Lens view Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art), examples of photographs from him, and the review itself specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Yuri Molchanov.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
The appearance of the Sigma 85mm f / 1.4 DG HSM Art I have been waiting for 4 years. Around the time since the first rumors about its development appeared (hereinafter simply 85 Art). Before that I used Sigma 50mm f / 1.4 DG HSM Art in conjunction with the Canon 7D and was very pleased with the portrait shots. But when I switched to full frame, it turned out that when shooting a person from a short distance, I immodestly highlight the nose as the main advantage of the portrait, with which many disagreed. Especially women. I began to think about a new portrait lens, I wanted to try to make a beautiful portrait, with a shallow depth of field (otherwise why was it spent on a full-frame SLR?). After looking through the mountains of material on portrait lenses, I came to the conclusion that wonderful Canon EF 85mm f / 1.2L II USM I will never buy (indecently expensive), and the lens level Sigma Art 50 need to wait. The cheaper offers from Canon were considered, but here turned up the opportunity to buy a brand new “Helios - 40-2-C"For $ 280, and so I did. (Canon 1.8 / 85 cost three years ago from $ 420 and above - also not cheap).
Helios - 40-2-C and Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
I am delighted with this lens, and I use it quite often Tair - 11A, also like the picture. Still, I wanted to have an autofocus lens. Evil children do not want to understand that it is necessary to freeze. Stop falling, running, turning your head, etc. The same trouble with adolescents and animals. I already began to look at OLX, for used Canon 135 / 2. But bargaining is hard. The owners of this lens know that the lens is good and does not give in vain. And here they released Tamron SP 85mm f / 1.8 Di VC USD (Model F016). Judging by the tests - the bomb! I started saving money. During this time, Sigma showed at Photokina the new portrait portrait Sigma 85mm f / 1.4 DG HSM A from the Art series. And I thought that I would buy it, I really liked fifty dollars, but they can’t make it worse? Especially since Tamron 85VC by that time, too, had not reached us. It so happened that while the Sigma 85 Art got to American retail, I was already on a flight. But it was lucky that a crew change was planned. A friend bought a lens in the states, through an online store for $ 1050, and brought it to me at the end of December directly to Antarctica. It is completely impossible to send material from there to the network due to the high cost of traffic, so I share my impressions only now, when DxO Mark already tested the lens up and down in its methodology.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
So. The lens is larger and heavier than its colleagues (see photo), although it does not look like a monster, like Canon EF 70-200mm f 2.8L IS II USM or other zooms of the same level. Weight is 1130 gr. It's hard to say there. The design is the same as for all lenses in this series, the body is black in special plastic, which almost does not change size when the temperature changes. In a good way, you should check this with a micrometer, but there is no instrument of this size on board. A large rubberized focus ring (5 cm wide) with a travel range of about 135 degrees. This is not 360 degrees, like the Soviet lenses, but not 90 degrees like the Tamron. The ring runs nicely, not tight and not slack, the very golden mean is found. A slight push is felt at the borders of the adjustment range, after which it freely scrolls further. Focusing is internal. The optical scheme of the Sigma 85mm f / 1.4 Art lens consists of 14 elements in 12 groups, including two FLD elements that must match the characteristics of fluorite glass, plus one aspherical element. As for me, the lenses are a bit much, but the lens has absolutely no distortion, according to DxOLab. Probably it cannot be otherwise. Minimum focusing distance = 85 cm.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
Sharpening can be easily done only on Nikon, on my Canon I need to switch to manual focus mode. It's good that I got an exact copy, there was no need for this. But if you can use a proprietary USB-dock for fine tuning. The ultrasonic focusing motor is nimble. I tried to measure the focusing speed with a stopwatch from 85 cm to infinity - it turns out garbage, I don't have time to react. Somewhere 0.3 or 0.4 seconds as it seemed to me, but maybe less. The motor is very quiet. When focusing from infinity to 0,85 m, the rear lens goes inward by about 13-14mm - there is a "pronounced" vacuum cleaner effect. In this case, you can easily consider electronic boards (see photo). The manufacturer declares splash and dust resistance and advertisements on page 19 “Popular Photography”January 2017,“ Digital Photo Pro ”01-02 2017, p. 5). However, the instruction manual prohibits using the lens in the rain (?). On the YandexDisk I posted the original scan of the instructions. I can only say that there is a soft rubber ring around the mount. I haven't taken pictures in the rain yet. The hood is normal. While new, it holds up well, but over time, the plastic teeth will wear out, and it will dangle like on mine Sigma 24-105mm f / 4 DG OS HSM A и Sigma 50mm f / 1.4 DG HSM A. For instance Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM also a modern lens, it costs a little cheaper, but it comes with a lens hood that has a wonderful spring lock. Why not do it too? Did you save two dollars?
Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM and Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art) and Sigma 50mm f / 1.4 DG HSM A
As you can see in the photo, there is a closed focusing scale window with VERY small numbers in meters and feet, which only Hawkeye can easily read. The depth of field scale also complements the composition rather than has a practical meaning - it's tiny. The next item is the AF / AM focus mode switch. Checked - switches.
There is an inscription made in Japan (maybe someone is important). Greenish enlightenment, as on MS Jupiter 37A.
I took pictures of the target so that you can judge the sharpness. The target was printed on a cheap laser printer, so below I will give print quality pictures taken with a macro lens at close range. The target is labeled 600 dpi. This is probably the thickness of the smallest lines. I was unable to maintain an angle of 90 degrees when shooting a target, it is noticeable. Anyone who tried to do the same on the deck of a yacht while rolling - excuse such awkwardness. But all the same, you can form your opinion about the sharpness of these pictures. It can also be seen in the example of angled shots that the purple and green borders have not gone anywhere. In the old lens, they are almost the same, maybe a little more pronounced. I apologize for the monotony of plots, I hope the reason is clear.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
I liked the lens. There is nothing sharper in my backpack. Matrices Canon 5D Mark III clearly not enough for him. Judging by the tests of DxOMark.com 36MP Nikon 810 for him is also not the limit.
So now I have a lot of sharpness. This is clearly seen if you enlarge the photo of the chicks. Fluff can be seen in the smallest detail. Now about the picture. The blur zone is very soft on the open aperture, but the bokeh is so correct that it becomes boring. On the other hand, where I set the aperture 4.0, the bokeh seemed harsh. I shot that day on Tair-11A и Helios 40-2-C, everything looks much more interesting there, although the pictures are certainly soapy. Those who are thinking about buying this lens should understand that this is primarily a professional tool from which wedding photographers will apparently be delighted. He has no character of his own, or let’s put it this way.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
I took a photo of the New Year's garland so that the circles were visible. So it’s noticeable on them that, starting from aperture values of 2.8-3.2 and further up to 16, “nuts” are clearly visible. Perhaps the reason is this. Maybe I find fault, but I’ll give an example Tair 11A (cheaper) Canon Macro 100 (not a word about highly artistic bokeh) and even Tamron 70-300 for $ 350. Having paid more than a thousand cu I have the right to scold the company for such things.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
I really want to see the Sigma 85 A benchmark over time and Tamron 85mm f / 1.8 Di VC USD. That would be interesting. Test from DXOMark goes without live photos. When I looked through tests Tamron 85 f / 1.8 Di VC, I really liked the soft drawing (there were no tests of the Sigma 85 A at that time). It's incorrect to compare photos of different subjects, but from my photos it turns out that Sigma draws harder. Considering that the sharpness of both of these lenses is overkill for my camera, which of the two is better is not an easy question. The “nuts” on the covered diaphragms (see the photo) came as an unpleasant surprise for me, especially since they become too early to be seen. If this is the result of “9 ROUNDED petals”, then I have problems with the perception of round and square.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
The filter size is 86 mm. Firstly, I did not immediately find it. Not every photo store keeps filters of this size, but about the choice of several manufacturers ...
Secondly, the price for HOYA HMC UV (c), for example - about $ 100. With this money you can Canon EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II buy! But I certainly grumble. To achieve sharpness at this aperture, apparently you need to build a big horseradish. At Zeiss Otus 85 the filter is the same size, but let me remind you - a lens without a focusing motor.
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
So the only serious drawback, I think, is “nuts” with aperture values from 3,2 onwards. For the lens, which Sigma advertises with the slogan “ABSOLUTE” (magazine “Popular Photography 01.2017) and moreover,“ Sublime optical performance at EVERY aperture ”is a serious drawback. Tair-11A cost ten times less, beats him easily on this point. I never cease to be amazed at the greediness of today's marketers and all these managing directors! Well, not engineers save on the number of aperture blades! For modern production, this is not a question. 85% of time and money is spent on making lenses for today's requirements. The diaphragm, probably, goes to the 30th point. Oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo!
Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM | A (Art)
The rest is rather nitpicking.
Some rigidity and facelessness of the picture? But this must also be compared directly with Tamron and Zeiss. When such a case turns up, it's hard to say. Filter size? But u Zeiss Otus the same 86 mm.
Link to source here.
The Sigma A (Sigma Art) lens range includes the following lenses:
DG
For full-frame cameras (series DG) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:
- Sigma 14 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 16/11, December 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 20 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 15/11, October 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 15/11, February 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 28 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 17/12, September 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +A, +Pentax, +Cine, 13/11, November 2012 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 40 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 16/12, September 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +A, +Cine, 13/8, January 2014 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 70 mm 1: 2.8 DG MACRO | | | A (Art), +L, +E, 13/10, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 14/12, September 2016 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 105 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 17/12, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 135 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), +L, +E, +Cine, 13/10, March 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 12-24 mm 1: 4 DG | A (Art), 16/11, November 2016
- Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG | A (Art), 17/11, February 2018 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-35 mm 1: 2 DG | A (Art), +Cine, 18/13, January 2015 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG OS | | | A (Art), 19/14, February 2017 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-105 mm 1: 4 DG OS | | | A (Art), +A, 19/14, October 2013 [AliExpress]
DG DN
For full-frame mirrorless cameras (series DG DN) with bayonet Leica l и Sony E:
- Sigma 14 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 19/15, June 2023
- Sigma 15 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art) Fisheye, 21/15, February 2024
- Sigma 20 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 17/15, August 2022 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 17/14, August 2022 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.2 DG DN | A (Art), 17/12, July 2019 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 15/11, April 2021 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.2 DG DN | A (Art), 17/12, March 2023
- Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 14/11, February 2023 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art), 15/11, August 2020 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 105 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN MACRO | A (ART), 12/7, October 2020 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art), 18/13, July 2019 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art), 19/15, November 2019 [AliExpress]
DC
For cropped SLR cameras (series DC) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:
- Sigma 30 mm 1: 1.4 DC | A (Art) +Pentax, +A, 9/8 [1 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 18-35 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) +Pentax, +A, +Cine, 17/12 [5 SLD, 4 ASP], April 2013 [AliExpress]
- Sigma 50-100 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) +Cine, 21/15 [4 SLD, 3 FLD, 1 HRI], February 2016 [AliExpress]
DN
For cropped mirrorless cameras (series DN) for Micro 4/3 and Sony E:
- Sigma 19 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silver, 8/6 [3 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 30 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silver, 7/5 [2 ASP], January 2013
- Sigma 60 mm 1:2.8DN | A (Art), black/silve, 8/6 [1 ASP, 1 SLD], January 2013
Abbreviations:
- +L means that there is a version of the lens adapted to work on mirrorless cameras with a bayonet mount Leica l
- +E means that there is a version of the lens adapted to work on mirrorless cameras with a bayonet mount Sony E/Sony FE
- + Pentax means that there is a version of the lens with a Pentax K mount (rare)
- +A means that there is a version of the lens with Sony A mount (rarity)
- + Cine means that there is a version of the lens adapted for video shooting, usually CINE versions are released simultaneously for ARRI PL, Canon EF and Sony E
- black / silver - case available in black (black) and silver (silver)
- 19 / 15, 7 / 5 and similar designations indicate the number of optical elements and groups in the optical scheme of the lens
Additionally, you can look at all lenses SIGMA CONTEMPORARY (C) и all lenses SIGMA SPORT (S). Here here there is a short video about the rulers and markings of Sigma lenses.
Hack and predictor Aviator
The lens is outstanding for its price. The fact that he beats in sharpness Carl Zeiss Otus 85mm f / 1.4 (see the Lenstip.com test), but at the same time it has a modern, fast autofocus, and costs four times less, makes you gloat over enough. It gives decent sharpness in the center of the frame already with a full aperture. This ratio of sharpness / quality of bokeh, I have not seen. Blur on open diaphragms is even (sterile can be said). Holds back light well. It does not give geometric distortions. Hard to achieve HA. Of course, the price in the region of $ 1050-1200 for 85 mm is not lifting for most fans. But we are comparing Sigma with the latest Carl Zeiss! Think about it!
The good news is that the price of the previous version SIGMA AF 85 f / 1.4 EX DG HSM will fall now. This is still a good lens that pros and amateurs will want to exchange. It is already being offered on eBay for $ 400, and over time there will be more such offers. The difference between them is small. This is convenient to review at DxOMark.com.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
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.
fixed.
An interesting review!
I will be happy to answer questions
ymolchanov@crew.hanse-explorer.de
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yuri Molchanov specifically for Radozhiva from Antarctica (s)
+100
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.
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.
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.
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.
+1
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 ...
I will try to do
I'm sorry. The next opportunity to upload a photo will appear in four weeks.
I apologize, but the best opportunity to upload a photo will appear in 4 weeks.
Will wait! Thanks!
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.
https://yadi.sk/d/t_3qAfiH3GBw8h
This is a link to Yandex disk
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.
With the same dimensions and weight, it is very regrettable to see a vacuum cleaner construction ...
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.
Hello! Take the 5D Mark III from at least 70-200, shoot for two hours, then you will understand why you need a stub. )))
So I shoot with a similar one, only from Nikon. Hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
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 ...
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?
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!
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!
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.
Thanks for the great review! I read it with pleasure)
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 ...!
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.
And yet (IMHO of course) the backdrop blurred into the trash is not always appropriate :)
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.
A typo, I meant that I would shoot with a telephoto.
Expedition leader is such a guy from EYOS who makes sure that they don't approach animals closer than 5 meters.
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.
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 ...: - |
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 :)
All (!) Speak Oleg correctly.
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!
In the JVI with a light lens, it is more pleasant to watch, plus the older f1.4 lenses are better assembled.
+
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 :)
I'm afraid it's just a lack of experience and practice. over time, you begin to appreciate well-closed diaphragms ...
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.
We are waiting for Yuri Molchanov specifically for Radozhiva from Antarctica (c) PART 2
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
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
I will try to forward it to Arkady in the summer.
Thank you, we will be grateful
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
Sharpness comparison (subjective) -
Subjectively - Zeiss is sharper, but for a woman's portrait it is rather a minus.
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 :)
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!
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
... 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.
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!
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Typo “Remains 85 1.4 old, not art - although the price is higher than the native 1.8
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 ...
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.
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 ...