Who will purchase the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art and when?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18167891
To be honest : i'm a Sigma Art fan (no AF problems as some are afraid of, out of experience with the non-Art cheaper line).
The Art line is like the L lenses (mostly even better IQ)

I replaced my 35L with the 35Art, and I bought a 50 1.4 Art as it was much better than the problematic 50L.
But for the 85 Art it's a different story.

I have the 85 1.2L MKI, which is razorsharp, ok slow focussing but for modelshoots this isn't important.
Af f1.2 gets double the light in than f1.4 I would stay with the Canon for once.
Some people say f1.2 is too thin, but for full body shots it's superb and the model is completely sharp.

So the optics of the 85L can hardly be matched and the Art will be no dreamy f1.2
The only positive would be the faster AF (no OS i thought?), so i'd stick with the 85L for once.

It there would be a 135 Art OS with the same topquality IQ as the 135L I would switch to the Art for the OS.

the 85L is not what I consider "razor sharp". It's somewhat passable with nice background blur. Whatever makes you happy really, if it's the 1.2, then it's the 1.2. I think there's a healthy crowd for more sharper lenses. Take the 24-70 and 70-200. New versions are much sharper and generally more preferable.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18167891
To be honest : i'm a Sigma Art fan (no AF problems as some are afraid of, out of experience with the non-Art cheaper line).
The Art line is like the L lenses (mostly even better IQ)

I replaced my 35L with the 35Art, and I bought a 50 1.4 Art as it was much better than the problematic 50L.
But for the 85 Art it's a different story.

I have the 85 1.2L MKI, which is razorsharp, ok slow focussing but for modelshoots this isn't important.
Af f1.2 gets double the light in than f1.4 I would stay with the Canon for once.
Some people say f1.2 is too thin, but for full body shots it's superb and the model is completely sharp.

So the optics of the 85L can hardly be matched and the Art will be no dreamy f1.2
The only positive would be the faster AF (no OS i thought?), so i'd stick with the 85L for once.

It there would be a 135 Art OS with the same topquality IQ as the 135L I would switch to the Art for the OS.

I doubt the the 135mm Art would so heavily demanded against the 135 L. I have the 135 L and for high compression shots nothing can beat it. It's crispy sharp and for anything not related to low light it's unbeatable. The best thing is the razor fast focus you can utilize for movement shots. For Sigma ART lens like my 35 and 50mm I cannot use AI servo reliably for movement shots and the 135mm L is my go to.

BlazingSkies wrote in post #18168351
I doubt the the 135mm Art would so heavily demanded against the 135 L. I have the 135 L and for high compression shots nothing can beat it. It's crispy sharp and for anything not related to low light it's unbeatable. The best thing is the razor fast focus you can utilize for movement shots. For Sigma ART lens like my 35 and 50mm I cannot use AI servo reliably for movement shots and the 135mm L is my go to.

uh... actually it is beatable... the 200 F2. I've owned them both. Take a look: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Talley wrote in post #18168373
uh... actually it is beatable... the 200 F2. I've owned them both. Take a look: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Yeah of course but the 200 f2 will cost you about 8-10 135 Ls LOL come on thats not a fair comparison

The 135L is less flexible than the 85 but there is no other quality 85 with fast focus, and the 200L is even less flexible (youll need more space to work with)

BlazingSkies wrote in post #18168375
Yeah of course but the 200 f2 will cost you about 8-10 135 Ls LOL come on thats not a fair comparison

The 135L is less flexible than the 85 but there is no other quality 85 with fast focus, and the 200L is even less flexible (youll need more space to work with)

Your post never mentioned price only that it was unbeatable and it is, and the sigma 85 non art is a very high quality lens that works great and myself and most others would agree the 85L II is still a high quality lens that may not be the most technical perfection option out there but still creates a unique look that is unbeatable by most. Bokeh quality is extremely important and that is where the 85L excels most in.

If you want to bring in money factoring then the 85 1.8 probably dominates anything out there especially which can be found for $250 on the used market... but again when it comes to optic comparisions lets not bring money and/or personal economic capability to the table here. We are just talking optics.

I've given up trying to convince others that specific lenses are best based on my own economic decisions. Look at my gear list and you'll see I've pretty much owned all the good stuff out there and/or have used it. I choose my own personal belongings as I see fit but because something is economical or not doesn't change my feeling that I don't recommend and/or call the best available option when based on optics alone.

Many would say my recent lens choices are completely absurd... that instead of owning a single 200 F2 they could own the 16-35 2.8III, 24-70II and 70-200II and that would be a smarter choice but everyone has different needs and desires in their images. Frankly... zooms bore me and this is a hobby and I want the maximum quality available. Primes shot at F4 continually out perform any zoom available.

Talley wrote in post #18168404
Your post never mentioned price only that it was unbeatable and it is, and the sigma 85 non art is a very high quality lens that works great and myself and most others would agree the 85L II is still a high quality lens that may not be the most technical perfection option out there but still creates a unique look that is unbeatable by most. Bokeh quality is extremely important and that is where the 85L excels most in.

If you want to bring in money factoring then the 85 1.8 probably dominates anything out there especially which can be found for $250 on the used market... but again when it comes to optic comparisions lets not bring money and/or personal economic capability to the table here. We are just talking optics.

The 85mm 1.8 is a joke, shoot at 1.8 and the CA compared to other Ls is comparing junk to quality. The 1.8 doesn't even deserve a mention. While the 85L does have CA it is mostly fixable; the amount of CA the 1.8 gives cannot be fixed in post as easily.

BlazingSkies wrote in post #18168425
The 85mm 1.8 is a joke, shoot at 1.8 and the CA compared to other Ls is comparing junk to quality. The 1.8 doesn't even deserve a mention.

If you mention price then it does. I would also say the CA on the 85L is a joke too. Simply put Canon is way outdated on all two of their 85s.

But even still the 85 1.8 and 85L perform very close in terms of CA and sharpness wide open. Even the 1.2 stopped down the biggest thing is CA improvement.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

BlazingSkies wrote in post #18168425
The 85mm 1.8 is a joke, shoot at 1.8 and the CA compared to other Ls is comparing junk to quality. The 1.8 doesn't even deserve a mention. While the 85L does have CA it is mostly fixable; the amount of CA the 1.8 gives cannot be fixed in post as easily.

100F2, the better looking sibling to the 85 f1.8

Charlie wrote in post #18168590
100F2, the better looking sibling to the 85 f1.8

um ya 1/3 stop slower haha

Talley wrote in post #18168601
um ya 1/3 stop slower haha

I'de gladly take the penalty for the longer focal length and better optics, more of my style being more of a natural 50 shooter than 35.... I tend to use portrait lenses as short telephotos in place of typical 70-200's and longer tends to work better, as closer shots will come from the 50. Typically shooting at larger halls, the longer FL is a blessing, heck 200 would work best, but I'm tool lazy to lug it around.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18167891
Af f1.2 gets double the light in than f1.4 I would stay with the Canon for once.

No, f/1.2 is only about 1/3 stop brighter. To get double the amount of light you'd need f/1.0.

That's ignoring the theories that Canon sensors can't take advantage of anything larger than f/1.4 and actually apply a hidden ISO boost.

smythie wrote in post #18169020
No, f/1.2 is only about 1/3 stop brighter. To get double the amount of light you'd need f/1.0.

That's ignoring the theories that Canon sensors can't take advantage of anything larger than f/1.4 and actually apply a hidden ISO boost.

This is true which is why I'll take a strong F1.4 lens over a 1.2 lens. DOF bokeh is the only thing you get for 1.2.

Another video with sample images @1.4 https://youtu.be/sJkVr​hB3IQU

level5photog wrote in post #18169161
Another video with sample images @1.4 https://youtu.be/sJkVr​hB3IQU

ugh... suppose to be ME having this lens.

And... I'll post up 50 images FULL SIZE all at F1.4

Do it the right way!

His test images https://www.flickr.com …/album-72157672208323104/