? Sigma made a stronger motor because the 85mm is larger & heavier than the 50mm lens. Ive met with the president / owner of Sigma at Photokina last year and he takes a very keen interest on what his customers think and strives to improve their products. Sigma took a huge gamble when they invested in designing the Art series of lenses I know first hand the cost of developing high performance lenses and thanks to Sigma both Nikon and Canon have to try harder with their new designs. I dont own a single Art lens or Sigma lens so Im unbaised and see it purely as an engineer. Canon are not perfect and some lenses are well past their sell by date the EF 17-40mm f4L or the EF 50mm f1.4 being good examples.


----------



## MikleK (Feb 3, 2017)

Nininini said:


> https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY?t=2m37s
> 
> viewfinder shots on an easy static subject in bright daylight:
> 
> ...


Well, actually I used to have the same with my EF 50 f/1.4 and old 7D mark I. However, Canon service solved the problem and it became nearly 98% shots in focus afterwards.

Has anybody used Sigma USB Lens Dock to calibrate the Art lenses?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Nininini said:


> Getting a lens to focus properly is primordial, I don't care how sharp a lens is, if it has AF problems, it's useless to me.



I hear you, and yes, if the AF is off, it's a major deal.

That said, who is this gentleman, and very specifically how does he perform this test? 

We tend to rely on sites that publish their methods and others have reproduced the same finding. Is this an issue on a more modern/comprehensive AF setup like the 5-series and 1-series bodies have? We he using an off-center AF point or auto-select? Was it a really dark scene and we're only seeing what he boosted in post?

I'm not saying it didn't happen and I'm not saying he's biased -- I am saying others I trust more tell me this is a non-issue and I'm inclined to believe them enough to get this lens and find out.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Well, getting 36MPix out of a 36,3 MPix camera is outstanding. Getting 40MPix out of a 50MPix camera is merely great. So how could the combination of the Canon/Sigma ever score higher if it loses 20% of the pixels, while the Nikon/Sigma combo does barely lose any?



Stop talking rationally, we're talking about DXO.  

In the past, lenses that outresolved the sensor sitting behind it (let's say 22 out of 22 P-MPix on a 5D3) were deemed 'disappointing' and 'sensor-limited' while the test result of the same lens on a 36 MP D800E got a 30-out-of-36 and was 'deemed brilliant' and 'class-leading'. To DXO, more is better when it came to resolution, and seemingly solely on the virtue of being the only 36 MP rig out there at the time(the original A7R was late to their testing party), Nikon topped all the overall score lists.

Now the findings don't make sense; the lower resolving combination breaks their overall scoring record while the higher resolving combination's score is inexplicably gouged. It seems like some very minor differences in transmission and vignetting are bossing the overall score larger than ever before.

It's not about right or wrong (or even your very fair) perspective. It's about _DXO changing its overall scoring the moment Nikon no longer was class leading in resolution_. Somehow despite all the sharpest lens tests, none of the current top 5 lenses at DXO are on the 5DS R, which is laughable given their prior body of work. Their prior 5 highest scoring lenses (prior to the 5DS R) were I believe their #1 - #5 highest _resolving_ lenses. Now? No longer so.

And again, I don't need Canon to be 'top' or trust DXO's scoring at all in any way. I just want to see them have a method, publish it and stick to it -- or in absence of that, stick to their standard sub-metrics and abolish the overall score altogether. Otherwise, they remain a big fat biased piñata to swing at.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

MikleK said:


> Well, actually I used to have the same with my EF 50 f/1.4 and old 7D mark I. However, Canon service solved the problem and it became nearly 98% shots in focus afterwards.
> 
> Has anybody used Sigma USB Lens Dock to calibrate the Art lenses?



I did with my 35 Art Rental some time ago, and it did little to improve things.

The dock gives you a a pretty powerful AFMA functionality -- even better than with Canon glass as it can be dialed in at a variety of focus distances. 

_But that only manages front or back focused images._ Plots like the samples shown above show something a dock cannot correct -- inconsistent AF. TDP demonstrated this on the 50 Art and it was a simple setup: nail one high contrast target 10 times on a tripod with the center AF point and a defocused lens before each shot was taken. It didn't front or back focus, it altogether whiffed out of the blue on a number of the shots. Again: the dock can't solve that.

But before this video link was dropped, I had not seen this on the 85 Art. Most reviewers were attuned to this inconsistent 35 / 50 Art problem and thoroughly put the 85 Art through its paces and they felt the issue was resolved this time.

- A


----------



## MikleK (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MikleK said:
> 
> 
> > Well, actually I used to have the same with my EF 50 f/1.4 and old 7D mark I. However, Canon service solved the problem and it became nearly 98% shots in focus afterwards.
> ...


How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?

I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses _completely_, I can see for sure that _it is_ a _heavy_ front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on? 
Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

MikleK said:


> How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?
> 
> I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses _completely_, I can see for sure that _it is_ a _heavy_ front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
> Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best



Don't know, perhaps 10 minutes to try / adjust / retry at various focal lengths until I felt I had it. It wasn't a 'missed by a little front or back' sort of problem. 

After calibration, I'd shoot with: 

Single center point AF (5D3)

Shutter speed was well faster than 1 / FL

My subject was stationary in good light

and I shot without recomposing after AF confirm.

...it would confirm AF on the face of a static subject and then it would whiff completely with the AF -- trust me when I say it was not a calibration issue as I would take two shots in a row without doing anything differently and one would be nailed and the other was a blurred out mess -- very similar to Carnathan's butterfly target on the 50mm Art that he reported. I can't peg a hit/miss rate, but it was far worse towards the wide open end. My hits at f/1.4 were breathtakingly sharp but too infrequent and Sigma didn't get the sale after that rental as a result.

It was not discernibly front or back focused that I could tell -- the subject was not lying down in a field of grass where I could use their face vs. the grass blades a 'real world FoCal target'. It just whiffed inconsistently and no dock in the world will fix that unless it's loading the lens with improved AF firmware.

- A


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 4, 2017)

this.. its almost like understeering /oversteering issue as you force your car into a sharp turn. always take a second shot just in case or hope for the best. the second shot with 35/50 Art works better for me 



ahsanford said:


> MikleK said:
> 
> 
> > How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?
> ...


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 4, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Sigma alerted me to this yesterday. I'm not surprised by the sharpness metric at all - the 85A is extremely sharp. But here's where lab results don't always tell the whole story, too. The Otus has far more contrast (and less chromatic aberrations) and thus will LOOK sharper in the field. I also find the rendering from the Otus to be much more special. But for 99% of users that is neither here nor there. They don't want to pay for the Otus and they don't want to manually focus. Kudos to Sigma for building an accessible resolution monster.



True enough- test charts aren't everything. Thanks for the bit of balance presented here.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> this.. its almost like understeering /oversteering issue as you force your car into a sharp turn. always take a second shot just in case or hope for the best. the second shot with 35/50 Art works better for me



That was my sad lesson as well -- put it in 3 or 6 fps mode and slam on it and hope for the best. Then you fill your hard drives with duplicates and have to sift through them all. Pass -- no thank you.

- A


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 4, 2017)

Nininini,

I call BS on this so called "test results" judging focus accuracy by looking at bunch of photos with unknown test parameter - are you serious? 

do you own the lens, do you have first hand experience taking photos with the lens? then you talk about something you have no idea about and your mega claims are unsubstantiated.


1. what AF mode was used - single AF point, zone, etc?
2. shutter speed used? - hand shakes, bad technique, etc.
3. camera on tripod or handheld?
4. subject lacks any contrast to it. not an ideal situation.
5. can we see 1:1 images? - I have seen flies and little insects throwing focus off as the camera focused on the insect rather than on the subject.
6. was the lens AFMAed prior to testing on USB dock? - this can greatly affect test outcomes.
*note: from my experience calibrating the lens with Focal, lens will produce extremely inconsistent results if AFMA is off by 10+ units -/+. especially at infinity!!*
7. was the lens faulty by any chance?
this is what I am goin to do to put this BS claims to rest:

*I going to put my money where my mouth is.
I am going to take 50 shots of proper target with Sigma 85 Art on tripod and post the link to the series of shots. all of them, in RAW, unedited, untouched, with full exif included - then you can see for yourself.
Take my word for it: I am going to smash my beautyful sigma 85 Art lens, with a hammer if it will produce 10 out 50 OOF shots as that person claims ( well, he claimed 20 out of 50).
and if Sigma 85 Art will produce at least 45 nice and sharp shots you will appologies for the unsubstantiated gobbledygook.*



Nininini said:


> https://youtu.be/p5HN6shIWJY?t=2m37s
> 
> viewfinder shots on an easy static subject in bright daylight:
> 
> ...


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 4, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Nininini,
> 
> .....................
> 
> ...




Which hammer would you like to use?

I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them. 
That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos. 
That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable. 
Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye. 

But hey, its your money.. Go for it..


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 4, 2017)

MikleK said:


> How much time did you spend trying to calibrate the lens?
> 
> I'm trying 35 mm Art right now with 5Dm4 and when AF misses _completely_, I can see for sure that _it is_ a _heavy_ front (in my case) focus (a few meters). Sorry, I didn't read TDP's review. Did they place anything in front of the target and behind it so you can see where it was actually focused on?
> Anyway, I'm going to try Usb Dock which theoreticaly allows to fix it, as I read in reviews. I hope for the best



I have the USB dock. While it will help the lens micro-focus better based on distance. It will do nothing for consistency. If it jumps around all the time. You may as well send it into sigma for fix.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 4, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Which hammer would you like to use?
> 
> I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them.
> That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos.


I am not saying that first generation of Sigma Art lenses focused consistently. That I agree with. What I do not agree with is that 85 Art is the sameand has AF inconsistentcy issue in normal light conditions just like previous generation of Art lenses. There are bunch of internet netizens out there that keep perpetrating the hype that Sigma 85 has AF consistency issue. And logic is: Just because the previous generation had one, why would new one be free of such a problem? right? No, wrong! I have taken hundreds of photos so far with the lens and I know what I am talking about.
It is wastly diffrently focusing lens in terms of accuracy. why would you not listen to voice of reputable reviewers instead?

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/lensrentals-com-review-of-the-sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-series-lens/

*"... When it comes to the focus of the lens, it’s good and fast when compared to the slow Canon 85L. While one of us experienced some slight seeking in little light, the consensus is that even at it’s worst, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Series focuses just as good as its competitors..."*

I understand your negative AF experience with older Art lenses. I have been there and sold all of them 6 months ago. but is that the reason to be crutical of the lens that you have no personal experience with?



ExodistPhotography said:


> That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable.
> Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye.


There is only one lens I am aware of that is 100% focus consistent each time every time: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM. 2% Phase Detection AF error rate is already very good.

1 out of 200 is 0.5%. I am sure that you are following my logic just fine. your claimed AF consitency rate is 4 times better that 2% 

I own couple of Canon L zoom lenses and I can tell you the AF consistency rate is much lower than 0.5% you are claiming. 2-3% is more like it. (24-70 F 2.8 II, 16-35 F4 L) and thats not even F1.4 lenses.

I brought 10 out of 50 rate forward only because that reviewer claimed 20 out 50 OOF images which is nonsense. I know my Sigma glass. Thank you.
I am confident to see much better number than 5 out 50. but thats already 4 times better than review claimed.



ExodistPhotography said:


> But hey, its your money.. Go for it..



yes, to each his own and I never throwing good money after bad. I also saved a ton of cash on the way. 
but let me prove my point with test images when posted tomorrow. you are welcome to load all of them into Reikan Focal in Manual Mode for sharpness analysis and see how results stack up against the peak sharpness achieved in the series of shots.


----------



## ricky_005 (Feb 4, 2017)

Do you really trust DXO test ;D

Micro contrast is terrible on the Arts ..... Micro contrast is very important.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> *I going to put my money where my mouth is.
> I am going to take 50 shots of proper target with Sigma 85 Art on tripod and post the link to the series of shots. all of them, in RAW, unedited, untouched, with full exif included - then you can see for yourself.
> Take my word for it: I am going to smash my beautyful sigma 85 Art lens, with a hammer if it will produce 10 out 50 OOF shots as that person claims ( well, he claimed 20 out of 50).
> and if Sigma 85 Art will produce at least 45 nice and sharp shots you will appologies for the unsubstantiated gobbledygook.*



Alex, it's not like Nininini was making things up. Some guy posted his findings, which is hardly baseless libel on a product. I wouldn't say an apology is in order regardless of your test outcome.

An VF AF hit rate as others have said may have a different outcome than with LiveView.

I welcome your data on this, but let's not take all this personally.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> I spent thousands on sigma lenses. Now I am replacing them.
> That said, if your using mirrorless or live view DPAF. You will nail focus each time. But TTVF you will make your self sick looking that the photos.
> That and I am sorry. 10 out of 50. 10 out of 100 for any subject or object not moving is unacceptable.
> Since I dropped Sigma, I get a 1 in 200 miss in focus. Which is normally due to my error or the lens focused in on hair over a eye.
> ...



Then you are very talented or very lucky. Even the best AF on the planet misses around 1-2% with large aperture glass this. And those are in lab conditions -- in questionable light, slightly moving subject, off-center AF points, etc. one's real-life usage miss rate has to be higher than that.

But whatever test is run needs to be repeated on a 'proven' lens or any value other than perfect will be harped on by the naysayers. I believe even the best AF lays an egg occasionally, and that rate should be considered when praising or condemning the 85 Art.

As far as what lens to use, it's a mixed bag. I agree the 35L II has stellar AF, but a 35mm f/1.4 is simply more forgiving to a miss than an 85mm f/1.4. You kind of have to compare it something similar, say one of Canon's 85 primes (because we know at least two of Canon's 50mm primes will lay an egg on that test) or possibly a 135mm f/2L.

- A


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> .........
> 
> An VF AF hit rate as others have said may have a different outcome than with LiveView.
> 
> ...



Yea Live View should almost never miss on something not moving around.. 

All my Sigma lenses focused great using live view. But thats becuase the camera is doing all the work and has nothing to do with the lens at all. But live view is not usable in all situations. 

I am talking about the cameras built in AF sensor. 
Sigma has never got the software to full work correctly with Canon. Its not really anything to even do with the lens AF motor speeds, at least with stills and portrait photography. They just are not nearly as accurate.

But yes, I never have focusing issues unless its a UGE (aka my fault). Now that 1-2% is likely from moving subjects. I mostly shoot headshots and fashionscape photos. Except when I am traveling and take lots of landscape and cityscape shots. But those are almost non moving subjects.. The camera and lens should never miss.. But........... The Sigma lenses would.. So I am still trying to sell those things off. Except for my 18-35mm Art. I am keeping it for video which it works fine.. 
Now talking about older Sigma Lenses (not just the arts) They focused better IMHO. They were micromotor style lenses. But at least new they worked. These newer Art/Sports USM lenses, they got issues.. 


EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.



I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is _slightly_ different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.
> ...



Yeah, it's a bit sad what constitutes 'proof' for some people.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ExodistPhotography said:
> ...



My hit rate with a 35 Art absolutely plummeted when shooting wider than f/2, even after calibration and employing a militant 'I recognize small DOF work is unforgiving to technical errors' sort of methodical shooting method.

Again, the reviewers this go-round (with the 85 Art) *didn't* find that this time. _And they were absolutely looking for it_ based on the 35 and especially the 50 Art.

So again, I welcome a proper test on the 85 Art and a proper control lens tested alongside it to baseline out any test conditions or user decisions that might skew the results. If the 85 Art and 85L II have the same hit rate in the same conditions with VF based focusing, this new lens would be a champ in my book.

...which LensTip _almost_ showed but used separate test bodies. 

So someone out there with both 85s, please close the loop for us, would you? Tripod + cable release + each shot defocused before taking the next one + VF based AF. Single point AF on a high contrast target. One battery of comparisons in the center AF point and one (cross type) conducted with an away from center AF point, please. Bonus points: one battery of tests in great light and one in poor interior lighting we might see at a wedding reception, concert, etc. Easy! 

- A


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is _slightly_ different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!
> 
> - A



Not not 15ft away. Only 3 to 5 feet away. But yes a APS-C body at f/7.1 has the equivalent DOF of just over f/11 on FF. However its still thin enough if the eyes are not in perfect focus, then its a dud..

But you talk about shooting wide open. How do you think I calibrated my lenses? All wide open so I could adjust the MFA precisely.. 

Now, I also own FoCal software and it allows the to test focusing accuracy of my lenses. It throws the focus way out and makes it completely refocus each time. I had to add a -1 to my Canon 50mm STM. Nails focus each time consistently from letting the software test the focus. My EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens, had to add a +8. It also consistently nails focus without any variation. My new 18-135mm I am still testing. But its looking very promising. Now my Sigma 18-35mm Art. FoCal says basically that lens is bad. It jumps all around never hitting its mark. My other sigma lenses also vary in and out about +/- ~5. Even after calibration. Those are just the ones I remember. 

Now I am not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money. Do what you want. Matter of fact I think if someone uses Nikon, Sony or a Mirrorless camera. Go for it. Sigma makes optically amazing lenses. But they got issues with Canon.. Thats just reality..


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 4, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Too bad about your 85 1.8--that is one of the fastest, most reliable AF lenses I've ever used. Glad you are doing well with the 50mm Art!



+1

(At least) My copy of the 85mm f/1.8 is deadly in the focus department, both in speed and accuracy. It is the main hesitation I have in upgrading to a better lens optically.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 4, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm anything but a Sigma apologist, but f/7.1 is _slightly_ different than f/1.4. At f/7.1, the AF on an 80D shooting someone at 15 feet away could miss by a foot in either direction and you'd still be in focus!
> ...



Easy there professor. The point still stands. Shooting even head shots at f/7.1 on crop has plenty of DOF (despite your beliefs) for the camera's AF system and is not applicable to the general "focus accuracy" discussion that is occurring in this thread.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.

software does much better quantitative work in judging how much your shot is off from the peak sharpness. some people can notice 15% difference in sharpness. I start noticing things at around 10-15% depending on the scene contrast and lighting levels.

anyway, here is the outcomes:

50 shots taken, camera on Vanguard Abeo Plus 363CB tripod, distance to target : 4.25m, natural light, indoors, cloudy. F1.4, ISO 100, AV - but all shots at T=1/60s, AWB, mirror locked up, remote shutter release.
each shot taken with lens defocused away from the camera to infinity. *OVF focusing (Phase detection AF), not a Live view contrast detection*.
in camera AFMA: 0 all AFMA adjustments are set to the lens firmware via Sigma USB dock. RAW, single shot mode, central AF point selected. all shots are taken in sequence, no shots were pre-selected or discarded.. you have got them all. check the EXIF data to confirm the test conditions are as per above.
target Focal Standard Target at 200% (A2 size).

*all 50 files can be downloaded at the following link:*

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wzwzfrt5eqa28bm/AAA_AxaK3Xx3KIEgylTeZoP0a?dl=0

*I encourage interested parties to conduct independent evaluation of the test files in order to confirm Sigma 85 1.4 Art lens AF consistency level.*

I also loaded all 50 files in Rekian Focal for focus consistency analysis.


end result, as per Reikan Focal : *ConsistencyofFocus 96.4%*

the absolutely worst sharpness achieved: 1556.6
the peak sharpness achieved:1691.4

*maximum deviation from peak focus: 7.97%*
*please note: if the worst and the best shot were excluded, the focus deviation is within 5%*

*not a single shot was OOF. all 50 shots are in focus (less than 10% focus deviation from the peak sharpness)*

ReikanFoCalFocusConsistencyTestReport can be downloaded here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbw2bah6h51luil/170205_143252_AFC_Canon%20EOS%206D_308051002045_EF24%20f_1.4L%20II_85mm.PDF?dl=0


Reikan Focal identified the lens as Lens EF24f/1.4LII FocalLength 85.0mm apparently, if you twist the focal length ring of the EF24f/1.4LII hard enough you can get to 85mm with the lens 

*ExodistPhotography*

I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF



ahsanford said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: Just FYI, I took 135 photos this afternoon during a photoshoot. I used mainly my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF 50mm STM Lens. I also tested out my new EFS 18-135mm Nano USM (new travel lens). All at f/7.1 on my Canon 80D. Not a single photo was out of focus. And yes I micro adjust all my lenses.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Anyway, here is the outcomes:
> 
> [nice methodology truncated]
> 
> ...



But if you didn't run a control lens to baseline misses from the test method...

I kid. No control will beat a 0% OOF result. 

A+ work, Alex. Do you mind telling everyone what body you tested this on? And any chance you'd rinse and repeat this for off center AF points (pick one, pls pick cross type) or poor lighting?

Thx!

- A


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

Thank you, Sir!

Camera : Canon 6D. body type and body serial number is included with report. 

++++And any chance you'd rinse and repeat this for off center AF points (pick one, pls pick cross type) or poor lighting?

A.M.: I would love to but I am afraid I have got only a single cross type AF point on my 6D to play with - the centre one .Doh ;D ;D ;D

poor light : not sure if this is something that is extremely useful? I took about a hundred of photos in dimly lit studio so far but always used AF assist of GODOX X1t-c wireless trigger and at F7.1 so not a good indicator. I am happy to repeat low light test next weekend. 




ahsanford said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, here is the outcomes:
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2017)

The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> *ExodistPhotography*
> 
> I am ready to accept apologies for unsubstantiated claim regarding Sigma 85 1.4 Art AF inconsistency. this lens is epic with rock solid AF



Keep waiting. You will not get it. 
You can argue yours has no problem. Great, wonderful. Proud for you. Honestly I am. 
But your copy is just one of many. The fact that more Sigma lenses have focusing issues then Canon lenses has not changed. I bought 4 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. 2 have serious focusing issues. I bought 6 Canon lenses in the past 8 years. None of which have focusing issues. This is just me. My experience. I do not claim everyone else has had better or worse.

Like I said, its your money folks.. Your millage may vary, but do not claim that since you have a good or even great copy that everyone else that says they have had issues is either incompetent as a photographer or just lying. If you think this is just me talking.. Visit google and do your on searching on the topic. Its more wide spread then you may think.

While your at it. You may wish to learn what sample variation is..


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

good question. I found that for some reason numbers are target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower. 

peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.





Viggo said:


> The 1dx2 have about the same resolution, does that mean that your FoCal results with the peak sharpness can be comparable numbers with the ones I get?


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.
> 
> anyway, here is the outcomes:



Excellent work Alex_M! Thanks. It's awesome to hear Sigma has improved so much.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> good question. I found that for some reason numbers a target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.
> 
> peak sharpness numbers measured with A4 size Focal target were in vicinity of 2250 at 1.6m distance to target.
> This is sharp. my second sharpest lens is Sigma 35 Art with peak sharpness at about 1980 point and at 1.65m to target.
> ...



I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape about photographers frustrated with Sigma. If you've had good luck, great, happy for you. But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors.

And then, when you seek help from Sigma, they go into the whole, voodoo magic USB dock routine. So you try that and find the exact same results after wasting hours with the silly thing.

As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?

And then you seek help online and get the same inane questions and advice from anonymous know-it-alls who tell you that you simply don't understand AFMA or even how to take a snapshot.

Of course many photographers--the ones who got multiple bad copies of Sigma Art Series lenses--don't want to get burnt once again!

Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so.

Thank you!


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> ...While your at it. You may wish to learn what sample variation is..



You may wish to learn that copy to copy varation test was already conducted by a very reputable company and if you doubt their findings you should have your reality checked as soon as available.

here:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

*Variation*

_The Sigma shows excellent copy-to-copy variation control, as good or better than the Canon L, Nikon G, or Zeiss offerings in this focal length._









ExodistPhotography said:


> I bought 4 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. 2 have serious focusing issues.



I bought 6 Sigma Art lenses in last 3 years. 4 have serious focusing issue. 
18-35 1.8, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1,4, 120 -300 2.8, 85 1.4
But how is this even remotely relevant to a completely new product being 85 1.4 Art with new generation of AF system and improved copy to copy variation as per Uncle Roger? Sir, you have no leg in this case to stand on.


ExodistPhotography said:


> Visit google and do your on searching on the topic. Its more wide spread then you may think.


Thanks. I will let you to do the leg work while I am taking sharp photos with my new beautiful lens. keep googling... :-* :-* :-*



ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > *ExodistPhotography*
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 5, 2017)

I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!

Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.

(And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

I bent out of shape because I would like to help community to get to the bottom of the issue... "photographers" bags the product they have no idea about. what has been in the past does not always applies to the present and top the future. lets talk about what we understand or have experience with.. I have got numbers to back up my case.. see above.

in regards to:

"... But try to imagine getting a lens that has been reviewed as spectacular, and then getting less than half your shots in focus. Order another copy, same thing. Or maybe it is pretty good in the middle, but erratic outside the center AF points. Or pretty good in bright light, but worthless indoors..."

you must be joking right?
I spent hundreds of hours trying to sort AF issues out with 18-35, 24, 35, 50 Art for months with no resolution. replaced lenses, have lenses calibrated by Sigma. no result. then I sold all of my Sigma Art lenses 6 months ago. And you are saying I have to imagine what it takes to be disappointed by Sigma products?

"... Now please stop screaming in bold New Testament red letters and give the new lens with the new motor a chance to be proven for a year or so..."

thanks, I would rather start taking photos with such a nice lens ASAP. The product comes with 24 month warranty. No worries. I'll leave you to it. 



YuengLinger said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > good question. I found that for some reason numbers a target dependent. I used A2 size target today (200% of normal size) I did not bother entering the target size in settings and Focal was under impression that distance to target is only 2.4m instead of 4.25m. Hence sharpness numbers lower as software assumes that sharpness was lower.
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I bent out of shape because I would like to help community to get to the bottom of the issue... "photographers" bags the product they have no idea about. what has been in the past does not always applies to the present and top the future. lets talk about what we understand or have experience with.. I have got numbers to back up my case.. see above.
> 
> in regards to:
> 
> ...



In many states in the USA, we have what is called a three strike rule. Somebody commits two serious crimes, gets prison for a few years, then a relatively minor crime, but because it is the third conviction, they go away for decades. Looking at the past is incorporated in, not only human nature, but the criminal justice system!

Companies go out of business for a series of failures. If the last thing they ever produce happens to be the one they finally got right, too bad.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 5, 2017)

you do not like/trust Sigma product. I get it. No problem. this is your choice. what is that has to do with AF consistency of the lens you have never had a chance to shoot with? I would take solid facts over speculations any day. the fact is: Sigma 85 1.4 Art lens AF performance is consistent, copy to copy variation is excellent. there you have it. I am off to a better things in live. keep talking about the past.




YuengLinger said:


> In many states in the USA, we have what is called a three strike rule. Somebody commits two serious crimes, gets prison for a few years, then a relatively minor crime, but because it is the third conviction, they go away for decades. Looking at the past is incorporated in, not only human nature, but the criminal justice system!
> 
> Companies go out of business for a series of failures. If the last thing they ever produce happens to be the one they finally got right, too bad.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 5, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!
> 
> Sigma is good at marketing. How about a little good will? They could earn some by coming out with a version II of the 50mm and 35mm Art series, with, say, a 90 day upgrade period where they will give a hefty discount for current owners who ship in the old paperweight.
> 
> (And the best thing to do with the old lenses they get back? Steamroller, baby.)



They don't need to steamroller them, they just change the AF motor and sell them as refurbished Mark II lenses.
Better yet they could offer an AF motor and software upgrade for a small, reasonable fee. If they did that, I would have zero hesitation on a Sigma lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> well.. doh.. F7.1 on crop.. right.
> 
> software does much better quantitative work in judging how much your shot is off from the peak sharpness. some people can notice 15% difference in sharpness. I start noticing things at around 10-15% depending on the scene contrast and lighting levels.
> 
> ...



My own test experience for my review was similar to yours...when using the center point. (5D Mark IV body, lens fully calibrated in Sigma USB dock using FoCal as reference tool for arriving at those values, all FoCal tests run multiple times) The closer I went towards the outer focus points, however, the less happy I was with my focus consistency. I have a video test where I demonstrate this (http://bit.ly/2gJ9prW). 

My conclusion was that overall the autofocus was vastly improved when compared to previous Sigma ART lenses I've reviewed (which is all of them save the 24mm, I believe), but that there was still some room for improvement on outer points. Overall, however, I was happy with the focus consistency during my review period, and yes, I watched it very closely.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!
> ...



Third party lens makers have a uphilll battle with Autofocus for a simple reason. They must tell the camera to set its internal parameters, and that includes AF tweaks to match a Canon lens. Only Canon lenses are in the camera firmware.

Usually, this means they try to optimize the lens for a popular FF camera (crop bodies usually have focus errors lost in the depth of field). 

A Dock lets a person setup the lens for one camera only, which can reduce the AF errors, or even make it focus perfectly. Move the lens to a different camera model, and you can have a big mess. That's why focusing tests should be done on multiple bodies without fooling with the dock.

If you are a individual with just one camera, its no issue to adjust your lens with a dock so its optimized for that camera, but if you own several cameras and lenses, it becomes a issue. 

The fact remains that third party lens makers cannot make a lens which performs exactly the same as the Canon lens they emulate.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> You may wish to learn that copy to copy varation test was already conducted by a very reputable company and if you doubt their findings you should have your reality checked as soon as available.
> 
> here:
> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/



In fairness, Alex, that's IQ copy to copy variation. That is not related to AF at all.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> As for Sigma service, did they EVER release an AF firmware fix for the 50mm Art? I know they had zero upgrades for it the first two years the 50mm Art was out. How about even now?



I 100% hear you on not wanting to get burned again, I do. Nor do I think it's wrong to be cagey / skeptical of Sigma's AF. The _entire gear reviewing cottage industry is skeptical of it_ and is testing the crap out of every new Sigma release. They are not shills for Sigma and I trust them (thanks to Dustin for his thorough read on this!)

That said, no one it saying your feelings are misplaced or you don't know what you're talking about. We're saying *the 85 Art is a different animal*. 

No firmware fix is coming for the 50 Art (we presume) because it's not 'AF routine fixable' or they would have done it right away. The fix comes in the form of a new AF design for the 85 Art which (apparently) draws more power, and most everyone's reviews / testing I've seen on this -- with the exception of one guy on youtube -- says that the inconsistency boogeyman is either greatly reduced or altogether slain. I'd love to see this similar performance in 35 and 50 Art, but that's a new _product_, not new firmware. (We'll apparently have to wait for a 35 Art II and 50 Art II to get this reliable AF performance, which is disappointing.)

So feel free to distrust Sigma's track record with AF (I sure do) but respect that this design is indeed different and worthy of testing. So in this case, I will personally base my opinion of the 85 Art independently of what came before it.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 5, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!
> ...



Very reasonable if possible for the engineers. I'd guess a new motor would mean a new casing, possibly repositioning of the elements, etc.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 5, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I'd rather wait and see what Canon has to offer with a rumored 85mm 1.4 than go through more headaches with another Sigma. If a year or so from now the new motor hasn't burnt out on too many Sigma units, I'll think about it!


Yea I rather wait my self.. Not spending money on another sigma for its focusing to be jacked up.. 

I am not taking a chance on being burned a 3rd time.. For that matter, Tamrons 85 f/1.8 VC is stinking sharp and has image stabilization.. I'd try it if I didn't already have the Canon 85mm f/1.8..


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 5, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> My own test experience for my review was similar to yours...when using the center point. (5D Mark IV body, lens fully calibrated in Sigma USB dock using FoCal as reference tool for arriving at those values, all FoCal tests run multiple times) The closer I went towards the outer focus points, however, the less happy I was with my focus consistency. I have a video test where I demonstrate this (http://bit.ly/2gJ9prW).
> 
> My conclusion was that overall the autofocus was vastly improved when compared to previous Sigma ART lenses I've reviewed (which is all of them save the 24mm, I believe), but that there was still some room for improvement on outer points. Overall, however, I was happy with the focus consistency during my review period, and yes, I watched it very closely.




Dustin points at a very good point also.. For portraits I almost never use the center focusing point. I have one of the focusing points over up around were I would want the eyes or closest eye to me. That way I am not moving the lens side to side moving my focal plane out of whack.. Only time I use the center one is for landscapes ..


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 6, 2017)

sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.



ahsanford said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > You may wish to learn that copy to copy varation test was already conducted by a very reputable company and if you doubt their findings you should have your reality checked as soon as available.
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 6, 2017)

Thanks Dustin,

24mm Art AF consistency was quite bad for me. I never understood how Sigma managed to stuff up AF on such a wide lens. The one with better AF performance was, likely, 20mm Art. Other than that 120-300 Sports and DC 50-100 1.8 Art.

in regards to Outer AF points. It may well be just what it is. I trust your findings. Cannot help in getting to the bottom of the issue, unfortunately, due to my Canon 6D known design limitations.
what I would do though if I had a camera with multiple outer AF cross type points:

I would run Reikan Focal with central AF point and then with number of outer AF point at x50 focal length of the lens distance to target to see what numbers Focal would come up with for each individual point.

P.S. I coined the term for the Sigma first generation Art lenses. Rather than call them Auto-focusing Lenses, I called them Auto Focus Assisted Lenses. in reference to how the lenses were able to focus but only good enough to assist in providing an approximate AF reference point rather than precisely focused composition... sadly, but true... 



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> My conclusion was that overall the autofocus was vastly improved when compared to previous Sigma ART lenses I've reviewed (which is all of them save the 24mm, I believe), but that there was still some room for improvement on outer points. Overall, however, I was happy with the focus consistency during my review period, and yes, I watched it very closely.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 6, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.
> ...................



"That Person" :-/


The point I was trying to make to you is that just becuase if your copy is good. That not every copy would be as good or as bad. Most people who have never working in manufacturing have no clue what copy variation is. So please understand I am not or was not trying to be rude or offensive. But I am also not going to sugar coat anything to make anyone feel better either. Cheers, Joe..


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 6, 2017)

I never said that every copy of Sigma 85 Art is good. that is rediculos claim. I claim that good copy, as per manufacturer's specification, Sigma 85 Art AF lens AF performance when centre AF point used, is consistent.

my copy is average sigma 85 1.4 Art, same as Dustin's copy or many other reputable reviewers that conducted their solid AF performance test. not someone that pointed the lens at the bush and claims AF issues.
Why would not you suggest that that reviewer needs to educate himself and condiuct tests in controlled environment? How do you know about my personal level of manufacturing experience, engineering , educational level, or even what I do in life, my personal experiences, methodologies? ritoric question.. yet you suggested I should educate myself on copy to copy variation subject by googling the net... I spent 4 hours of my life to provide community with well documented and structured information that will be, no doubt, usefull for anyone who is evaluating possibility to puchase Sigma 85 Art lens. I am here to learn , share knowledge with like minded individuals and learn about best industry experience of photogs and Canon enthusiasts that know (veryfiably) what they are talking about. I will take beating and panishment any day from Neuro or Jrista and many others I respect for their service to community, there are hundreds if not thousands cases where they helped forum members. I am one of those people that learned a trick or two from this place.
And what do I learn from you? that Canon L glass Phase Detection AF consistency is 99.5% ( 1 ot 200 out of focus) or that you took 135 shots at 15 feet distance to subject at F7.1 on crop camera and all of them were in perfect focus.. and that at f7.1... that dof of you lens (85mm?) is still razor thin at 15 feet to subject on crop camera.. . Well, that wasn't usefull. 
Anyway, I am done with this BS. Go about your business, photography, whatever you do in your life and leave me along. 



ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, that was in relation to the comment that my lens is well focusing but there are bunch of others bad focusing copies due to copy to copy variation. That person even went as far as telling me that I should educate my self (search on Google, apparently) on what copy to copy variation is. I replied that such a study was already conducted by a reputable company.. so my comment was away from AF consistency context and about Sigma 85 Art copy to copy variation only.
> ...


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 6, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I never said that every copy of Sigma 85 Art is good. that is rediculos claim. I claim that good copy, as per manufacturer's specification, Sigma 85 Art AF lens AF performance when centre AF point used, is consistent.


As I said if you read, good or bad.




> Why would not you suggest that that reviewer needs to educate himself and condiuct tests in controlled environment? How do you know about my personal level of manufacturing experience, engineering , educational level, or even what I do in life, my personal experiences, methodologies? ritoric question.. yet you suggested I should educate myself on copy to copy variation subject by googling the net...


As I said "most". 




> I spent 4 hours of my life to provide community with well documented and structured information that will be, no doubt, usefull for anyone who is evaluating possibility to puchase Sigma 85 Art lens. I am here to learn , share knowledge with like minded individuals and learn about best industry experience of photogs and Canon enthusiasts that know (veryfiably) what they are talking about. I will take beating and panishment any day from Neuro or Jrista and many others I respect for their service to community, there are hundreds if not thousands cases where they helped forum members. I am one of those people that learned a trick or two from this place.
> And what do I learn from you? that Canon L glass Phase Detection AF consistency is 99.5% ( 1 ot 200 out of focus) or that you took 135 shots at 15 feet distance to subject at F7.1 on crop camera and all of them were in perfect focus.. and that at f7.1... that dof of you lens (85mm?) is still razor thin at 15 feet to subject on crop camera.. . Well, that wasn't usefull.
> Anyway, I am done with this BS. Go about your business, photography, whatever you do in your life and leave me along.


No one is beating you. As I said I apologize if you thought other wise. This was just a friendly conversation. But when you take what people write out of context and not read it as a whole. Do not get upset when someone tries to clear up the confusion. 

Cheers mate  <-- note this is a happy smiley face.. not a angry arguing face..


----------



## Pandy (Mar 1, 2017)

Would it be safer to wait for reviews on the Sigma 135mm Art before deciding on picking up the 85mm Art? I'm just curious to what ya'll think.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> 
> Yes, this IS a comment on the 85mm, because if the 50 Art didn't work, why would I try the 85? Just for fun?



I believe there are different AF algorithm processors and lens motors between the two. Just like the 35 and 50 Art models. The 35 sucked and the 50 is good and the 85 is great! Not sure firmware could do anything.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 1, 2017)

slclick said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Now if they could only revisit their 50mm Art and tweak it so it AF's reliably on the 5DIII...
> ...



Except the 50 also sucked.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

Viggo said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Not mine, My 35 sucked so I sold it for more than I bought it for as the prices were fluctuating a ton for early adopters. My 50 Art is just as good as a typical ring USM lens. Not stellar like a 135L or a 24-70 Mk2 mind you, but very good. Copy to copy variation is a bitch.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 1, 2017)

slclick said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Indeed it is, however, the five Art lenses I had where very consistently inconsistent...


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

Viggo said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I think I'd stop with that line way before 5!


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm jumping into the conversation late... so just point me to a pay number and I'll go and look at what it says... 

but my question is... is the bokeh magic? I saw one set of real world images, and I was underwhelmed. first, it looked liked they stopped down to at least f2.8, and if it was wide open, no thank you.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 1, 2017)

jdramirez said:


> I'm jumping into the conversation late... so just point me to a pay number and I'll go and look at what it says...
> 
> but my question is... is the bokeh magic? I saw one set of real world images, and I was underwhelmed. first, it looked liked they stopped down to at least f2.8, and if it was wide open, no thank you.



The thing I don't like is that the fall off between the sharp area and blur area is way to sharp, so the sharp subject looks almost like a cut out, compared to for example Zeiss where the transition is very smooth and creates a more 3D look with a lot of pop.

That and what you said, it's not as smooth and looks stopped down a bit.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 2, 2017)

nailing focus at f1.2 is like catching lightning in a bottle... so I'm ok with a 5% hit rate and post production to remove the chromatic aberration.



Viggo said:


> The thing I don't like is that the fall off between the sharp area and blur area is way to sharp, so the sharp subject looks almost like a cut out, compared to for example Zeiss where the transition is very smooth and creates a more 3D look with a lot of pop.
> 
> That and what you said, it's not as smooth and looks stopped down a bit.


----------

