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

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18138819
Sig 85: Approx. 3.73 x 4.97" (94.7 x 126.2 mm) 86mm filter no weight listed.

Canon 135L: 26.5 oz (750g) 3.3 x 4.4" (83 x 112mm) 72mm filter


85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens 36.2 oz (1025g) 3.6 x 3.3" (91.5 x 84mm) 72mm

Canon 85 1.8 15.0 oz (425g) 3.0 x 2.8" (75 x 72mm) 58mm

Hard to say, but I can see this thing being prett darn heavy

It will be. But I'm saying no more than 3-4oz heavier than the 85L. You forgot:

Zeiss 85mm OTUS: 3.98 x 4.88” 86mm Filter and 45.2oz

Also remember the OTUS has a metal hood that is 2oz heavier than all sigma/canon versions. and the Sigma is more plastic construction so again. I'm going to say 39oz +/- 1oz. about 3-4oz heavier than the Canon. Just going to see if the bokeh is better than the previous model and at least matches the canon which I think it will due to it's larger than needed lens diameter.

I'd like to point out one thing. Here is a Sigma vs Nikon vs OTUS video by matt granger: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=sqervhmgse0

If you look at 1:25 the #2 is the Sigma and the #3 is the OTUS but this is all compared at F4 OTUS is slightly sharper but not dramatically but still a good amount better.

If you look at 2:00 the #1 is the Sigma at 1.4 and the #2 is the OTUS at 1.4. Big difference huh?

What I'm getting at is if Sigma really is chasing down OTUS performance than look at the gains possible at wide open. BIG difference between the sigma and otus. I think when people get this lens and see that this IS true... everyone will be singing a different tune. Flash forward to the 3:00 mark and you get to see plush fabric/stich detail with all the options including the Canon 1.2 II.

So the question you have to ask is... do you lust after OTUS performance but want it for 1200 instead of 4500? Pretty sure this is what Sigma is doing.

Talley wrote in post #18138829
I'd like to point out one thing. Here is a Sigma vs Nikon vs OTUS video by matt granger: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=sqervhmgse0

If you look at 1:25 the #2 is the Sigma and the #3 is the OTUS but this is all compared at F4 OTUS is slightly sharper but not dramatically but still a good amount better.

If you look at 2:00 the #1 is the Sigma at 1.4 and the #2 is the OTUS at 1.4. Big difference huh?

What I'm getting at is if Sigma really is chasing down OTUS performance than look at the gains possible at wide open. BIG difference between the sigma and otus. I think when people get this lens and see that this IS true... everyone will be singing a different tune. Flash forward to the 3:00 mark and you get to see plush fabric/stich detail with all the options including the Canon 1.2 II.

So the question you have to ask is... do you lust after OTUS performance but want it for 1200 instead of 4500? Pretty sure this is what Sigma is doing.

Which body was he using for that test? With any lens, it would be great to see them tested on an A7 series body for two reasons. No AA filter so we can see their true potential and also no mirror so we can rule out focus issues being the cause of any softness wide open. The Otus may have destroyed the Sigma wide open, but with Sigma's copy variation he may have had a poor copy of the lens for that test.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18138846
Which body was he using for that test? With any lens, it would be great to see them tested on an A7 series body for two reasons. No AA filter so we can see their true potential and also no mirror so we can rule out focus issues being the cause of any softness wide open. The Otus may have destroyed the Sigma wide open, but with Sigma's copy variation he may have had a poor copy of the lens for that test.

Watch the video.

I can confirm the Sigma performance is spot on with is tests to the TWO sigma 85s I've owned. I've been analyzing all sorts of stuff lately about the OTUS and I'm really tickled pink to see it may come close and/or match.

I added in a poll option and added the ability to choose TWO items

Using the only trusted MTF source (lens rentals) I put up the canon, sigma non art, and the otus. I also threw in my 200L because well to me now that is the gold standard

Will be very anxiously waiting to see what lens rentals will come up with on the new 85 Art. I know for sure they will be testing it quickly!

If the Sigma even comes within 10% of the OTUS then it'll destroy the Canon.

little canon wrote in post #18138216
Yes I was referring to the 1.2 and I know it isn't an exact comparison. For families with older kids, the 1.2L is very useful and beautiful! However, for toddlers, it is just hard to wait on the focus and miss that 1/10 second smile. Maybe the 1.2 I tried was exceptionally slow? I only tried it once. I am open to another try.

I'd probably try 70-200 MK II to capture those moments. I know the DOF isn't as shallow as 1.2/1.4 etc but the rest you probably know much better than I do. Its tack sharp and focuses like a teen boy on hotpants (:

dochollidayda wrote in post #18138877
I'd probably try 70-200 MK II to capture those moments. I know the DOF isn't as shallow as 1.2/1.4 etc but the rest you probably know much better than I do. Its tack sharp and focuses like a teen boy on hotpants (:

I use the 200L F2

I might try that. I am just a prime lover ߘ. My husband surprised me with the 100-400mkII for Christmas so my lens bag is full right now. I think I will sell my Canon 100L since I pretty much just use my Zeiss 100 for macros now. My initial thought was to sell the 100L and get an 85mm. But I am open to ideas.

Talley wrote in post #18138883
I use the 200L F2

That's a little too $ for me.

little canon wrote in post #18138898
That's a little too $ for me.

Me too... I'm so fortunate to be sponsored by visa!

Talley wrote in post #18138801
And you don't think in your wildest dreams that the pricing wouldn't go up for the III?

Maybe it will. Pros that use this lens will gladly pay that price. Advanced amateurs will as well.

Charts are charts. I think too much is put on the technical side of lens specs. Sure the Otus is awesome... but how many REALLY NEED that kind of sharpness when you are shooting wide open and obliterating a background?

Let's be honest here... 85mm is primarily a portrait lens. If the 85L II focused faster I would have already had one in my bag. I don't care what it costs... up to a point. The 85 1.8 gets me excellent results and autofocuses pretty damned fast... for a very, very small fraction of the cost.

I'll wait until the v3 L comes out and then weigh the options of what I have (the 1.8) vs. the NKOTB (85L III and new Sigma).

Lots of people like to stay with native lenses too. Perhaps that's just stupid... but I'm one of them.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18138954
Charts are charts. I think too much is put on the technical side of lens specs. Sure the Otus is awesome... but how many REALLY NEED that kind of sharpness when you are shooting wide open and obliterating a background?

Let's be honest here... 85mm is primarily a portrait lens. If the 85L II focused faster I would have already had one in my bag. I don't care what it costs... up to a point. The 85 1.8 gets me excellent results and autofocuses pretty damned fast... for a very, very small fraction of the cost.

I'll wait until the v3 L comes out and then weigh the options of what I have (the 1.8) vs. the NKOTB (85L III and new Sigma).

Lots of people like to stay with native lenses too. Perhaps that's just stupid... but I'm one of them.

I owned your 85 1.8 for a long time. It's a good lens... super fast and accurate. 1.8 for me is kinda awkward. Suffers from pretty severe CA though and I hated that so got rid of it. I get the whole native glass thing I do. Good luck with that. Oh... sometimes 1.4 isn't about creaming the background. I used my 85 a ton for basketball. Sports it excels in. Who needs sharpness like that wide open?... not you. I could.. the list goes on. I do agree charts are charts... I also know one thing... I try the lens any lens and build my own feeling toward them. Not much autofocusing glass I haven't tried. No interest in manual stuff unless it's a fisheye. I'm not knocking you for your opinions but just wanted to comment and also say thank you and that I do value your input.

I've owned a 50 ART and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.
Both were good, but I sold them and I doubt I will ever buy a non-canon lens again.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18138954
Charts are charts.

I agree, I just don't care what a chart says.