# Review: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG Art Series Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 10, 2017)

```
DPReview has completed their review of the highly anticipated Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG Art series lens, and have come away quite impressed.</p>
<p><strong>From DPReview:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art offers some incredible image quality for the price, with outstanding class leading sharpness, excellent subject isolation and bokeh performance. The F1.4 aperture makes it a fantastic choice for low-light events and portrait shooting. The lens does experience some purple and green fringing when it’s shot wide open at F1.4 in harsh backlit conditions, but stopping it down to F2.5 eliminates it entirely. All in all this lens is one of the best portrait lenses we’ve seen to date and at a bargain price for the performance. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-lens">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG Art: <strong><a href="https://bhpho.to/2ky91Cj">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2ktW21L">Amazon</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/sg8514aca.html?kbid=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-canon.html?acc=3">MPEX</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 10, 2017)

I'm glad they picked up on the longitudinal CA in their review. DXO completely missed that due to (I presume) shooting only in controlled, lab-type conditions. Great review of a great lens. It's too big to be the lens for everyone, but I do think it is a fantastic studio portrait lens.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 10, 2017)

Not sure about the lab - the purple borders are quite visible while shooting charts... DxO shouldn't be taken seriously IMO (especially for the Canon-related reviews  ).


----------



## sebasan (Feb 10, 2017)

This review seems to be more oriented to sony users. Nevertheless thanks for sharing


----------



## SlydeR (Feb 10, 2017)

Will be ordering one shortly...right after I get my 16-35


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

Yet they test it on a Sony mirrorless camera and Canon DSLRs in Live view using DPAF. So in other words, they did not test the AF ability of the lens. Everything focuses perfectly using Live View.. Its like they wanted to avoid testing it using standard DSLR focusing system..


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Yet they test it on a Sony mirrorless camera and Canon DSLRs in Live view using DPAF. So in other words, they did not test the AF ability of the lens. Everything focuses perfectly using Live View.. Its like they wanted to avoid testing it using standard DSLR focusing system..



Glad you caught that...Was it because Sony is mirrorless? They definitely did not cover through-the-VF (phase detect) AF, so here we are again with another sharp Sigma and a big question mark next to AF.

Looks like a good lens. If Canon is really working on an 85 1.4 IS, what will the price be? I love my 85 1.2, but to be able to use an 85 with the same IQ, FASTER AF, plus IS at 1.4 instead of 1.2 seems like a very satisfying "compromise."

Looking forward to seeing some pro work with the new Sigma.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Yet they test it on a Sony mirrorless camera and Canon DSLRs in Live view using DPAF. So in other words, they did not test the AF ability of the lens. Everything focuses perfectly using Live View.. Its like they wanted to avoid testing it using standard DSLR focusing system..
> ...



I suspect that at least part of the reason (speaking as a reviewer) is that doing AFMA calibration on lenses is time consuming, and that is many times over as true when a lens requires calibration at different focus distances (using the Sigma USB dock) to achieve accurate focus. I get rather weary just thinking about doing it sometimes.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 10, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ExodistPhotography said:
> ...


It would be useful to me and maybe others if you would explain the procedure you use with FoCal and the Sigma Dock.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 10, 2017)

I've experienced zero consistency issues with my copy of the 85A and it did not require any dock calibration like I needed with my 50A.

I've owned the lens for nearly 3 months and have used it in a very wide range of conditions. It only struggled in low light Servo where my 135L did not, but the drive speed for AF on that lens is far superior to the Sigma...It's just one of the fastest, period, so that may have been why as well. For low light portraits, it would be no problem. Moving? Forget it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 10, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Pretty straightforward. The USB dock (or Tamron Tap In Console), has four different focus distance calibration points. I run multiple FoCal tests at each focus distance, make sure I'm getting a consistent value, then I plug that value into the lens and zero out AFMA in the body. I move on to the next spot and the do the same thing. Hopefully you will see a consistent pattern in the results (often the further out you move, the more adjustment you need). I prefer a nice linear result that is only a few points different from one extreme to the other, but you don't always get that. Then (and I can't stress this enough), I field test the lens and try to shoot a fair bit wide open at different focus points. I've had a few occasions where field results have sent me back to the calibration stage. at a specific focus distance. It doesn't matter what FoCal says if that isn't what works in the field.

Oddly enough I have enough issues calibrating a copy of the 35L II (yes, I was shocked too!) that I purchased at the beginning of the year that I was about to return it. I did one last AFMA, got a new value, and that seems to be working. I had run AFMA about six times previously (multiple times per test), and hadn't gotten this value. Sometimes a new lens almost seems to need a bit of a break in period.


----------



## sebasan (Feb 11, 2017)

Is this a good lens for indoor sports? I think it is but i would like that somebody with experience in that area can tell me if this focal lenght and aperture are good for indoor sports (basket, volley, handball, etc)
Thanks


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 11, 2017)

here is some... I think that I was able to prove that Sigma 1.4 Art AF performance is quantifiably solid.
I can refer you to the set of 50 shots wide open if you are still in doubt ;D
Longtitudinal CA can pose an issue for an outdoor shooters in back lit settings. as Dustin already mentioned: perfect studio lens. 

https://goo.gl/photos/BynovYBQHy3SAbDU7









YuengLinger said:


> Looks like a good lens. If Canon is really working on an 85 1.4 IS, what will the price be? I love my 85 1.2, but to be able to use an 85 with the same IQ, FASTER AF, plus IS at 1.4 instead of 1.2 seems like a very satisfying "compromise."
> 
> Looking forward to seeing some pro work with the new Sigma.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 11, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Oddly enough I have enough issues calibrating a copy of the 35L II (yes, I was shocked too!) that I purchased at the beginning of the year that I was about to return it. I did one last AFMA, got a new value, and that seems to be working. I had run AFMA about six times previously (multiple times per test), and hadn't gotten this value. Sometimes a new lens almost seems to need a bit of a break in period.



I remember that Eldar also said his 35LII had problems with the AF at first, but suddenly was perfectly fine. Odd!


----------



## Eldar (Feb 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly enough I have enough issues calibrating a copy of the 35L II (yes, I was shocked too!) that I purchased at the beginning of the year that I was about to return it. I did one last AFMA, got a new value, and that seems to be working. I had run AFMA about six times previously (multiple times per test), and hadn't gotten this value. Sometimes a new lens almost seems to need a bit of a break in period.
> ...


Yes, that´s correct. I struggled quite a bit to get it right with the 35L II. I even sent it to CPS, twice, to figure out what was wrong, but they said everything was fine. So I continued to try and as Dustin experienced, I retried FoCal a number of times, tested real life shooting at different distances and suddenly I got it right. A weird experience, but It has been working well ever since, so, apart from all the time spent on calibration, I can´t complain.


----------



## bod (Feb 11, 2017)

[/quote]
Yes, that´s correct. I struggled quite a bit to get it right with the 35L II. I even sent it to CPS, twice, to figure out what was wrong, but they said everything was fine. So I continued to try and as Dustin experienced, I retried FoCal a number of times, tested real life shooting at different distances and suddenly I got it right. A weird experience, but It has been working well ever since, so, apart from all the time spent on calibration, I can´t complain.
[/quote]

I also test my lenses at several focus distances and have been surprised by my copy of the 35L II. In real life shooting the IQ can be excellent but I found AF poor at certain distances. Focal tests confirmed this showing too much variation in AFMA. Whilst the AFMA varation with distance is less than I experienced with a copy of the Sigma 35 art it is noticeably worse than the othe Canon AF lenses I have. So my copy is now back with Canon. Hopefully it will perform better when it returns!


----------



## heretikeen (Feb 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Not sure about the lab - the purple borders are quite visible while shooting charts... DxO shouldn't be taken seriously IMO (especially for the Canon-related reviews  ).



Sounds a lot like that whole "alternative facts" and "fake news" stuff ... Believe only what supports your point of view


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 12, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Not sure about the lab - the purple borders are quite visible while shooting charts... DxO shouldn't be taken seriously IMO (especially for the Canon-related reviews  ).


 If they're unreliable in regards to Canon, they're unreliable in regards to any other brand. It's just less insulting to read useless reviews that are positive towards your preferred brand, and one can convince oneself that the review is honest.


----------



## michi (Feb 12, 2017)

I just wish I knew when the new Canon 85mm will be released. I'm looking for a excellent portrait lens in this range. My Canon 85 1.8 is just too soft. If the new Canon is under $1500 I would purchase it if it is as good as most of the new Canon lenses. Otherwise I would try the Sigma.


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 12, 2017)

michi said:


> I just wish I knew when the new Canon 85mm will be released. I'm looking for a excellent portrait lens in this range. My Canon 85 1.8 is just too soft. If the new Canon is under $1500 I would purchase it if it is as good as most of the new Canon lenses. Otherwise I would try the Sigma.



The new 35 is 1799. I would be willing to be that the new 85 will be at least that. It wouldn't surprise me if it reached or broke over the 2k mark.


----------



## michi (Feb 12, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> The new 35 is 1799. I would be willing to be that the new 85 will be at least that. It wouldn't surprise me if it reached or broke over the 2k mark.


Yeah, if that's the case, it will have to be the Sigma for me.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 13, 2017)

Eldar said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



That's very interesting. I didn't have that issue with my review copy at all, but I was just about to give up on my own copy and have it replaced, but it seems to be focusing well at a +1, which is surprising as I wasn't getting consistent results at AFMA points all around that.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 13, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ..........
> 
> I suspect that at least part of the reason (speaking as a reviewer) is that doing AFMA calibration on lenses is time consuming, and that is many times over as true when a lens requires calibration at different focus distances (using the Sigma USB dock) to achieve accurate focus. I get rather weary just thinking about doing it sometimes.



Sigma's USB dock is a utter pain. You have to keep taking it off the camera and putting it on the dock. Then back to the camera.. LOL.. Nah.. I am selling mine.. I rather go apple bobbing in a bucket of salt..
I often use FoCal at first and see how it performs and let it set it in camera. Then I do my own test at the distance I will be using and see if I need to bump it up or down a notch. But really DP review could have did this in 20 mins, even if they did it manually. 


@Larsskv
Speaking of their AF test. Yea I caught that too. They didn't use PDAF. :-/ So IMHO this makes their AF test results invalid for any DSLR shooter. Case in point my 18-35mm Art works perfect in Live View and on a mirrorless body. However using Phase Detect it will not focus correctly at all.

IMHO I will pass. For the price, no IS, no form of weather sealing.. The fact that most will shoot at about f/2.8 anyway.. Makes the Tamron look like a much better buy for a portrait photographer.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2017)

Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.

Had the same thing with all new lenses and bodies


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 13, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.
> 
> Had the same thing with all new lenses and bodies



I've become a believer. I had similar focus results across 6D bodies, but then had more work in calibrating existing lenses when moving to the 5D Mark IV. Once everything is dialed in, though, I get even better focus results. It just takes longer to get there.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Most people thought I was a bit crazy when I claimed new lenses adapt to the camera better and better after a while, I haven't looked for a reason why, just accepted that it is that way.
> ...



100% agreed, at least I'm not crazy ;D


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 14, 2017)

1. Sigma 85 F1.4 Art comes with weather sealing at the mount. Just so that you are aware.
2. Tamron lens is also dock calibrated = hassle.. no good then? 

3. what else apart from IS makes Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a better lens?  smaler, lighter, cheaper a bit? yep. it is. I did shoot with both of these lenses side by side for a test. conclusion: I am sorry, but one has to be blind to not detect performace difference. Tamron is good all rounder lens. no question about it. Not a spectacular lens, not a champion. 



ExodistPhotography said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > ..........
> ...


----------



## JoFT (Feb 14, 2017)

It would be interesting to know, how the Sigma compares the the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4...


The Milvus is weather and dust proof.....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 14, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> 1. Sigma 85 F1.4 Art comes with weather sealing at the mount. Just so that you are aware.
> 2. Tamron lens is also dock calibrated = hassle.. no good then?
> 
> 3. what else apart from IS makes Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a better lens?  smaler, lighter, cheaper a bit? yep. it is. I did shoot with both of these lenses side by side for a test. conclusion: I am sorry, but one has to be blind to not detect performace difference. Tamron is good all rounder lens. no question about it. Not a spectacular lens, not a champion.



Less CA, better real world contrast, softer, less busy bokeh highlights, better minimum focus distance and maximum magnification, full weather sealing.

The ART lens has [slightly] more sharpness at wide apertures (though the Tamron has [slightly] more sharpness stopped down), the ART has better vignette performance, and I think a slightly more nuanced handling of light falloff in the studio.

They are both excellent lenses for people with different sets of shooting priorities. I don't get why people have to bash one lens to praise the other.

As for "having to be blind to not detect performance difference", I would encourage you to look at this: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-85mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F016-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1776_1009_1685_1009.

It mirrors my own findings, save that DXO's chart test misses the real world CA issue for the ART lens in more difficult lighting. The Art lens resolves 2 more megapixels (40 vs. 38) and lets in .2 stop more light despite its aperture advantage and massive front element (1.8 T stop vs 2 T stop). I would argue that you would have to have *incredibly good sight* to notice the sharpness difference in real world shooting.

Here's a crop from my own test...I must be blind. The Sigma 85 ART is a fantastic lens...but to argue that the Tamron is not is to ignore the evidence.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 15, 2017)

michi said:


> I just wish I knew when the new Canon 85mm will be released. I'm looking for a excellent portrait lens in this range. My Canon 85 1.8 is just too soft. If the new Canon is under $1500 I would purchase it if it is as good as most of the new Canon lenses. Otherwise I would try the Sigma.



$1,800+


----------

