ART Sigma 85 f/1.4 - Anyone have one?

Cesium

OT Supporter
Nov 25, 2004
11,661
Colorado
What are your thoughts? Thinking of swapping my 135L for one of these. Stupid idea?

On Canon though, so I'm afraid of AF problems. :hs:
 

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
UPS just dropped mine off about 1hr ago.
No pictures yet, but the build quality is awesome. -Feels way better than my 35L. I'll post some focus tests later.

So far people see to complain about AF issues. It's hit or miss, but if you get a good copy then it's on Par with Canon's 85mm 1.2L
Just notice the amount of 85mm 1.2's on the market now. People selling Canon's 85mm and getting Sigma's + 135L. haha
 
Last edited:

jigelow

New Member
Dec 16, 2010
2,407
Sigma QC is always hit or miss, but they seemed to put a lot into this lens as is evident from it's body. I'm curious, since I will be shopping for an 85mm down the road for F mount.
 
TS
TS
Cesium

Cesium

OT Supporter
Nov 25, 2004
11,661
Colorado
I've had OK luck with sigma so far. Had a 30mm that was pretty good after calibration, and have a 20mm that's spot-on. So I do know that they can be good...

just not sure if it's "give up 135L" good. Even with as little as I use that lens..

Sorry for the stupid thread.
 

CornUponCob

Active Member
Oct 3, 2001
15,299
No they're shitty. Not nearly as good as the 85L II I'm selling. You should buy my lens.

buy it.
 

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
Here are some sample tests I just did. Initial impression is that wide open, focus occasionally shifts a VERY tiny bit. But if you stop down to 2.0 or 2.8 then it's spot on.

Here's the setup
-Canon 5Dc
-Tripod with timer release
-Only post applied was WB correction (which was measured with a 18% gray card).
-AF Assist beam with Canon 430EX (no flash)
-Focus always on the center of the Ace of Spades
-Camera distance to the Ace of Spades is roughly ~2 ft. A few inches greater then the MFD. We're talking extremely THIN DOF here.


Pic #1 - F/1.4, ISO 200, 1/20s, Center Focus point used
Pic #2 - F/1.4, ISO 200, 1/20s, Upper Right Focus point used
Pic #3 - F/1.4, ISO 200, 1/20s, Far Right Focus point used
Pic #4 - F/2.0, ISO 200, 1/8s, Center Focus point used
Pic #5 - F/2.8, ISO 200, 1/3s, Center Focus point used

Pic 1
5452483400_87f233f392_b.jpg


Pic2
5452483638_491dff7546_b.jpg


Pic3
5451872191_05d373a658_b.jpg


Pic4
5452484282_a22529b742_b.jpg


Pic5
5452484646_840be7bed0_b.jpg
 
Last edited:

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
Oh.. Pic #1 looked very soft to me. I later took 2 more shots with the same settings and both were significantly better. Looks like every few shots, wide open, will shift or won't be "razor" sharp. The posted pictures were the first 5 pictures taken. I did not pick and choose which one to post.
 
Last edited:

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
Sounds like both of my Sigmas (past and present) act. :hs:

In the real world I won't be as close as in this test case.
I also wonder if focusing on the center of the Spade, even with AF assist, caused AF difficulties. ie..center being totally black with no contrast.
I think if i focused on the edge of the spade it would have yielded better wide open results.
 

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
I repeated the test. Same setup as before, but this time I focused on the tip at the top of the spade. The AF square was roughly 50/50 black and white filled. I also used flash whereas the initial test was 100% ambient light.

I'm also borderline MFD. I figure if it can perform well at the weakest boundary test conditions then it'll do at portrait distances and typical usage.

Pic #1 Center AF, F/1.4, 1/100, ISO 200.
5452298409_4a880eaa68_b.jpg


Pic #2 Upper Right AF, F/1.4, 1/100, ISO 200.
5452300281_3b3961ff15_b.jpg


Pic #3 Far Right AF, F/1.4, 1/100, ISO 200.
5452299651_efda706318_b.jpg


Seems like way more CA with flash, but easily fixed in post. Overall, I'm VERY happy with the new lens.
 
TS
TS
Cesium

Cesium

OT Supporter
Nov 25, 2004
11,661
Colorado
I think I'll stick to my 135L for now. Used it for some baby shots last night and it's getting the job done. Why mess with a good thing?
 

jsmonet

egg
Sep 20, 2002
1,328
so cali
tripod? didn't think it would matter with a non moving object and a tripod. i wasn't hand holding and had the shutter on a timer release.

it's no 1/fiiiiffff of a second, but you're still in the <archer>danger zone</a> for a little mirror slap/n/tickle.

whatever. shit's weak.

hella weak.

/strokes 85L

:(

any pix from real use? outside? in situations that make my lens vomit purple fringes all over everything? I'm curious how it handles high contrast wide open
 
TS
TS
Cesium

Cesium

OT Supporter
Nov 25, 2004
11,661
Colorado
I want the 135 sooooooooooooo fucking bad :rofl:


It's a great lens for sure. Just forces a longer working distance than I find useful most of the time. But hey, spring is just around the corner and I'll be shooting outdoors more. This thing shines in that environment.
 

Cicada

Abraham $LINK’in
OT Supporter
Sep 30, 2008
177,773
SoCal
I might impulse buy this sigma. FFFFUUUUUUUU. Can't afford an 85L, but by most accounts, the sigma is comparable for just over 1/3 the price.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
437
Guests online
53
Total visitors
490

Forum statistics

Threads
369,470
Messages
16,886,108
Members
86,873
Latest member
vitalesan