Bokeh/dreamy look difference 85 1.2L Mark I vs Sigma 85 Art in practice ?

I've read the technical Lenstip & mini-review here (comparing to the 85L II) but I haven't seen much portrait sample comparison shots.
Technically the Sigma 85 Art outperforms the L in every way, focus speed, but also the resolution, less CA (more details left after correction)... so at first sight all reasons to upgrade.

But how about the creamy bokeh, are there any sample portrait comparisons with the 85L online yet ?
F1.2 still is a legendary aperture, they hardly make lenses like this.

When the Sigma 85 1.4 (non art) was out I didn't make the switch yet as reviews said the bokeh was more distracting and it was soft in the corners, now i'm doubting more.
==> So to the point : does the 85 1.2L MKI still has a lot more f1.2 dreamy look than the 85 1.4 Art, or is it practically the same ?

IQ if most important for me, if my 85L still has a considerable more dreamy look I stay with the L.
If the difference is neglectable I'll sell it for the Art, any other 85 1.2L MKI owners here that will switch or don't plan to switch ?

Just read some interesting points here and found some videos :
-Sigma employed an iris diaphragm with 9 rounded blades, which has resulted in very nice bokeh in our view.
-Something important : The 85L and 50L were not designed for peak sharpness — they were designed for best bokeh, light falloff, etc.
-The 85 Art is sharp from open aperture, as opposed to older designs that were intended to be softer wide open for the purposes of flattering portraits. This new lens is sharp throughout, although not cruelly over-sharp, so subjects should be pleased enough.
-Found a few real life sample comparisons here! https://www.slrlounge.​com …the-beauty-of-this-beast/
-Recent comparison (modelshoot in the field) : https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=nxdOtZvoD4I
-Bokeh examination : https://www.youtube.co​m …32-456b-bf75-7ebc6fd4e043

Important question for me : my 85L Mark I has the absence of electronics to support E-TTL II flash function, i'm planning to buy a TTL strobe, so it's better that i'll sell it for the Art ?

I cannot comment to most of your post, but I will point out that f/1.2 does not let in double the light as f/1.4 - it is only 1/3 of a stop more. There is f/1.0 at a full stop brighter, then f/1.1, f/1.2, then f/1.4 in thirds of a stop. So it's not too much of a difference in light gathering.

Best regards,

Jason

The new samyang looks good, manual focus though.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=JkkGQJowJ6I

I do not understand what you mean by saying your 85 L doesn't support ETTL II flash? The ETTL II functionality is part of the body, not of the lens. I know that some newer Canon lenses support passing of focus distance information, to assist the flash functionality, but it doesn't stop ETTL II from functioning at all. From what I have seen published though, the distance information that is passed, it is also recorded in the EXIF data, is actually so unreliable as to be virtually worthless. I didn't think that too many of the third party lenses tried to pass this information either, so that may make no difference anyway. I know that I would not be concerned about getting or having a lens that didn't do the distance data, none of my lenses do, and they all work perfectly fine with my ETTL II compatible Sigma flash.

Alan

If the art holds up and good consistent copies produce great results for the masses, then Canon will be in trouble. People are not going to spend $1000.00 more for this new 85L coming out when The Sigma 85 art is as good as it appears to be. From everything I have seen, the new 85 Art looks killer.

As far a Bokeh goes...your splitting hairs in my opinion. They are so close that its not really worth arguing about.

I think if you take the standard Bokeh King......which is the 200L f/2.0 and compare it to the Zeiss Otus 85 and then compare it to the siggy and the 85L its pretty obvious where the top glass for these needs stand. Nothing is gonna touch the 200L or the Otus. Absolutly Nothing. I would argue that the 135L would be next in line and my personal opinion, there is not much there to argue about BT the Siggy and the Canon L in the 85 Class.

One thing is abundantly clear. Everything I just mentioned is top notch glass and all of these lens produce Killer Bokeh.

For me the determining factor will be the ability to slap on ND's for studio use whicjh is becoming less of a concern with the new Godox lighting.HSS is flawless on the units but I still like an ND so I know here I am at.

Im leaning towards the Siggy but I have enough room to use the 135L in my studio so I may stay with the 135L. see image below

I'd be sticking with the 135L if you don't really need 85mm due to space. That's just my opinion though

I find the bokeh quality from Otus 85 mediocre. The overcorrected optics shows onion rings in bokeh balls. I dont like it. Usually there is a trade of between sharpness + corrected abberations and smooth out of focus rendering. I think a lens with undercorrected spherical abberation produce best bokeh quality. The Zeiss Milvus 85 have better bokeh than Otus 85. 50L is a good example of lens with a lot spherical abberation and very smooth bokeh.

Bokeh and out of focus area quality is a subjective matter and hard to discuss though. Smooth transition between highlights and shadows is important for me. Homogenus bokeh balls with none onion rings are important.

Maybe you are going to laugh at me now but I have to state that of all lenses I have used on my Canon bodies the 50 1.8 STM at MFD produce the best out of focus quality. Lens used at minimum focus distance also produce shallower DOF than 50L at f/1.2! 50 STM have better bokeh than 50L, 85L and 135L.

End of off topic.

Hmmm ... "End of argument" or any near equivalent usually signifies "Start of s**t-storm".

the hulk wrote in post #18237535
50 STM have better bokeh than 50L, 85L and 135L.

Very subjective. My opinion is just the opposite.

the hulk wrote in post #18237535
Bokeh and out of focus area quality is a subjective matter and hard to discuss though..

...aaannnddd this is why i laugh at those constantly making sweeping statements about superiority of one lens compared to another particularly when it comes to bokeh quality, first of all it's subjective, one person is going to appreciate a particular type of rendering over another, secondly with the higher end lenses companies are producing these days the differences are getting so small you have to examine it like 100% 5 different ways just to tell a difference, and of course there is that brand/confirmation bias where some feels the need to constantly defend what they have purchased

it reminds me few years back when digital rev did a blind bokeh test between 35L v1 and sigma 35 art and the internet ended up quite overwhelming voting the sigma to be the better lens (think it was like 70/30 split or something like that), even though when the 35 art first came out everyone's like "oh sigma knows how to make a sharp lens but their bokeh is sh!t" as if it's so bad it would hurt you eyes looking at it

got another example between 50L vs 50 art as well but i'll stop here before going too off topic as well (or start something else altogether )

That is why it is important to define what you think is a good out of focus or bokeh quality.

Also how you use the lens. I usually shoot near MFD and all lenses have different rendering compare shooting at 30 meters distance.

I am also interested in selling my 85LII for the 85 Art but I am not shure yet. Mostly interested in better AF speed and manual focus mechanism.

Look at the 85 Art thread in Sample forum.

When I browse through pictures, if it's the 85L then it usually stands out straight away with that unique look.
It is not about the sharpness but about the overall character.

If you're after the look and already own the 85L, I'm not sure why you would want to get the Sigma 85 Art instead.
Reviews and sample pictures I have seen so far all show a much sharper lens, much better AF, less CA, but also less character. That's subjective of course, but that 85L look is what makes it unique lens.

Also, the Sigma is a huge beast, it is much much bigger than the 85L.

If you want the dreamy look, or simply character in a lens, don't go for any of the Sigma Art lenses. They're stupid sharp and Sigma has really solved their focus problems with them (as far as I've heard); the lenses are basically perfect on paper. If you want super sharp, then go for it; my 30mm Art is insanely sharp. If you want the dreamy look, or just general character, then skip the Sigma Art line; I wish I did.

Scottboarding wrote in post #18239509
If you want the dreamy look, or simply character in a lens, don't go for any of the Sigma Art lenses. They're stupid sharp and Sigma has really solved their focus problems with them (as far as I've heard); the lenses are basically perfect on paper. If you want super sharp, then go for it; my 30mm Art is insanely sharp. If you want the dreamy look, or just general character, then skip the Sigma Art line; I wish I did.

There are a ton of 3rd party processing tools to soften up "too sharp" images. I would rather have a stupidly sharp lens and use Nik filters on the files, than to have a not-so-sharp lens and have to post process that sharpness back in later, personally.

But if you are happy with the 'look' of the image ... you don't need to do any special processing.

There is no perfect solution ... the lens that works for you is the one that delivers the image that pleases you most. It's going to be different strokes for different folks.

As you imply, it's personal. If the 'dreamy' 85ii look is what you prefer, though, what's the point in putting in all that extra processing time? It's just some more of your life spent staring at a screen.