answers: 118

  1. Vadyukhin
    22.03.2017

    I enthusiastically support (for reasons, um, budgetary ...) the phrase "His character, or, shall we say," cute deviations "he does not have", and enthusiastically reach for the Stobucks 50 / 1,8 II ... (on the crop, if what…)
    But, if there was a lot of money, then, of course ... um, ... no, it would be better to take 135 soft focus. And not because it is cheaper, but because the picture is more interesting.
    Overall - great review, thanks!
    Minor edits: "The Sigma A (Sigma Art) lens line includes the following lenses:"
    - “turns on”.
    Ah, and 600dpi is the print resolution (600 dpi), what is the thickness of the drawing line - you just need to measure it separately.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      22.03.2017

      fixed.

      Reply

  2. Oleg
    22.03.2017

    An interesting review!

    Reply

  3. Molchanov Yuri
    22.03.2017

    I will be happy to answer questions
    ymolchanov@crew.hanse-explorer.de

    Reply

  4. VASYL
    22.03.2017

    Brad! take huge! heavy !! expensive bandura without a stub !!! to shoot really wakes up only with a tripod ... just for the sake of increased sharpness !? but in general the question is why the portraitist is so sharp?
    very boring drawing - sluggish, not expressive blur-bokeh, but super sharp
    an acquaintance wanted to take for a studio and a pair with d810, chose from 2 available in the store - left without buying - again branded "sigma" quality, and the docking station will help only in cases of +1 -1, and then waste your time uselessly - only to the official service for adjustment at the stand! and where is this official service?

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      22.03.2017

      All my pictures are hand-held. I would also like a stub, of course, but as it is.
      But 135 Art could be released with a stub. Then this lens would not be 1.8 but 2.0.
      But after all, the Canon L 135 also with aperture 2.0 and nothing beautifully blurs the background.

      Reply

    • Sven
      23.03.2017

      Why stub if there is 1.4F?)
      What kind of poor lighting do you need for a portrait to have a shutter speed faster than 100? And the human matrix is ​​not particularly noisy ...
      So the stub - from my point of view - is like an accordion ass.

      Reply

    • Pastor
      23.03.2017

      Stab, of course, doesn’t hurt any lens, but in this case, you can forgive this sigma for such sharpness. At 135mm, it’s already sad without a stub, I remember starting with 130 2l, I started to suffer right away after sunset, despite the fact that you could still shoot and shoot at a zoom with 2.8 and stub without overstating ISO.
      I want to wish the author to try both Tamron and 85 1.2l to compare. I did not hold a sigma or tamron in my hands, but the canon was very pleased. True, there is not much sharpness at 1.2, even if you get into the flu, there is no razor. But 85 according to the stories of canon, and not for this was done. There, however, the bokekha is gorgeous, if you look at the same subjects.

      Reply

    • Max
      21.06.2017

      How much whining I read. 85 1,4 with good sharpness is needed by the reporters for weddings and events, which are not exchanged for convenient zooms and are shot in 2 cameras and 2 fixes.

      Reply

  5. Denis
    22.03.2017

    Yuri Molchanov specifically for Radozhiva from Antarctica (s)

    Reply

  6. VASYL
    22.03.2017

    +100

    Reply

  7. Alexey
    22.03.2017

    Thank you for your review. I liked the lens very much ... and for the price. It is quite possible to do without a stub at 85.

    Reply

  8. Peter Sh.
    22.03.2017

    Great picture quality.
    Although for some reason I don’t like Sigma, everything is just on top, of course.

    About the nuts in the bokeh, I think this is nonsense. No one knows that nuts are bad and mugs are good. And no one will ever know if we don’t talk about it on every corner.

    As for rigidity, dullness and sterility, all this is simply necessary, as I consider it, in a serious work.
    I would call it rigor.
    For example, I personally do not need curls in the background at all, by the way. Distracts and makes a fuss.

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      22.03.2017

      I do not have any preferences in terms of the brand, all lenses from different manufacturers.
      But here I am rejoicing from the bottom of my heart to the whorls and all the sweet miscalculations of old lenses. Probably from the fact that I did not learn how to shoot properly, and with their help many mistakes of the photographer are hidden.

      Reply

    • Michael
      22.03.2017

      This is the true truth. For 20 years, filming on cues, I didn’t worry about the shape of the circles and was happy, and now, having read the opinions, I constantly catch myself thinking that watching some movie all the time I subconsciously focus on these nuts. And what's interesting is that a huge number of films were shot with lenses with a 6-blade diaphragm, which give just the same glaring nuts instead of circles ... ..

      Many thanks to the author for the review. Very interestingly written.

      Reply

      • B. R. P.
        23.03.2017

        +1

        Reply

  9. anonym
    22.03.2017

    An interesting and relevant review! But I would like to see a comparison of bokeh with Helios on an open background against a spotted background from an average distance. And then Sigma-Art bokeh is somehow not praised ...

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      22.03.2017

      I will try to do

      Reply

    • anonym
      23.03.2017

      I'm sorry. The next opportunity to upload a photo will appear in four weeks.

      Reply

    • anonym
      23.03.2017

      I apologize, but the best opportunity to upload a photo will appear in 4 weeks.

      Reply

      • anonym
        23.03.2017

        Will wait! Thanks!

        Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      19.04.2017

      I couldn't find the spotted background (not much time left after work), but I photographed the Christmas tree and flowers. You can see the blur. It's about 18:30 - sunset.

      Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      19.04.2017

      https://yadi.sk/d/t_3qAfiH3GBw8h

      This is a link to Yandex disk

      Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      20.05.2017

      Good day. I shot simple stories while walking, if still interesting, I can reset the link to Yandex.Disk. I really don’t know if he will work in Ukraine now or not. In Germany (where I am now) it works.

      Reply

  10. anonym
    22.03.2017

    With the same dimensions and weight, it is very regrettable to see a vacuum cleaner construction ...

    Reply

  11. Peter Sh.
    23.03.2017

    I was thinking about the stabilizer.
    This lens is designed for shooting people. It’s already problematic to shoot at 1/100.
    Not only because people are not mannequins, they are always on the move. Also because you quickly get tired of constant tension. You get tired quickly, your hands begin to shake. It turns out even worse. Personally, the stabilizer doesn’t help me here, I’m overworking anyway.

    Why such a lens stabilizer? I don’t understand why stabilizers are needed for any shooting of people, portrait or reportage.

    Reply

    • Photobooster
      23.03.2017

      Hello! Take the 5D Mark III from at least 70-200, shoot for two hours, then you will understand why you need a stub. )))

      Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        23.03.2017

        So I shoot with a similar one, only from Nikon. Hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

        Reply

      • Photobooster
        23.03.2017

        If you do this slowly, several frames per hour, then it is quite possible. If you shoot a reportage of, for example, athletes or a concert, where hundreds of frames in a short time, then after an hour of shooting, micro-smears appear. Well, if the presence of micro-lubricant does not bother you personally, then this is certainly nothing ...

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        23.03.2017

        Micro-grease ... Hmm. I'll have to think.
        I’m just shooting sports, ballroom dancing. Faster than few people where it moves.
        The longest shutter speed at which you can catch something worthy and only in the standard is 1/250. But this is an extreme case.

        Can a stabilizer with shutter speeds of 1/320 - 1/400 help?
        Or is it generally useless here?

        Reply

      • Ilya
        23.03.2017

        And here 5d and 70-200 and stub when shooting people ... If you need a short shutter speed in poor light - increase ISO! No strength to hold the camera for a long time, take a professional camera strap on your shoulder for shooting. I work with two cameras. On one 24-120, on the second 70-200. Plus a backpack on the back. The right accessories decide, not the stub!

        Reply

      • Photobooster
        23.03.2017

        Raise the ISO, look for those who wish elsewhere. All your advice is hemorrhoids, which only helps to avoid unnecessary expenses for having a stub. All the best!

        Reply

      • Oleg
        23.03.2017

        Ilya has a key phrase “when photographing people”.
        For dynamic objects, the benefit of a stub is slightly more than zero. Only reduce shutter speed. But by what means is another question.

        Reply

  12. Dmitry Divanov
    23.03.2017

    Thanks for the great review! I read it with pleasure)

    Reply

  13. Sven
    23.03.2017

    Dear Author! Tell me: pictures on the F-4 is only for the test?
    Reassure me that when you buy such a (!) Lens you are trying to shoot at an open aperture ... ...
    If you often shoot on F-4, then why pay such extra money for aperture?
    Or was it a very bright object? Then the filter ...!

    Reply

    • Oleg
      23.03.2017

      85 not only for single portraits and portraits in general (IMHO). Sometimes (IMHO quite often) you need more depth of field. And this is time. Two - at a fully open aperture, sharpness is not over the entire frame. Three - landscapes in one shot and panoramas. Four - the camera focuses on an open hole and the higher the lens aperture, the better it focuses.

      Reply

    • Oleg
      23.03.2017

      And yet (IMHO of course) the backdrop blurred into the trash is not always appropriate :)

      Reply

      • Molchanov Yuri
        23.03.2017

        I completely agree with you. But taking pictures, I was thinking about posting some of them as an example. Not that I would be shooting on f9.0, and most likely a TV. It’s more convenient, and the leader doesn’t grumble about the expedition that I’m getting too close to the birds.

        Reply

      • Molchanov Yuri
        23.03.2017

        A typo, I meant that I would shoot with a telephoto.

        Reply

      • Molchanov Yuri
        23.03.2017

        Expedition leader is such a guy from EYOS who makes sure that they don't approach animals closer than 5 meters.

        Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      23.03.2017

      There are both reasons. 1) That day was partly cloudy, and when the sun erupted, the illumination from the ice was sharp and unexpected, do not wind the filter all the time.
      2) Penguins are good because of the gentle fluff, and I want every detail to be visible. And then focus on sharpness with aperture 1.4 is not an easy task, but they turn their heads all the time.

      Reply

  14. Sven
    23.03.2017

    Well, tell me….
    For me, especially 85 is a portrait. And in a portrait, a background blurred into the trash is always appropriate. The depth of field for ff is small, alas - this is a fact. But to close because of the grip ...

    Autofocus speeds at 1.4 and 1.8 and 2.0 are probably almost identical - with cameras like the author's, for example. The price of a lens with 1.4 and 2.0 can be more than doubled (So why overpay.
    I got 85 1.4D Nikkor, I shoot only on the open. The bokeh is super. If you cover, then why should I be 1.4? The travel probe will give almost the same picture at 2.8, for example ...: - |

    Reply

    • Oleg
      23.03.2017

      So, not only speed, but also accuracy of getting into the depth of field zone :) This is about autofocus.
      Travel zoom with 2.8 costs significantly more money than fix with 2.0
      Well, you can cover the fix with 1.4, but you can’t open the lens from 2.8 to 1.4 :)

      Reply

      • Sven
        23.03.2017

        All (!) Speak Oleg correctly.

        Reply

    • anonym
      24.03.2017

      That's it! High-aperture optics are needed mainly for shooting outdoors! Well, occasionally to a maximum of 2.8 to clamp on a group shot ... Why take a lens with 1.4 and shoot with it closed? Buy from 1.8! Cheaper, lighter, just as sharp!

      Reply

    • varezhkin
      24.03.2017

      In the JVI with a light lens, it is more pleasant to watch, plus the older f1.4 lenses are better assembled.

      Reply

      • Oleg
        24.03.2017

        +
        But here the prevailing opinion is that high-aperture optics (a specific focal length of 85 mm) should be used in 99 cases (on the FF and crop) for portraits on the open background with a blurry background, without a hint of the origin of the structure. Those. highlight not by sharpness, but by the complete absence of surrounding objects.
        And what about 35 / 1.4, 50 / 1.2 (1.4) mm. Is it also an open diaphragm? This is a question for Anonymous :)

        Reply

      • varezhkin
        24.03.2017

        I'm afraid it's just a lack of experience and practice. over time, you begin to appreciate well-closed diaphragms ...

        Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      14.04.2017

      I completely agree with you. It is absolutely not necessary to overpay for one stop or two stops.
      That's why I aimed at Tamron 1.8 / 85 VC, because it is cheaper and with a stub. It just so happened that they brought Sigma (and thanks for that, away from the stores). That's why I wrote a review so that the brothers in arms were in no hurry to buy. The lens is good, but not as much as advertising in magazines says.

      Reply

  15. VASYL
    23.03.2017

    We are waiting for Yuri Molchanov specifically for Radozhiva from Antarctica (c) PART 2

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      20.05.2017

      I didn't think that Antarctica would be so interested in someone, but if so, then this is a link to such photos -
      engineeringyuriy.photosight.ru

      Reply

  16. Oleg
    23.03.2017

    Thanks for the nice review. Please continue us with your reviews. It would be interesting to see a review of 16-35 in Arkady this is not

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      23.03.2017

      I will try to forward it to Arkady in the summer.

      Reply

      • Oleg
        23.03.2017

        Thank you, we will be grateful

        Reply

  17. Alexander O
    24.03.2017

    Thank you very much for the review. Very interesting. On a digital picture, you can compare different lenses. Here is a link to compare Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art u Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1047&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

    There is no big difference between them even using the Canon 5DSr

    Reply

  18. anonym
    24.03.2017

    Sharpness comparison (subjective) -

    Reply

    • Alexey
      24.03.2017

      Subjectively - Zeiss is sharper, but for a woman's portrait it is rather a minus.

      Reply

    • Jury
      24.03.2017

      subjectively - there is more depth of field on Zeiss. I looked at Dmitry's comparison of Sony A7R II and 5DSr, there was a feeling that on 5DSr a matrix with a crop factor, and not a full frame :)

      Reply

      • anonym
        24.03.2017

        Zeiss and Sigma have different real focal lengths. Maybe that's why it seems so. Plus Sigma is clearly soaping. Apparently, the OTC on the sigma is in vain eating its bread. Quality as usual floats from copy to copy.

        I think for maximum quality, detail and beautiful bokeh, you need to choose a top Zeiss. For a stable picture - native optics. For an interesting one - Soviet. I really like Helios 85 / 1.5! And on Otus, I can never save ...

        Nikon has one more interesting lens - 105 / 1.4E. We are waiting for the test!

        Reply

      • Jury
        24.03.2017

        The 105 / 1.4E is a very interesting lens, I would like to see its review from Arkady. Helios 85 / 1.5 is used even in Japan :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwlMKnJQUnw&t=240s

        Reply

      • Sergei
        12.04.2017

        ... the taste and color of all felt-tip pens are different ...
        ... about the subjective comparison of sharpness, if I'm not mistaken, this is from the review from D. Evtifeev's website, so the person who shot on Sigma_1,4 and Nikon_810 never held a camera in his hands from the photos taken ... Thanks to the review on "Radozhiv" that Sigma is "more artistic" and sharp, and Zeiss is good only because of its micro-contrast. Just Zeiss - this is a stable picture without any "show off" for a very expensive. In life, there are only two types of lenses: “successful” and “all other lenses”, and it can be the same lens. From my point of view, Sigma_1,4 is a good lens.

        Reply

      • Molchanov Yuri
        14.04.2017

        I will try to get out into the city on the weekend and take some pictures from a similar distance (I mean the Evtifeev test). I liked his review - anecdote, it's just a classic!

        Reply

      • Molchanov Yuri
        19.04.2017

        I couldn’t find a place nearby where it was possible to rent cars with low beam, so I can’t check the Evtifeev test. But on Yandex, I posted a photo of the TV tower in Bremerhaven, maybe this will help in the debate about sharpness. I was guided by the operator (the widest part) manually by live view with aperture 1.4.
        He did the same by removing a construction crane. Photo of flowers and some kind of coniferous thing - this was checked again by the bokeh.

        https://yadi.sk/d/t_3qAfiH3GBw8h

        Reply

  19. Peter Sh.
    24.03.2017

    I will correct some errors.
    Typically, the MLC is sharpened at the optimum AF speed at f / 2.8.
    The larger the aperture is f / 2.8, the more difficult it is for the camera to focus the lens.

    A lens with a maximum aperture of f / 1.4 will give a better picture on an aperture that is covered up to f / 2 than a lens with a maximum aperture of f / 2.

    In particular, due to the fact that the first lens transmits more light than the second, in this case, on the same f / 2 aperture. Sometimes even a whole stop more. Here everything from the t-stop lens will record.

    Therefore, fast lenses are needed not only for shooting on an open aperture day and night.

    Reply

  20. Peter Sh.
    24.03.2017

    Anticipating the embarrassment of some readers from the previous post, I will add.
    The aperture value shows the cross-sectional area of ​​the light flux passing through the lens.

    There is also light output, or brightness. The absorption of light by the lenses of the lens leads to a decrease in brightness, and is consumed in the so-called t-stops (transition-stop).

    Reply

  21. Victor
    25.03.2017

    To me, sigma draws inanimate. The picture is sharp and without a soul, which cannot be said about the old or native optics from Nikon - Canon manufacturers. Another disadvantage is the weight of such glass. If this is a portrait lens, then such sharpness is not an excess, but a minus. Well, another important thing is the price.

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      14.04.2017

      I just wrote about this. I have shots from a relative’s wedding shot by a professional on Canon 1.2 L. This is high! Soft though not sharp drawing. It doesn’t work out for me. But I'm just an amateur, maybe it's not Sigma, but crooked pens? Therefore, I want to send the lens to Arkady for a test.

      Reply

  22. Vitaliy U
    25.03.2017

    Thanks to the author for the review!
    As for the nuts in boke: as I understand it, it is not correct to compare modern af lenses with old (and not so) manual lenses. Not out of "greed" they put a small number of blades in the diaphragm, but because of technological limitations. By the way, the same Helios 40, after closing the diaphragm to 2, no longer has either its "airiness" or the famous twisting in boke (it is , but the nuts are visible and the effect is not the same as on the open one). I believe (IMHO) that for such high-aperture glasses, working in the open is the main indicator. On covered ones, everyone (mostly) becomes similar in pattern.

    Reply

    • Molchanov Yuri
      14.04.2017

      I am not an expert in this field, I cannot judge directly about the technological limitations in the production of a lens aperture unit. But as a mechanical engineer of an internal combustion engine, I see in which direction modern mass production of internal combustion engines is going - hair stands on end.
      I can say the same about the modern production of electronics for a narrow specialization (I think the lenses belong to the same category, they are far from the sales of smartphones) - sky-high prices, not justified by common sense, with low quality of finished products. It seems to me that Apple's pricing policy and commercial success haunts managers of all industries, hence the high prices for finished products with draconian measures to save money on development and production.

      Reply

  23. and
    25.03.2017

    Let me throw rotten eggs, but the fix is ​​85 s F / 1,4 with a weight of more than 1 kg, while without normal dust and moisture protection this is somehow too much. Also, giant filters in the load.
    And the second point, which was never raised - what is really wrong with AF? In Radozhiva's review of 35k art, it was honestly said about the insecure work and frequent mistakes of a particular instance. This is exactly what, and numerous complaints from users about the AF discount, as well as personal experience of using the sigma 28 1.8 ex dg. Which, on the one hand, pleased me with a good, interesting picture and good sharpness on the open in the center, and on the other hand, disgusting AF performance in minimally complicated conditions. For me, this became decisive when choosing a 35k, all the same, buying glass for a little less than $ 1000, I want to be sure of its reliability, stability of results and durability.

    Reply

    • Vitaliy U
      25.03.2017

      I completely agree with you. Sigma lenses have been known for problems with AF for a long time. People buy docking stations not out of love for technology)) This problem is especially obvious on Canon cameras, although Nikon is not so hot. Weight and size are already "production costs", optical qualities are more important than compactness (the same Otus, no less fool for this Sigma).

      Reply

      • and
        25.03.2017

        In general, the choice of a high-quality 85ki on canon is such a thing. Or am I picking on a lot? 85 1.2 - again 1kg of weight, for an amateur and light walks this is clearly too much. I generally keep quiet about the price tag. 85 1.8 - the price and weight and dimensions are friendly, and the AF work is generally without questions, but openly disappointed. There remains 85 1.4 old, not art - although the price is higher than the native 1.2, it is quite acceptable, and if it also drops, then most likely it is the main candidate for closing this focal point.
        In the meantime, I do not have 85ki, I use 100/2.

        Reply

      • and
        25.03.2017

        Typo “Remains 85 1.4 old, not art - although the price is higher than the native 1.8

        Reply

    • Sergei
      13.06.2017

      I have 35 1.4 art and 50 1.4 art. I took the first in 2013, the second year later, under the impression of 35 art. All this time I had no problems with autofocus (nikon). I don't have a Doc station. Fine tuning af in the camera is enough (-10 in my case). I have two cameras (d800), none of these two problems are present. I don’t want to look at my own fifty dollars (there are 1.4 and 1.8), full g ... but regarding sigma. But here's my native 85 1.8g while I'm not in a hurry to change to sigma ...

      Reply

  24. Jury
    25.03.2017

    Evgeny Kartashov was seen shooting portraits for this Sigma, although he used to say that 85 1,2 from Canon is his favorite portrait painter. To the question “what, how and why” he answered: “..You can read it here. This is a closed group, you will need to apply to join https://vk.com/club88024909?w=wall-88024909_82“. If any of the readers are in this group - write what Kartashov thinks about the Canon EF 85mm f / 1.2L II USM and Sigma AF 85mm f / 1.4 DG HSM Art. It would be interesting. Thanks to Yuri Molchanov and Arkady for the review.

    Reply

  25. A.N. Onim
    25.03.2017

    Thanks for the informative review!
    Sometimes I think to take something newer for Nikon 85 / 1.4D, I study sigma too.
    I myself have sigma-arts 35th and 50th, a very successful series for reasonable money. The only thing you can subjectively find fault with is bokeh. Once again, scanning the footage from the film Mamiya rz67 I caught myself thinking that the Sigmoratovskoe blur and Mamiya's are very similar - and alas! - dry, technical and very correct. The author also has helios, if only half the sharpness of this sigma were added to the psychedelic drawing of helios ...

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer