SIGMA 85mm f/1.4 ART Best 85 ever?

FTb wrote in post #18284375
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.

Give it time... not enough people have had it yet and they are still backordered in many places.

I've tested vs my friends 85L and the sigma is no slouch... the canon will render a smoother creamier background though so for many that would be preferred... I picked AF speed over the canon and sharpness w/ a whole lot less CA. Those were my requirements. Side by side ya you can see a smidge of a difference w/ the canon bokeh but you'll never have a customer complain about either when producing images that are worthy.

I agree we're likely to see some nice stuff as more people use it.

My issue with the Sigma isn't the bokeh. It's the way it renders skin tones. Both the Canon 200L and 85L can render them with a bit of fairy dust. It's almost as if looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Not necessarily accurate or perfect, but beautiful.

The Sigma seems really clear and clean, but I'm not seeing that little extra magic. Now, I'm sure some people will love the Sigma's lack of "coloration", "aberration" or whatever you choose to call it.

I'm not saying they are wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying I'll pick a little magic in my portraits over a bit more sharpness any day.

FTb wrote in post #18284391
I agree we're likely to see some nice stuff as more people use it.

My issue with the Sigma isn't the bokeh. It's the way it renders skin tones. Both the Canon 200L and 85L can render them with a bit of fairy dust. It's almost as if looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Not necessarily accurate or perfect, but beautiful.

The Sigma seems really clear and clean, but I'm not seeing that little extra magic. Now, I'm sure some people will love the Sigma's lack of "coloration", "aberration" or whatever you choose to call it.

I'm not saying they are wrong and I'm right. I'm just saying I'll pick a little magic in my portraits over a bit more sharpness any day.

You desire flaw.

All depends on how you choose to view it.

You focus on a "flaw" in the lens and want to avoid it.

I focus on a flaw in the images produced by the Sigma -- an overly sterile and threadbare character -- and want to avoid that.

Pick your poison.

FTb wrote in post #18284375
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.

Im saying it loud and clear. There is nothing on the market in the 85 class that will come close to what the 200L does.....Nothing.....t​he 135L is the closest 2nd and its a close 2nd with 1/2 body shots only....not for full body shots

Nothing can touch a 200L or its price tag

umphotography wrote in post #18284642
Im saying it loud and clear. There is nothing on the market in the 85 class that will come close to what the 200L does.....Nothing.....t​he 135L is the closest 2nd and its a close 2nd with 1/2 body shots only....not for full body shots

Nothing can touch a 200L or its price tag

No it does but what your talking about is how nothing comes close to the compression you get with the 200.... and your wrong the 400 2.8 does better.

But when u compare actual sharpness color contrast etc the 85a is more similar than you think but your right it cannot match the compression of the telephoto.

umphotography wrote in post #18284642
There is nothing on the market in the 85 class that will come close to what the 200L does.....Nothing.....t​he 135L is the closest 2nd

Uhm, close second is the Zeiss 135 APO. Has a very similar rendering, although the FL is quite different.
The 135L is a great lens, but doesn't come even close to the best apochromatic glass.

Patbil10 wrote in post #18283935
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.

Problem with the Tamron for me is color rendering. Orangish cast.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18284884
Problem with the Tamron for me is color rendering. Orangish cast.

Easily corrected in post !

Patbil10 wrote in post #18284951
Easily corrected in post !

1.8 boring

CheshireCat wrote in post #18284883
Uhm, close second is the Zeiss 135 APO. Has a very similar rendering, although the FL is quite different.
The 135L is a great lens, but doesn't come even close to the best apochromatic glass.

Actually, although the Sony is very clearly has better overall IQ, IMHO comparing these two, coming "even close", is exactly what the Canon does. Obviously this is a matter of opinion in use, but looking at measurements and numbers, given that the Sony is over double the cost, the Canon does indeed come very close.

One of the factors I have often compared the 135mm L favorably with the 200mm f/1.8L (and now f/2L) is it's autofocus. I'd weight that at about 2/5ths the reason why it is the best bang for your buck competitor for the ultra pricey 200mm options. Given that what I use this lens for is people, usually of the moving persuasion, AF is very important to me. So 2/3rds aside, for ME it would be more like 9/10

Obviously the SONY can't compete there, so back to IQ.

The two lens' distortion measurements are the same, the light fall off is nearly the same (slight edge to the Canon) The Sony edges the out the Canon on light transmission, CA, and has it's biggest lead in sharpness and MTF wide open. (of course, wide open is where we shoot them, so the fact that Canon ties up by f/2.8 is a dubious achievement)

Given that pretty much everyone posting in this thread has said that for a SIGMA sharpness does not mean a better lens, I am unsure why it would be weighted so heavily in favor of a Sony, given it's double price.

SIDENOTE:
I looked at numbers from 3 sources, one of them is DxO . DXO is often a concern IMHO as the numbers can be really contrary to our own experiences. Case in point, they are saying the 135mmL has more measurable CA than the 85mm f/1.8. I find that of all things to be very hard to believe.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18284989
Actually, although the Sony is very clearly has better overall IQ, IMHO comparing these two, coming "even close", is exactly what the Canon does. Obviously this is a matter of opinion in use, but looking at measurements and numbers, given that the Sony is over double the cost, the Canon does indeed come very close.

One of the factors I have often compared the 135mm L favorably with the 200mm f/1.8L (and now f/2L) is it's autofocus. I'd weight that at about 2/5ths the reason why it is the best bang for your buck competitor for the ultra pricey 200mm options.

Obviously the SONY can't compete there, so back to IQ.

The two lens' distortion measurements are the same, the light fall off is nearly the same (slight edge to the Canon) The Sony edges the out the Canon on light transmission, CA, and has it's biggest lead in sharpness and MTF wide open. (of course, wide open is where we shoot them, so the fact that Canon ties up by f/2.8 is a dubious achievement)

Given that pretty much everyone posting in this thread has said that for a SIGMA sharpness does not mean a better lens, I am unsure why it would be weighted so heavily in favor of a Sony, given it's double price.

SIDENOTE:
I looked at numbers from 3 sources, one of them is DxO . DXO is often a concern IMHO as the numbers can be really contrary to our own experiences. Case in point, they are saying the 135mmL has more measurable CA than the 85mm f/1.8. I find that of all things to be very hard to believe.

yup yup yup.

the 135 is no slouch even though the new nikon 105mm is touted as king in mtf charts the 135L is a 21 year old lens and it's barely behind the latest and greatest.

Patbil10 wrote in post #18284951
Easily corrected in post !

This is a common misconception.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18284989
Actually, although the Sony is very clearly has better overall IQ, IMHO comparing these two, coming "even close", is exactly what the Canon does.

I am not talking about the Sony-Zeiss, but the Zeiss APO Sonnar (now renamed Milvus) 135/2.
Unlike other Milvus lenses, the 135 is an Otus-class lens and _the_ benchmark 135mm lens.
The older version (non "Milvus" but same optics) goes for a steal. Get it while you can.

Talley wrote in post #18285008
yup yup yup.

the 135 is no slouch even though the new nikon 105mm is touted as king in mtf charts the 135L is a 21 year old lens and it's barely behind the latest and greatest.

Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=182​85008&i=i147430496
forum: Canon Lenses

Ahem... comparing 135 @ f/2 vs 105 @ f/1.4 ? Seriously ?
And as already said, MTF don't tell the story about chromatic errors. Sorry, the Nikon is a vastly superior lens.