Zeiss Otus 85mm vs Sigma Art 85mm

UPDATE: A-B-A-B testing at the following link; this link should be used for comparison of outdoor shots! https://imgur.com/a/fw​sHHrL

---

I'll be posting comparison images. I have no intention of making a comparison of the sharpness; dxomark did far better than I can. My goal is to compare color rendering.

For my first post, I'll show the Color Checker.

Both images are unedited, except for an equal crop. Both lenses naked (no filter). Tripod didn't move; the Sigma has wider FoV.

The first image was taken by the Otus. It's both more narrow (FoV), and brighter (.3-.4 ev)

After applying exposure correction, but not ColorChecker correction, the top-left color temp chart measures: 81.6-86-89.7 with the Otus, and 81.8-86-90.2 with the Sigma Art. They're extremely close. Note: I did not post the images used for this.

Comparing lens A and B before calibration, the colors are very close to each other. Much closer, in fact, to each other - than they are to a comparison between their own ColorChecker calibrated results.
After calibration, the Otus' colors are slightly less vibrant than the Art's colors.. I expect this slight variance could be attributed to the exposure difference.

-------

Images below are after applying exposure correction and ColorChecker correction.

Top image is still the Otus. Again, apparent by the FoV.

UPDATE: A-B-A-B testing at the following link; this link should be used for comparison of outdoor shots! https://imgur.com/a/fw​sHHrL

I removed the old images.

-----


Outdoor pictures.
Neither lens wore a filter, and I used a tripod (190GO). I used the same settings for each picture.

You can identify the pictures by knowing that the ART gives a wider shot.

The exposure difference isn't noticeable in these shots. I don't have an explanation for that.

--- RESERVED ---

Not sure about DXO ... but if they have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ii sharper than the first generation Tamron, there's room for more feedback about other lenses like these 85mm. A photographer in no uncertain terms demonstrated Tamron being sharper. I haven't seen DXO, but would guess it suggests Canon sharper. As for these two 85mm, color passport cards are clinical. But once it comes to real photos, its like taking the "red pill" and the games begin all over again.

Also, what was the source of illumination for these samples?

mdvaden wrote in post #18771118
Also, what was the source of illumination for these samples?

Streaklight 360. 45" Umbrella.

Outdoor samples added.

One doesn't look wider than the other enough that I can tell the lenses apart that way. The look of the top outdoor photo looks nicer to me. I like the color better, but also where the words are "be part of the solution" the top image looks significantly better.

If I were buying images and couldn't hold the lens or know what they were and these photos were in the camera store showcase and I had to choose from that, I would be buying the lens that goes to the top photo, assuming I had funds for any of the choices.

The difference seems minimal out into the bokeh and vignetting areas.

mdvaden wrote in post #18772180
One doesn't look wider than the other enough that I can tell the lenses apart that way. The look of the top outdoor photo looks nicer to me. I like the color better, but also where the words are "be part of the solution" the top image looks significantly better.

If I were buying images and couldn't hold the lens or know what they were and these photos were in the camera store showcase and I had to choose from that, I would be buying the lens that goes to the top photo, assuming I had funds for any of the choices.

The difference seems minimal out into the bokeh and vignetting areas.

Blur, sharpness (when unaffected by LoCA), and vignette are all pretty close IMO.

Of the two outdoor images I posted directly in this thread, the top image belongs to the Otus. The colors (at least warm colors) stand out more, and overall the image is less cool.

I'd say that when you buy an Otus, you're buying 4 things: mild-moderate increased contrast, moderate improvement in color, significantly better LoCA control, and a moderately better manual focusing ring
When you buy the ART, you get: auto focus, and enough savings to buy about 3 more ART lenses.

In the images we're talking about, look at the pipe on the left of the image. At the bottom left, it's much closer to the edge of the frame with the Otus.

Is it me, my screen or else? Second wall and Toyota shot has more blue cast on "the part of..." part.

kf095 wrote in post #18775966
Is it me, my screen or else? Second wall and Toyota shot has more blue cast on "the part of..." part.

That's probably part of the difference the OP referred to when posting the photos. And yes, the 2nd does look that way. I'm glad the 2nd set was posted because is reveals even more about the lenses than the color card photos. If portrait samples of someone against a nice garden or woodland scene were placed side by side from a day with nice light, even more variation should become evident.

Today I did A-B-A-B testing. Not A-B, and not A-A-B-B.

Images marked to indicate which lens was used.

https://imgur.com/a/fw​sHHrL

Apart from LoCA and FL, I now no longer see much difference between the lenses.

icor1031 wrote in post #18776222
Today I did A-B-A-B testing. Not A-B, and not A-A-B-B.

Images marked to indicate which lens was used.

https://imgur.com/a/fw​sHHrL

Apart from LoCA and FL, I now no longer see much difference between the lenses.

Against flat surfaces like that I would not expect much difference either, unlike say, portraits of people in scenes with variation of objects, textures, plants at different distances.

Given the cost of these lenses, I'd probably prefer to get a Sigma Art + a Zeiss Milvus instead of putting all the money into one Zeiss Otus.

Dustin Abbott has compared this Sigma 85mm Art and Zeiss Otus 85mm and even the Tamron 85mm. In this attached video, he gives a solid recommendation for the Sigma 85mm while noting some subtle things about it. The focus point aspect he mentioned would really be comparable to the Zeiss since that lens in only manual focus:

mdvaden wrote in post #18776242
Against flat surfaces like that I would not expect much difference either, unlike say, portraits of people in scenes with variation of objects, textures, plants at different distances.

Dustin Abbott has compared this Sigma 85mm Art and Zeiss Otus 85mm and even the Tamron 85mm. In this attached video, he gives a solid recommendation for the Sigma 85mm while noting some subtle things about it:

What difference do you expect to see in portraits, with things at varying distances?

I've seen his video, and he doesn't address color (point me to where, if he did). That is the entire purpose of my thread, although I noted other things.

Note: I'd say the Otus is superior, chiefly for its LoCA control.

icor1031 wrote in post #18776246
What difference do you expect to see in portraits, with things at varying distances?

I've seen his video, and he doesn't address color (point me to where, if he did). That is the entire purpose of my thread, although I noted other things.

Note: I'd say the Otus is superior, chiefly for its LoCA control.

His comments about rendering. There's fair difference between certain objects and tests vs. subjects. When I use lenses, the biggest variation I see becomes when shooting people outdoors where there are layers of scenery and textures. Abbott made a comment about the Tamron 85mm having almost Otus image quality and rendering. That in his Tamron review. I already owned the lens and realized what he was talking about didn't show up in DXOmark information, Tony Northrup, etc.. But Abbott was correct about the the look the Tamron produces. So although he may not have showed everything in the Art or Otus 85mm reviews, if he notes more image quality stuff, he's probably right and its almost certain it wasn't his chart test.

Studio portraits against solid backgrounds indoors seem to make lenses more comparable too it seems, compared to outdoor scenery with expanses of variables. It partly reminds me of why a 1960s FL 55mm 1.2 adapted to Canon 5D mk ii was one of my favorite blossom lenses. It gave a look that stood apart from any specs related to it.

For both these lenses I would gladly own either one, although I prefer auto focus.