Sigma ART 85 mm F1.4 - a statement from Sigma

[kers]

The first reviews are on the internet and it seems this new ART lens is something special.
According to the polish review site Lenstip.com the lens can rival with the Zeiss Otus.

http://www.lenstip.com/491.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_review.html

According to them the lens is sharper than the Otus.
+ autofocus, a big + with F1.4

Diglloyd also tests the lens and is very positive in his first findings.
I have it on order.

[Rado]

Autofocus consistency is the big question mark here (based on the art lenses I already own). I'm waiting for more real world reports before pulling the trigger myself.

[NancyP]

Sounds nice. I guess I need to pump iron more often. 

[kers]

Autofocus consistency is the big question mark here (based on the art lenses I already own). I'm waiting for more real world reports before pulling the trigger myself.

Even if the autofocus is a total failure- you still have a stellar lens at 1/3 of the price of Otus...

I only have the 50mm Art from sigma and it works very well on a d810 body.
The problem with Sigma is they have to deal with more than one type of autofocus.
But the 50mm Sigma has an autofocus problem with focus bracketing-  if i use it with Camranger or Helicon focus it cannot do more than one AF-step at a time.
With a Nikkor you can to do larger steps.

Flare could be a problem, but when i see the images on Diglloyd, it is well coated.
Then Bokeh could be not a nice as ... the Milvius.

[Yashika]

How does Otus AF perform ... @ 3x the price?

[BernardLanguillier]

How does Otus AF perform ... @ 3x the price?

But... and a hugely important but... it is very easy to focus manually to perfection.

This being said, I am glad to see Sigma release this lens, great news for all photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rado]

Since this is a portrait lens for me I would actually prefer manual focus, but neither AF lenses nor DSLR bodies are friendly to manual focus. Maybe this Sigma will have a longer focus throw, but that still doesn't help much if you can't see properly what you're focusing on. I sometimes put f/1.4 lenses on my ancient film body and shake my head in disbelief at how much better the viewfinders used to be (I do have the fast/precision focusing screen installed in my DSLR, it's still worse).

[kers]

Since this is a portrait lens for me I would actually prefer manual focus, but neither AF lenses nor DSLR bodies are friendly to manual focus. Maybe this Sigma will have a longer focus throw, but that still doesn't help much if you can't see properly what you're focusing on. I sometimes put f/1.4 lenses on my ancient film body and shake my head in disbelief at how much better the viewfinders used to be (I do have the fast/precision focusing screen installed in my DSLR, it's still worse).

unfortunately the focus throw is small...
a quote from lenstip; "Most of its surface is covered by comfortable rubber ribbing. The ring moves smoothly and is well damped – running through the whole distance scale needs a turn through an angle of 120-130 degrees. It is a sensible value for an autofocus device but we admit that a bit bigger angle would be needed for really precise manual settings."
i am with you when you would like a better viewfinder and that they used to be better; it seems the Nikon F3 had a beautiful one.
Both problems are possibly related to autofocus. The viewfinder is compromised by the half translucent mirror. We like to use AF in dark circumstances so the more translucent the mirror becomes.
I can Imagine the focus throw is compromised by the need for a speedy autofocus.
I would love to have a better optical viewfinder myself. But i can understand there is no real solution to do both.
You would need a manual focus body- that nobody makes.

[Rob C]

Since this is a portrait lens for me I would actually prefer manual focus, but neither AF lenses nor DSLR bodies are friendly to manual focus. Maybe this Sigma will have a longer focus throw, but that still doesn't help much if you can't see properly what you're focusing on. I sometimes put f/1.4 lenses on my ancient film body and shake my head in disbelief at how much better the viewfinders used to be (I do have the fast/precision focusing screen installed in my DSLR, it's still worse).

Let me be your echo.

What I'd give for a normal, split-image screen, preferably without the nuisance of microsprisms around it. The Nikon Df was a lost opportunity to do just that, and provide a purpose-built digital body for those manual lenses still around. I think Nikon still markets a few, but I'd need to check that out, but even if they did not, they could sell bodies to people who like digital but also want to use their arsenal of older optics. I wonder how sales would have been affected had they made the two compatible. As often happens in life, people can pay attention to the wrong things and ignore markets already there and panting.

I think Leica made a far better job of staying true to the M ideal when it went digital, than Nikon did tying to ape its own F-line.

Rob

[kers]

...
I think Leica made a far better job of staying true to the M ideal when it went digital, than Nikon did tying to ape its own F-line.
Rob

I think the modern Leica is the Sony ARII
+ Leica's analogue wide angle lenses did not function well in their new digital body...

[shadowblade]

I'm just hoping they release this, as well as all the other Art and Sport series lenses, in Sony E-mount. After all, they've recently said they're planning to produce mor E-mount lenses, and there are surely far more E-mount users than Sigma mount or even A-mount users - enough to justify diverting a production line. Or, if mechanics is an issue, to rework them with motors suited to combined phase-detection and contrast-detection (or intelligent pattern-recognition) use, while keeping the optics the same.

I hope they also release lens profiles to work with all the common converters (ACR, Canon's and Sony's in-house converters, Capture One, etc.) so that it negates the one remaining major advantage of OEM lenses - the ability to automatically and flawlessly correct for distortion, CA and other optical aberrations. Current tools aren't that great for removing complex distortions - fix one corner of an image and the other side gets worse, since it's not a simple linear pattern.

[kers]

I'm just hoping they release this, as well as all the other Art and Sport series lenses, in Sony E-mount. ...

Sigma states:
Compatible with the MOUNT CONVERTER MC-11, users of Sony E-Mount cameras can use the lens...

[shadowblade]

Sigma states:
Compatible with the MOUNT CONVERTER MC-11, users of Sony E-Mount cameras can use the lens...

Not quite the same, and not nearly as fast as native lenses...

[RobertJ]

Don't be fooled.  While the Sigma 85 ART has impressive sharpness, possibly better than the Otus, it has purple/green fringing all over the place, especially in out of focus areas (axial/longitudal chromatic aberration).  It's bad.  Really, really bad!  And I'm actually disappointed, because I was waiting for the reviews to show what I thought would be a great lens for *my* needs, and I would've bought the Sigma if it wasn't for this annoying characteristic. 

The Zeiss Otus has almost zero LoCA by comparison.  I would definitely say the Otus is the clear winner if I had to choose between the two.  I'm not saying it's worth the money, but it is a better lens, IMO.  The Sigma 85 ART reminds me of the lenses from several years ago, with all of it's purple fringing, unfortunately.

[kers]

Don't be fooled.  While the Sigma 85 ART has impressive sharpness, possibly better than the Otus, it has purple/green fringing all over the place, especially in out of focus areas (axial/longitudal chromatic aberration).  It's bad.  Really, really bad!  And I'm actually disappointed, because I was waiting for the reviews to show what I thought would be a great lens for *my* needs, and I would've bought the Sigma if it wasn't for this annoying characteristic. 

The Zeiss Otus has almost zero LoCA by comparison.  I would definitely say the Otus is the clear winner if I had to choose between the two.  I'm not saying it's worth the money, but it is a better lens, IMO.  The Sigma 85 ART reminds me of the lenses from several years ago, with all of it's purple fringing, unfortunately.

interesting !
what is your source- or did you try it?
I just looked at the tests from Diglloyd and it seems the Milvius has some better image.
But Zeiss should be ashamed to sell a 85mm lens at this pricelevel and forget about corner sharpness until f8.
It is a common problem with Zeiss lenses- they think corners are not important.

[Paulo Bizarro]

interesting !
what is your source- or did you try it?
I just looked at the tests from Diglloyd and it seems the Milvius has some better image.
But Zeiss should be ashamed to sell a 85mm lens at this pricelevel and forget about corner sharpness until f8.
It is a common problem with Zeiss lenses- they think corners are not important.

A few thoughts, based on my experience:

- perhaps the Zeiss Milvus 85 was designed as a portrait lens, so corner sharpness up to f8 was a secondary parameter?

- My Zeiss Batis 85, Batis 25, and Loxia 21 are certainly sharp enough starting from wide (or near wide) open. Perhaps a different design philosophy?

[kers]

A few thoughts, based on my experience:

- perhaps the Zeiss Milvus 85 was designed as a portrait lens, so corner sharpness up to f8 was a secondary parameter?

- My Zeiss Batis 85, Batis 25, and Loxia 21 are certainly sharp enough starting from wide (or near wide) open. Perhaps a different design philosophy?

I guess you are right about a design philosophy. Still, 85mm is not a wideangle...and this is a premium lens.
Corners sharpness should be available from f2.8 i would think. The image circle is just not large enough before f8.
An other design philosophy of Zeiss is heavy falloff. Same idea. Almost all the Zeiss lenses have that ...
The coatings however are always very good.
The Nikkor has different design philosophy- not as sharp at f1.4 but very even sharpness from center to corner.

[shadowblade]

Don't be fooled.  While the Sigma 85 ART has impressive sharpness, possibly better than the Otus, it has purple/green fringing all over the place, especially in out of focus areas (axial/longitudal chromatic aberration).  It's bad.  Really, really bad!  And I'm actually disappointed, because I was waiting for the reviews to show what I thought would be a great lens for *my* needs, and I would've bought the Sigma if it wasn't for this annoying characteristic. 

The Zeiss Otus has almost zero LoCA by comparison.  I would definitely say the Otus is the clear winner if I had to choose between the two.  I'm not saying it's worth the money, but it is a better lens, IMO.  The Sigma 85 ART reminds me of the lenses from several years ago, with all of it's purple fringing, unfortunately.

A lens profile to correct this during RAW conversion would make all the difference. If only Sigma would actually release one.

Is the CA only an issue at f/1.4, or also stopped down at more typical landscape apertures?

[RobertJ]

Past 2.8 doesn't seem to be a problem.  At the plane of focus, it has very low CA, which is why all the "reviews" of this lens show basically zero CA.  I'm guessing it's because they are measuring lateral CA.  At ePhotozine.com, their review says "Virtually no CA" which is clearly not the case.

But here we're talking about out of focus areas, which is a bit harder to correct in post, though purple fringing seems easier to correct than other lenses like the 85 Milvus and Sony GM 85 that have red/blue/green/cyan fringing in out of focus areas. 

Also, some people just don't care about CA, so, for those people, it's an awesome lens with what looks like higher resolution than the Otus.  I'm reconsidering, and I still might buy the Sigma.  I'm keeping an eye on the new Samyang 85mm 1.2, and whatever Canon comes out with (85 1.2L III?) will probably be a stellar lens.

[kers]

My copy of the sigma has arrived and i am not disappointed; It is real improvement over the Nikon 1.4G that i had.
Fast autofocus that can be made accurately at 4 distances with the USBdock.
Already sharp corner to corner wide open- clear image - no aberration fuzz. Almost without geometric distortion.
Yes indeed a problem with longitudinal aberration wide open front blue/ back green;  f2 a little - f2.8 it is gone. (all my findings are in line with Lenstip.com findings)
Some purple fringing with strong contrasts wide open
From F2.8 it is 100% perfect in every way ( on a 36MP) Flat field of focus. Very clear transparant image. Good coatings.
It can make a perfect 20MP image on a Nikon J5 at f5.6 -that means 154MP in the central area.
The only problem is the size and the weight. Not exactly a walk around lens...