SIGMA 85mm f/1.4 ART Best 85 ever?

DXO and Lenstip both rate the new 85 Art as the sharpest 85mm lens ever, edging out the legendary Zeis Otus.

DPreview rated it the "Best Prime Lens of 2016"

So,. anyone shooting this one?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18278982
edging out the legendary Zeis Otus.

Sure has better AF. How good compared to 85L, please tell me...

Remember when the thought was "the old Sigma 85/1.4 is so good they won't update it for a long time"?

I heard a lot of that here and on CR.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18278982
DXO and Lenstip both rate the new 85 Art as the sharpest 85mm lens ever, edging out the legendary Zeis Otus.

DPreview rated it the "Best Prime Lens of 2016"

So,. anyone shooting this one?

I've seen a review from matt granger that puts the otus above the sig 85 with better correction and contrast. That zeiss contrast can be pretty hard to top, however sigma does seem to have globs of nice contrast.

bokeh of the sigma does seem a bit rough at times

unfortunately, the 86mm filter and sheer size, the lens would be a nonstarter for me. Hoping the 135 f1.8 is smaller.....

It might be sharper, but there's a whole lot more to a lens than simple sharpness. Looking at test charts might make a lens look the best, but in real world, it's beat out by other lenses. I bought my Sigma 30mm Art lens based off test charts; boy do I regret that.

Scottboarding wrote in post #18281202
It might be sharper, but there's a whole lot more to a lens than simple sharpness. Looking at test charts might make a lens look the best, but in real world, it's beat out by other lenses. I bought my Sigma 30mm Art lens based off test charts; boy do I regret that.

I've heard it's disappointing (and sorry to hear when you or anyone regrets a gear purchase) - would you mind comparing it to your 24 STM? Different FL, obviously, but are the images bad or just not good enough to justify the price?

Jake

I have read some reports from people who have the lens about focus inconsistency. Hit or miss and that was the problem with the original 85 siggy. Several people here is WA have said this. Others are saying its the best ever.

So im not 100% sure on it. I think it goes back to IF you get a good copy.

Its on my list to consider but Im going to wait on the 24-70 OS first and go put a couple on my 1Dx2 and see what it looks like.

Im using the 85 1.8 and it does a good job. It NEVER misses focus. Its also really light and I can keep in in my pocket and switch it out with my 35L.....im not going to be able to do that with the siggy. Im told it gets really heavy by those that have used it at 11 hr weddings Which you and I both know about.

Scottboarding wrote in post #18281202
It might be sharper, but there's a whole lot more to a lens than simple sharpness. Looking at test charts might make a lens look the best, but in real world, it's beat out by other lenses. I bought my Sigma 30mm Art lens based off test charts; boy do I regret that.

Please elaborate, not merely lament your 'wrong decision'...curious minds want to know! In photozone.de tests, the 85 ART has over 5400 line-pairs-per-picture-height tested on a 50Mpixel camera, one of the highest MTF numbers ever. So WHAT ASPECTS of the lens made its choice a bad one for you, so others can judge if the same issues exist to the same extent, for them.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18281367
I've heard it's disappointing (and sorry to hear when you or anyone regrets a gear purchase) - would you mind comparing it to your 24 STM? Different FL, obviously, but are the images bad or just not good enough to justify the price?

I wouldn't say it's worth the price difference. When the crop factor is applied, there is a pretty noticeable difference in focal lengths. Simply looking at the focal length, the 24mm is a better all around lens. The Sigma is very very sharp; like corner to corner sharp at f2. The 24mm STM is very sharp too, though a tad soft in comparison (when looking at 1:1 crops). Unless you absolutely NEED the f1.4, stick with the 24mm.

Wilt wrote in post #18281456
Please elaborate, not merely lament your 'wrong decision'...curious minds want to know! In photozone.de tests, the 85 ART has over 5400 line-pairs-per-picture-height tested on a 50Mpixel camera, one of the highest MTF numbers ever. So WHAT ASPECTS of the lens made its choice a bad one for you, so others can judge if the same issues exist to the same extent, for them.

I'm talking strictly about the 30mm in this post, I haven't seen a lot of images from the 85mm so I can't say it's the same case. My biggest complaint is that the images are so flat looking. Think of Zeiss lenses and their 3D pop kind of effect; the 30mm has NONE. The color rendition is pretty boring as well. Unless it's the perfect golden hour, the colors look very flat and need a decent amount of post-processing to look good. The problem is, these things can't be measured. I bought the lens because it performed so well on charts, but in real world use, I just don't like it. I have a Nikon 28mm AIS lens for my Nikon FM2n, and I have an adapter to use the lens on my 7D. That lens has wonderful color rendition, great 3D pop (microcontrast or what ever you want to call it), and general contrast.

None of my comments here come from test charts, or setup tests and comparisons; it's all based off real world use (which can't really be measured sadly). It's for sale if anyone wants it

Finally someone is talking about color rendition and 3D pop. For me, these are much more important qualities than sharpness for a portrait lens.

That's what I love about the Nikon 28mm AIS lens. It has the best color rendition I've ever experienced. Right now I'm using a combo of the 28mm AIS, and the 50mm f1.4 AI because of the colors and 3D pop. I haven't run into any situations where I've needed a different lens. I got both of which for less than the 30mm Art and I'm pretty bummed about that.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18278982
DXO and Lenstip both rate the new 85 Art as the sharpest 85mm lens ever, edging out the legendary Zeis Otus.

Sorry, have to call BS on this.
Just saw a couple comparison shots and the Otus is clearly superior for secondary spectrum correction (LoCA).
The Otus is an apochromatic lens, and true apo lenses are much better (and sharper), especially with 3D subjects.

DXO is a great site if your main subjects are test charts and brick walls.

That said, I stick with my Canon 85L for the rendering style, even if it is way less corrected than the Sigma

As sharp as it is, I don't like the massive size/weight. I have the Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD and this thing is really really sharp as well. I'm very surprised this lens doesn't get more attention. It's super sharp in a small form factor and not that far behind the Sigma. Examples shot wide open:

CheshireCat wrote in post #18282217
Finally someone is talking about color rendition and 3D pop. For me, these are much more important qualities than sharpness for a portrait lens.

Same here

All I can say is it renders like the 200L F2.

Excellent bokeh. Colors are awesome and accurate. I love mine.

The 200 f2 in the right hands can be magical, but I haven't seen any of that same magic with the Sigma.

Not saying it's incapable of it, just that of all photos posted so far, I'm not seeing anything special or even unusual about it. If I thought it were better I'd dump my 85L and get it. But I prefer the rendering of the Canon, especially for portraits, and will be sticking with it.