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

[kers]

DXO as well as Lenscore.org have now tested the Sigma to complete the overall picture.
With the Lenstip.com and the diglloyd reviews combined one is capable to get an idea of the lens and they are in line with my own findings.
Lenscore looks beyond the 36/50MP and clearly states that the Otus is still King.
The only review missing is that of Lensrentals.

[Rado]

I've been pretty happy with mine so far.

[RobertJ]

DXO doesn't test for longitudal chromatic abberation, and I wish they did.  This makes their reviews seem a bit misleading, showing low "CA" scores for the Sigma 85mm, while in reality, the Otus is a far more usable lens in the real world, due to it being basically free of any fringing of any kind. 

I would feel no hesitation using the Otus in every situation, while the Sigma would be a bit cringeworthy, having problems with fringing in many cases. 

The Otus is almost a flawless lens in the real world, compared to the Sigma.  Once again, I don't know if the Otus is actually worth that amount of money, but I feel it is the better lens, and lenscore.org kind of proves this with the extremely high Otus score.

Supposedly Canon is coming out with an 85mm 1.4L IS, and judging by my 35mm 1.4L II (on a Sony A7RII), it should be one of the best lenses yet, but you never know.

[Ancient Tiger]

99% of the Otus at 25% of the price plus AF.

What's not to like?

[alan_b]

99% of the Otus at 25% of the price plus AF.

What's not to like?

For some, the entire value of the Otus is its APO performance.  In those cases, the Sigma is 0% of the Otus.

[kers]

For some, the entire value of the Otus is its APO performance.  In those cases, the Sigma is 0% of the Otus.

It is only some longitudinal aberration that is not to like,
And its nothing serious @f 2.8. The lens is perfect @ f4.
The fast AF will save you from a lot of APO unsharp images

[nemophoto]

I certainly found it an amazing lens to use, especially compared to my 85/1.2. I might wish it was a tad less long, with a smaller filter size, but if that's what they had to do to achieve such sharp results, so be it. I also find it interesting that the autofocus is considerably faster than the 85/1.2, though it's a hunk of glass to move around. But the Canon 85 is a 10+ years old design.

[kers]

Now Lensrentals also has tested 10 copies.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

[Ancient Tiger]

For some, the entire value of the Otus is its APO performance.  In those cases, the Sigma is 0% of the Otus.

If someone can show me this difference in real life photos, I might believe you. The convenience of AF certainly gives the Sigma an advantage if you are shooting while you or your subject are not perfectly stationary. In landscape photos or studio shots of stationary objects whilst on a tripod, the Otus wide open obviously will rule, but even then once stopped down to F4 the difference would be too close to tell. In almost all other situations the AF will nail you that shot more often IMHO.

Again, it's also 25% of the price.

[nemophoto]

If someone can show me this difference in real life photos, I might believe you. The convenience of AF certainly gives the Sigma an advantage if you are shooting while you or your subject are not perfectly stationary. In landscape photos or studio shots of stationary objects whilst on a tripod, the Otus wide open obviously will rule, but even then once stopped down to F4 the difference would be too close to tell. In almost all other situations the AF will nail you that shot more often IMHO.

Again, it's also 25% of the price.

The real value of APO is longer telephotos. While the Otus takes advantage of the APO characteristics for CA wide-open (and that can be said for many lenses), stopped down (just a bit), compared to the Otus, the Sigma performs exceptionally. I'd take the Sigma over the Otus any day, especially when you throw in autofocus. If all you ever do are contemplative photos, working off a tripod, and you can have the best, go with the Otus. For me, for what I shoot commercially, I'll take the Sigma. The days of manually focusing for movement and action are long gone. None of the cameras offers the plethora of alternative focusing screens, and ground glass doesn't hack it in low light. Years ago, I used to shoot with Canon 300/2.8 with my F-1n's , A-1's and T90's. I shot sports, but more so, shot a  lot of action/movement lifestyle with the 300. My percentages were quite good. But they were far better with even the early AF of the EOS 1. Anyone who thinks they can focus on the fly better manually than with AF is kidding themselves. The only thing I wish had been incorporated with the Sigma (but would have made it even bigger) is IS. I tried on a shoot, back in November, the Tamron 85/1.8 VR. In the end, I was disappointed with it. The Tamron, though a nice lenses, didn't have the quality of the Sigma.

[kers]

... The only thing I wish had been incorporated with the Sigma (but would have made it even bigger) is IS. I tried on a shoot, back in November, the Tamron 85/1.8 VR. In the end, I was disappointed with it. The Tamron, though a nice lenses, didn't have the quality of the Sigma.

I have also shot with the Tamron, and it found it very good when stopped down. The VR of the Tamron did not seem to work that good with the body- d810.
I have seen that before in combination with the other VR-lenses i have- it has to do with the shutter vibration of the d810.
i like the softness of the sound of this shutter, but the vibration seems to get in the way with VR.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

But the Canon 85 is a 10+ years old design.

Indeed, the version II was introduced on February 21st , 2006 (if my info is correct), and that probably was still a film design, not incorporating a filter-stack as is usual/required for more modern digital designs. But I also love the rendering of my EF-85mm f/1.2L II USM, although it needs stopping down to f/2.0 to lose its Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration, and at f/1.2 the mirror of my EOS 1Ds Mark III, casts a shadow because the mirror box is not large enough to accommodate such a wide exit pupil diameter. At f/1.4 it's fine.

I assume that the exit pupil of the Sigma Art is smaller at f/1.4, thus avoiding an asymmetrical vignetting (which can be fixed by e.g. Capture One's LCC functionality), and clipped disc-shaped OOF highlights that cannot be fixed...?

So, I'm following the discussion closely, to learn if the Sigma is of high enough mechanical/AF quality as well as optical quality (which comes first).

Cheers,
Bart

[Goodlight_Studio]

I bought a Sigma 85mm Art and have found chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. Would you mind looking at 100% crops attached. One is RAW and the other has been run through C1's lens profile tool "analyze chromatic aberration" and I've got the "defringe" slider to the maximum.

Is this normal or should I send it back to the company I bought it from. 

Settings:
Canon 5D mark 3
ISO 400
F/1.8
1/8000 sec

 

[scyth]

Is this normal or should I send it back to the company I bought it from. 

LoCA @ f1.8 ? of course ... it is not Super APO

http://www.lenstip.com/491.5-Lens_review-Sigma_A_85_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/1000-sigma85f14art?start=1

[RobertJ]

I bought a Sigma 85mm Art and have found chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. Would you mind looking at 100% crops attached. One is RAW and the other has been run through C1's lens profile tool "analyze chromatic aberration" and I've got the "defringe" slider to the maximum.

Is this normal or should I send it back to the company I bought it from. 

Settings:
Canon 5D mark 3
ISO 400
F/1.8
1/8000 sec

That's normal.  It's not an Otus.  Did you not read my post on the first page of this thread?  LOL

[JKoerner007]

DXO doesn't test for longitudal chromatic abberation, and I wish they did.  This makes their reviews seem a bit misleading, showing low "CA" scores for the Sigma 85mm, while in reality, the Otus is a far more usable lens in the real world, due to it being basically free of any fringing of any kind. 

I would feel no hesitation using the Otus in every situation, while the Sigma would be a bit cringeworthy, having problems with fringing in many cases. 

The Otus is almost a flawless lens in the real world, compared to the Sigma.  Once again, I don't know if the Otus is actually worth that amount of money, but I feel it is the better lens, and lenscore.org kind of proves this with the extremely high Otus score.

Supposedly Canon is coming out with an 85mm 1.4L IS, and judging by my 35mm 1.4L II (on a Sony A7RII), it should be one of the best lenses yet, but you never know.

One of the reasons I dismiss DxO ... all they care about is sharpness ... not rendering, bokeh, CA, etc. They're measurebaters not photographers.
Same with LensRental. MTF only, no real comment on anything else.

LenScore, to me, is the more balanced, real-world analysis of a lens so you can decide what's important to you.

[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! ...

he did you copy Trumps language, than you should add sad too...

but you are right - the perfect image from the Sigma art is at F4.
longitude aberration is gone @ f2.8 as is purple fringing.

But it seems the bokeh of the sigma is a lot better than the Otus.
Coatings are very good too, even better than my f2.8 85mm PCE lens.

[RobertJ]

LOL Pieter, yes, Trump somehow hijacked my forum account.

The reason for writing that is because I was genuinely surprised and disappointed.  I wanted an Otus for less than half the price, but it didn't turn out that way.