The reason for getting any f/1.4 lens is that it gives you the ability to shoot at that aperture without compromises in image quality. Although the GM produces smoother and rounder bokeh balls, it has to stop down to match the sharpness of the Sigma. It also has to stop down to get rid of those nasty colour fringing issues which is non existent in the Sigma. That's a big win for Sigma in my book. Despite having similar prices now that the GM is selling at US$1280 in Hong Kong, Sigma is the one that gets my money. Pre-ordered.
I see that you reply to all comments for this video, that is incredible! Thank you for such great informative from the video and keep the great content coming!
@joe2snj I'm in the same boat. Have the GM and love it, but would also love to have the Sigma. Just can't justify the purchase, because it isn't enough "better" enough. Anyone that doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 might want to grab the Sigma, though.
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Well, normally. Mine has been dropped, though. Still works 100% fine, but it mounts a little "tight" and has a small mark or two. Also, I really don't see enough reason to switch to the Sigma. They're very similar, and both are better than the other in certain areas.
@Trippalhealicks - I think holding on to what you have is a good idea because you won't get great value for it when selling but it sounds like the lens is functionally fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've thought about selling it and/or replacing it with another 85mm GM (before the Sigma was announced) multiple times, but it landing on pavement once hasn't affected the recorded images at all, and it still performs exactly how it did before it was dropped. I just keep shooting with it, but I won't be able to sell it for a good resale price. Thanks for this great video, though, Dustin. Regardless of my situation, I still watched the whole thing just to be sure the Sigma wasn't significantly better and worth the upgrade. Love your channel, sir. Keep up the great work, please!
Solid review. I am leaning Sigma based on what I saw here. My 24-70 Sigma Art hasn’t really disappointed me. I guess I’ll be adding a Sigma 85mm to the kit.
Great video! I already have the GM and I love the quality of the Sony GM lenses in general but this Sigma lens is excellent. I think I'll keep the GM just because it is certainly good enough for my portraits.
I don't see a lot of reason to sell the GM for the Sigma, but might see some reasons to choose to save money and buy the Sigma if you are just deciding now!
I really appreciate the elaborate bokeh comparison. This if often the deciding characteristic when I decide on a new lens (maybe not in this particular case since they were so incredibly similar in that regard :D).
Some tell me that the GM is radically better, but I think this really shows that's mostly confirmation bias. It is a tiny bit better in some situations; worse in others.
I believe the sigma has uneven plain of focus across the frame (its weakness) which cause lower sharpness in other areas far from the focus point. Which means you can get sharper images from the Sigma if you shift the focus to the specific point that you want.
Tough call some might say that if you are buying a lens strictly for portraits the slight (skin) softness of the GM is a plus more dreamy. I prefer the color cast from the Sony for portraits as well. I will probably go for the Sigma to have more versatility and save some money (just bought the 50 1.4 Zeiss and the V 65 2 thanks to your reviews) and handle the rest in post.
Thanks Dustin. Others reviews have noted the Sigma has some curvature of the focal plane which would make it impossible to get both the center and mid plane or corners in focus when shooting a flat surface like your target with the DMs. Did you note any of that in your testing? I guess if it was an issue the Sigma’s sharpness towards the edge would have improved if it was focused there (sacrificing the center in the process).
Ironically I had more inconsistencies that I would associate with field curvature from the GM. I think the distortion on the Sigma affected the corners more than anything.
Assuming nothing is processed, there are some WB, colour and saturation differences that I guess could be adjusted. The brighter Sigma photos can be an advantage especially when using a large aperture lens specifically to get the lowest noise in low light (e.g. concerts... which will hopefully return). There seems to be some focus breathing in one or both. The Sigma has higher magnification for the same frame, less the farther you focus. Either (most likely) the Sigma becomes longer the closer you focus and/or the Sony becomes shorter.
15:08 huge difference in rendering quality, favoring the GM. To me, the GM looks better simply because of the more creamy background, the bokeh is amazing. Sharpness is definitely better on the Sigma. Note: you mentioned several times that the bokeh balls were larger on the Sigma: it's because the focal length is not the same, you can tell in all your shots that the GM is a bit wider than the Sigma.
I think there's more to the difference in size than breathing. Even when magnification looks about equal, the Sigma's bokeh balls are larger. I think there's also a bit of an aperture difference.
Very solid review ! Thanks ...15:49 are you sure it’s not because there is the LR correction ? Because I can see that the sigma image is much more crop as well, why ?
@@xuanler6061 I have the 85mm F1.8...It’s an awesome lenses and is sharper per than the Sony F1.4 per the DXOMARK ratings on A7r and Nikon series cameras... But I also picked up the Sigma 85mm F1.4 and in my own opinion, the sigma has better Bokah and is still sharper than the 1.8 ... The sigma has 11 aperture blades vs the 9 on the 1.8. Both lenses are good and focus fast... I’m returning the Sony 1.8 and picked up the sigma 1.4 because the sigma still has the extra edge in sharpness and performance...I also did not like the quality of the portraits out of the 1.8...But that depends on individual taste and style... Both lenses are awesome with the 1.8 holding the best value for the money... I’d say start off with the 1.8 to see if it fits your taste and style. However, the 1.8 just didn’t quite do it for me since I like to shoot with natural light indoors and outdoors... Definitely, when Sony comes out with a 85mm f1.4 GM mark-2... I’m definitely switching back...!!!👍
@@djrease7354 I don't know what country you are. You can return the goods. In my country or even some Asian countries, most of them cannot be returned. For them, money comes first, service comes second.
Seeing all the charts side by side made me go buy the 135 instead :) I was on the fence already. My dog has never looked so good! Crushing the portraits and wide field astro! I'll snag the 1.8 if I ever desire an 85. I will say, I've used 3 of the new DG DN lenses, and the micro contrast is fantastic on every single one I've used. Just excellent! I really love my 100-400. It just blows the Sony 70-300 out of the water.
very detailed comparison, in fact the best i could ever seen...I had GM85 and sold it, got a 85DN, couldn't be happier..Definitely sharper, punchy,,,silent AF, very accurate AF, small form factor, lightweight..a game changer...
You have to write to Canon to make their RF mount open source like Sony does. Canon is not going to do that . So no Sigma, Tamron, Samyang for RF mount
Thank you for the video. Very nicely done. At this point the 85 GM is five years old so I am not unhappy with the fact that I have 5 years worth of photos with it that the Sigma could not provide. I am curious though if the FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro should be added for comparison. In the past macro lenses were not considered good portrait lenses due to the sharpness but if that is what everyone is wanting now maybe I should have just been using that. Also, I'm someone who values lens ergonomics being consistent across primes. My 20/1.8, 24/1.4, new 35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 135/1.8 are consistent. Do we have to wait for all the DG DN Sigma's to get that? One final comment. I am curious now how the new Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro will compare? Maybe its not f/1.4 but I bet its equally as sharp from 2.8 to 5.6 so maybe that's a good alternative as well and it $1300 cheaper than the RF 85mm f/1.2L and it has IS. So much to think about.
Sigma looks great, I think its a bigger brother of sigma 56mm 1.4 lens :) I had a samyang 85mm 1.4 AF lens, sharp but focusing is not reliable, sold it for GM, super happy with GM!!! GM has very smooth edge of bokeh ball. If you like 85mm and money is not too big issue, go for GM!!!
Great comparison. It’s all about the bokeh! dont think I would pick either of these due to having the 100 stf, I am definitely a bokeh snob now 😂, just wish Sony would make a few more stf lenses, don’t mind a lower tstop as long as that bokeh is 👌
Took the GM to shoot a wedding last weekend. The hunting in low light drove me nuts but otherwise v happy with the lens. How does the focusing in low light compare, Dustin?
I didn't notice a major difference between the two lenses. I would say that Canon R bodies have a slight advantage in low light performance compared to Sony, but I've always been able to get the Sony's to work fine for me.
Big miss in the comparison: moving subject AF performance. If you plan to shoot surfers, running/playing kids, skaters, cars, bikes, animals just stay away from the Sigma (I get only 1 in 5 shots in focus with my Sigma on those circumstances, A7M3 AF-C 10fps burst, 5 in 5 shots in focus with 135mm GM for comparison). For standing/posing subjects or studio work it (Sigma) is fine.
Hi Alfonso, I'm having fine focus accuracy with my personal copy of the Sigma, but comparing the Sigma to the 135GM is an unfair comparison. The 85GM doesn't focus nearly as well as the 135, which is one of the finest lenses Sony has ever created.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree the 135mm f1.8 GM is a (very) tall bar to compare any lens against. Yet I got used to its performance, and having upgraded to the Sigma comning from the Sony 85mm f1.8 (wich is also a very competent/fast AF performer) I cannot avoid to find myself in full "Sigma AF shock" mode... My expectation for the Art line were quite a bit higher. It is not a return (wich I could still do) just because I am not using 85mm for action anyway, but I have to leave here my hands-on impressions for those 85mm f18 wannabe upgraders (as I was 2 weeks ago) to really think it over before upgrading.
Fantastic analysis, as always. Would like to ask not an ordinary question- have you ever tried non-standard, much smaller metal lens hoods for lenses? I consider ordering one as replacement for Sigma's. Reason beeing protection from bumps but keeping size small. The only down side I can think of is worse flare resistance, but maybe there is something else? I mean, its a cheap thing, costs like 5$ but I just wonder if I risk anything by using it? I guess these hoods screw-in like filters. You can find them on Aliexpress by searching word "standard lens hood"
Amazingly good review! Just one thing that I miss, and I would have been curious to your opinion on it, that is flare when shooting against a light source. It's the only thing I've seen in different reviews that clearly looks better on the Sony, imo!
I don’t know about this review but ever since I got the sigma I’ve never even use my Gmaster anymore because over all the Sigma is the better lens for the money and value
I enjoy watching your videos, and use information from your tests and others to influence my purchases. I use a Sony A7Riv and a Sony A6500 as my "B" camera. I aim to get as high resolution as I can, and note how lens technology is improving with time, hence always looking for upgrade possibilities. I do my own testing of the lenses I own, to check if I have received a lower quality dud example, and to learn more about my lenses. I sometimes can not achieve as good a result as you (or other testers) achieve, especially edge sharpness. To what extent do you think manufacturers loan you optimized examples to test, better than the example that we are likely to buy, knowing that you are an influencer? Also I check sharpness in Lightroom at 2:1 magnification, and find that this picks up defects when 1:1 magnification still looks OK. Can you please comment on your techniques for showing deficiencies in lens sharpness. I seem to have harped on lens sharpness, but I find other aspects of lens deficiencies easier to correct in lightroom or other software.
My tests are shown at a 2:1 pixel level. As for "cherry-picking"; I often do a second round of tests when I receive a second copy of a lens (either my own personal copy I buy or another loaner for a different reason). I have found that in almost every case the two copies perform very similarly, so I don't think that's the case. I've also returned lenses from companies loaning them to me because I know they aren't performing up to specification (they've been damaged), so I know I'm not always sent the cream.
What a complete evaluation. Looks like the Sony is closer to a f1.5. I’m surprised that when you look at real images the Sigma is way more appealing, considering the test analysts I thought the opposite was going to be true.
People have drawn different conclusions from this test...which is fine. I mostly want to put the data out there and let people draw their own conclusions.
Superb concise comparison as usual Dustin, I appreciate you man ✌🏻 I loved the first Art 85mm but damn as a wedding photographer that beast was just too cumbersome. I swapped to the GM which is a class lens but the CA and sharpness let it down imo, now sold the GM for the lighter, sharper, less CA new Art version.
This is the most detailed review I have ever seen. Both have major flaws. Ca distortion in one, pincushion distortion in the other. The far corner advantage of the GM disappears in most portrait work so, for me, the win goes to the Sigma. If one used it for landscape, the GM may be a better choice. I noticed a different color palette in the portrait work with more reds in your skin tones with the GM vs a more green appearance in the Sigma. That made the GM'S portrait images more appealing for me despite the resolution advantage of the Sigma. Quite a mixed bag. Personally, I feel the ca's of the Sony so badly affect image quality that the Sigma gets the win for me. Too bad you can't compare this to the performance of the Nikon z 85. The only thing not covered here is af performance. That usually favors the OEM lens.
I covered AF in the Sigma review, and I actually think overall I favor the Sigma for AF. It focuses smoother and faster, and my Eye AF results were flawless.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your opinion on this. I have GM right now and thinking about new Sigma DN. But price of new Sigma is similar to what I can get for used GM, so I am still undecided. I have tried both very quickly and had a feeling that the GM is much better with backlit scenes.
1200 vs 1800 bucks..ill take the sigma. the sigma 85 (for nikon) old lens body (dn is a tweaked formula) was already sharper than the GM. here its just the same.
Thank you for the extensive testing. I'm reminded of the Canon 85mm f1.2L II where the lack of pin-sharp focus with skin texture and dreamy bokeh produces some lovely images (and it had lots of chromatic aberration). I'm just not sure that zooming in to 100% to see marginal differences in focus is what an 85mm portrait lens is about, and I do think that quality of bokeh is really important in portraits - the softer the better. Personally, I already find the sharpness of the Sony can accentuate skin defects (particularly in close-ups). Obviously, this is not the case for other lenses (e.g. 35mm), which may be used for applications where sharpness is absolutely critical and pixel peeping is much more valuable. I absolutely love my Sigma 35mm f1.2 lens, for example.
There's no question that different people value different things in their work, so having options that aren't identical in their design philosophy is a good thing. We've got choices!
There is no clear winner. If you're looking for a dreamy look, then the GM is much better, just look at 15:08. If you want more sharpness, then the Sigma wins. For portraits, I prefer a dreamy kind of rendering, but for action, I would prefer sharpness.
Dustin Abbott sorry I may have wrongly pushed the keyboard. I have preordered the canon r5, RF 501.2 RF 85 1.2 ans Rf 24-70 2.8. Do you recommend them? As you know I always highly regard your opinion. Thanks!
havent been for awhile. video production level is down. get your lighting better. some back lighting or window lighting. also, that audio is horrific. get a lavaliere mic or an overhead boom mic. invest in that. room echo and distance from mic is very evident.
The reason for getting any f/1.4 lens is that it gives you the ability to shoot at that aperture without compromises in image quality. Although the GM produces smoother and rounder bokeh balls, it has to stop down to match the sharpness of the Sigma. It also has to stop down to get rid of those nasty colour fringing issues which is non existent in the Sigma. That's a big win for Sigma in my book. Despite having similar prices now that the GM is selling at US$1280 in Hong Kong, Sigma is the one that gets my money. Pre-ordered.
Enjoy the new lens.
I see that you reply to all comments for this video, that is incredible! Thank you for such great informative from the video and keep the great content coming!
You are so welcome!
Thanks again for a great comparison, I have the GM and I’ll be keeping it but for new buyers I think the Sigma is the clear winner..
@joe2snj I'm in the same boat. Have the GM and love it, but would also love to have the Sigma. Just can't justify the purchase, because it isn't enough "better" enough. Anyone that doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 might want to grab the Sigma, though.
Your GM lens will sell for close to the new price... Used lens prices are crazy like that...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Well, normally. Mine has been dropped, though. Still works 100% fine, but it mounts a little "tight" and has a small mark or two. Also, I really don't see enough reason to switch to the Sigma. They're very similar, and both are better than the other in certain areas.
@Trippalhealicks - I think holding on to what you have is a good idea because you won't get great value for it when selling but it sounds like the lens is functionally fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've thought about selling it and/or replacing it with another 85mm GM (before the Sigma was announced) multiple times, but it landing on pavement once hasn't affected the recorded images at all, and it still performs exactly how it did before it was dropped. I just keep shooting with it, but I won't be able to sell it for a good resale price. Thanks for this great video, though, Dustin. Regardless of my situation, I still watched the whole thing just to be sure the Sigma wasn't significantly better and worth the upgrade. Love your channel, sir. Keep up the great work, please!
Thank you Sir for this video! You did such an amazing job! Thank you for helping me find my lens!
Happy to help!
Incredible job testing! One of the best side-by-sides I've ever seen -- thank you!
My pleasure.
Dustin is sharper at all tested apertures against any other reviewer ;)
Thanks Justin, you do excellent reviews. I have sold my 85mm f1.4 GM lens and have pre-ordered the Sigma for my A7RIV, A9, and soon my A7SIII. Cheers
Enjoy your new lens.
Solid review. I am leaning Sigma based on what I saw here. My 24-70 Sigma Art hasn’t really disappointed me. I guess I’ll be adding a Sigma 85mm to the kit.
I’ve been pretty happy with the Sigma.
Best lens reviewer hands down. You're clinically SHARP when dissecting a lens! A++++
LOL - thanks!
thanks for the comparison, very well done.
are the sigma portrait pictures corrected for that pincushion distortion?
There are no corrections.
Great video! I already have the GM and I love the quality of the Sony GM lenses in general but this Sigma lens is excellent. I think I'll keep the GM just because it is certainly good enough for my portraits.
I don't see a lot of reason to sell the GM for the Sigma, but might see some reasons to choose to save money and buy the Sigma if you are just deciding now!
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's exactly what I would say too, if someone new was coming along to 85mm on Sony I would probably point them to the Sigma!
I really appreciate the elaborate bokeh comparison. This if often the deciding characteristic when I decide on a new lens (maybe not in this particular case since they were so incredibly similar in that regard :D).
Some tell me that the GM is radically better, but I think this really shows that's mostly confirmation bias. It is a tiny bit better in some situations; worse in others.
A very competent and interesting review. We can very rarely meet such professionals now. Thanks.
Thank you very much!
Great work! But how about photo and video autofocus? lowlight, backlight and fast action?
I dealt with that in the Sigma review already, but the Sigma focuses smoother and faster.
That watch that you wore in the advertisement is very nice.
Thanks. I actually did a review of it here: bit.ly/TACSAVLIIda
@@DustinAbbottTWI awesome let me check it out.
Totally straight faced ‘a little of fringing on the ear hairs there’ 😂😂😂 god bless you man 🙌
LOL - thanks!
I believe the sigma has uneven plain of focus across the frame (its weakness) which cause lower sharpness in other areas far from the focus point. Which means you can get sharper images from the Sigma if you shift the focus to the specific point that you want.
That could be true to a minor extent because of the distortion profile.
Tough call some might say that if you are buying a lens strictly for portraits the slight (skin) softness of the GM is a plus more dreamy. I prefer the color cast from the Sony for portraits as well. I will probably go for the Sigma to have more versatility and save some money (just bought the 50 1.4 Zeiss and the V 65 2 thanks to your reviews) and handle the rest in post.
Valid points. There's definitely strengths to both lenses - they are very much apples to apples.
Thanks Dustin. Others reviews have noted the Sigma has some curvature of the focal plane which would make it impossible to get both the center and mid plane or corners in focus when shooting a flat surface like your target with the DMs. Did you note any of that in your testing? I guess if it was an issue the Sigma’s sharpness towards the edge would have improved if it was focused there (sacrificing the center in the process).
Ironically I had more inconsistencies that I would associate with field curvature from the GM. I think the distortion on the Sigma affected the corners more than anything.
Fantastic comparison, thank you. Once your Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is repaired it would be great to see a similar comparison to the Sigma. Thanks so much!
Fair enough. I'm still working on that repair right now.
Assuming nothing is processed, there are some WB, colour and saturation differences that I guess could be adjusted.
The brighter Sigma photos can be an advantage especially when using a large aperture lens specifically to get the lowest noise in low light (e.g. concerts... which will hopefully return).
There seems to be some focus breathing in one or both. The Sigma has higher magnification for the same frame, less the farther you focus. Either (most likely) the Sigma becomes longer the closer you focus and/or the Sony becomes shorter.
There is no additional processing to these images - just a standard sharpening profile (same for both).
I know there's some pin cushion distortion on the sigma and this can re corrected in camera but does the same apply to video?
Video is also corrected in camera.
Excellent comparison of the bokeh! GM seems to have better skin tones, and on balance more often the creamier bokeh.
Fair enough
15:08 huge difference in rendering quality, favoring the GM.
To me, the GM looks better simply because of the more creamy background, the bokeh is amazing. Sharpness is definitely better on the Sigma. Note: you mentioned several times that the bokeh balls were larger on the Sigma: it's because the focal length is not the same, you can tell in all your shots that the GM is a bit wider than the Sigma.
I think there's more to the difference in size than breathing. Even when magnification looks about equal, the Sigma's bokeh balls are larger. I think there's also a bit of an aperture difference.
And yes, I do think that spot you highlight is the one where the GM looks the best relative to the Sigma. I didn't notice it in many cases.
I have to buy the Megadap ETZ 21 due to 85 art DG DN on Z6 using. 85 Art DG DN is the perfect lens in 850$ budget.
It's a great value lens.
Very solid review ! Thanks ...15:49 are you sure it’s not because there is the LR correction ? Because I can see that the sigma image is much more crop as well, why ?
I don't think so.
I have a doubit sir . Pincushion distrotion (sigma) can be seen in vedio ?
No, it will be automatically corrected in camera by the profile
@@DustinAbbottTWI profile? Lens comp! ?
The comparison we need.
I'm glad it helped out.
Exactly the comparison vid I was hoping for. Also, it looks like Dustin returned from a sunny beach vacation prior to making this video! 🏝
Probably more like returned from the golf course :) No beach vacations this year!!
looking forward to the Canon rf 85mm f2 review!
Unfortunately Canon Canada still really isn't fully operational, and getting new Canon loaners is a slow process.
Curious to know if the lens profile of this lens is in some retouching software such as capture one and Photoshop
It's definitely in Photoshop now. I haven't checked Capture One, but it probably is by now.
@@DustinAbbottTWI If compared with Sony fe 85mm f1.8, which one would you recommend especially portrait and fashion photography?
@@xuanler6061 I have the 85mm F1.8...It’s an awesome lenses and is sharper per than the Sony F1.4 per the DXOMARK ratings on A7r and Nikon series cameras... But I also picked up the Sigma 85mm F1.4 and in my own opinion, the sigma has better Bokah and is still sharper than the 1.8 ... The sigma has 11 aperture blades vs the 9 on the 1.8. Both lenses are good and focus fast... I’m returning the Sony 1.8 and picked up the sigma 1.4 because the sigma still has the extra edge in sharpness and performance...I also did not like the quality of the portraits out of the 1.8...But that depends on individual taste and style... Both lenses are awesome with the 1.8 holding the best value for the money... I’d say start off with the 1.8 to see if it fits your taste and style. However, the 1.8 just didn’t quite do it for me since I like to shoot with natural light indoors and outdoors... Definitely, when Sony comes out with a 85mm f1.4 GM mark-2... I’m definitely switching back...!!!👍
@@djrease7354 I don't know what country you are. You can return the goods. In my country or even some Asian countries, most of them cannot be returned. For them, money comes first, service comes second.
Seeing all the charts side by side made me go buy the 135 instead :) I was on the fence already. My dog has never looked so good! Crushing the portraits and wide field astro! I'll snag the 1.8 if I ever desire an 85.
I will say, I've used 3 of the new DG DN lenses, and the micro contrast is fantastic on every single one I've used. Just excellent! I really love my 100-400. It just blows the Sony 70-300 out of the water.
The 135GM is pretty much head and shoulders over competition.
very detailed comparison, in fact the best i could ever seen...I had GM85 and sold it, got a 85DN, couldn't be happier..Definitely sharper, punchy,,,silent AF, very accurate AF, small form factor, lightweight..a game changer...
I bought a DN too, and really like it.
Extremely well presented and great details. Thank you very much.
You're very welcome!
Please give us the Sigma in RF mount!!!
You have to write to Canon to make their RF mount open source like Sony does. Canon is not going to do that . So no Sigma, Tamron, Samyang for RF mount
I too hope that Sigma ports these lenses over to RF.
@joe black - that's not actually true. Samyang already has multiple AF lenses (very good ones, too!) in the RF mount.
Thank you for the video. Very nicely done. At this point the 85 GM is five years old so I am not unhappy with the fact that I have 5 years worth of photos with it that the Sigma could not provide. I am curious though if the FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro should be added for comparison. In the past macro lenses were not considered good portrait lenses due to the sharpness but if that is what everyone is wanting now maybe I should have just been using that. Also, I'm someone who values lens ergonomics being consistent across primes. My 20/1.8, 24/1.4, new 35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 135/1.8 are consistent. Do we have to wait for all the DG DN Sigma's to get that? One final comment. I am curious now how the new Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro will compare? Maybe its not f/1.4 but I bet its equally as sharp from 2.8 to 5.6 so maybe that's a good alternative as well and it $1300 cheaper than the RF 85mm f/1.2L and it has IS. So much to think about.
Solid points, and, to your point about Sigma, I think the answer is yes. DN lenses will have the consistent ergonomics.
Really a great review. I can’t recall a better one. Thank you very much.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome review! 🙌
Thank you very much
would you recommend selling the gm for the sigma or just keeping the Gm ?
I keep my GM until Sigma releases more smaller DN lenses (like 20/1.8, 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, etc...). And after that i will see.
I don't think there's a compelling reason to sell the GM. I see an advantage to buying the Sigma if you own neither and want to save money.
Sigma looks great, I think its a bigger brother of sigma 56mm 1.4 lens :)
I had a samyang 85mm 1.4 AF lens, sharp but focusing is not reliable, sold it for GM, super happy with GM!!!
GM has very smooth edge of bokeh ball. If you like 85mm and money is not too big issue, go for GM!!!
Interesting point about the 56mm.
gm 135 is an absolute beast! Love my gm lenses..
The 135 is a brilliantly sharp lens...possibly the sharpest I've ever reviewed.
Hi Dustin, will you review TOKINA Optique ATX-m 85mm F1, 8?
Unfortunately I don't have any connection to Tokina. I reached out to them a few years back and heard nothing from them.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think now they'll be more responsive with you and your 100k+ followers
Are you excited for the rumor GM 35 1.4? For me, if it's the similar size as the 24 1.4, I am buying it instantly.
I am, for sure. Their recent GM lenses have been very strong.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Really looking forward to your review of it. But I might just be buying it as soon as it's available for ordering, haha.
Great comparison. It’s all about the bokeh! dont think I would pick either of these due to having the 100 stf, I am definitely a bokeh snob now 😂, just wish Sony would make a few more stf lenses, don’t mind a lower tstop as long as that bokeh is 👌
It's true that few lenses compare to the smoothness of an STF lens for bokeh.
Dustin, are you going to review the 100mm GM soon?
It’s on my “to-do” list, but not soon necessarily.
Took the GM to shoot a wedding last weekend. The hunting in low light drove me nuts but otherwise v happy with the lens. How does the focusing in low light compare, Dustin?
I didn't notice a major difference between the two lenses. I would say that Canon R bodies have a slight advantage in low light performance compared to Sony, but I've always been able to get the Sony's to work fine for me.
Big miss in the comparison: moving subject AF performance. If you plan to shoot surfers, running/playing kids, skaters, cars, bikes, animals just stay away from the Sigma (I get only 1 in 5 shots in focus with my Sigma on those circumstances, A7M3 AF-C 10fps burst, 5 in 5 shots in focus with 135mm GM for comparison). For standing/posing subjects or studio work it (Sigma) is fine.
Hi Alfonso, I'm having fine focus accuracy with my personal copy of the Sigma, but comparing the Sigma to the 135GM is an unfair comparison. The 85GM doesn't focus nearly as well as the 135, which is one of the finest lenses Sony has ever created.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree the 135mm f1.8 GM is a (very) tall bar to compare any lens against. Yet I got used to its performance, and having upgraded to the Sigma comning from the Sony 85mm f1.8 (wich is also a very competent/fast AF performer) I cannot avoid to find myself in full "Sigma AF shock" mode...
My expectation for the Art line were quite a bit higher.
It is not a return (wich I could still do) just because I am not using 85mm for action anyway, but I have to leave here my hands-on impressions for those 85mm f18 wannabe upgraders (as I was 2 weeks ago) to really think it over before upgrading.
Fantastic analysis, as always.
Would like to ask not an ordinary question- have you ever tried non-standard, much smaller metal lens hoods for lenses? I consider ordering one as replacement for Sigma's. Reason beeing protection from bumps but keeping size small. The only down side I can think of is worse flare resistance, but maybe there is something else? I mean, its a cheap thing, costs like 5$ but I just wonder if I risk anything by using it? I guess these hoods screw-in like filters. You can find them on Aliexpress by searching word "standard lens hood"
Less shading, but if your priority is just protecting your lens, no problem.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks!
Amazingly good review! Just one thing that I miss, and I would have been curious to your opinion on it, that is flare when shooting against a light source. It's the only thing I've seen in different reviews that clearly looks better on the Sony, imo!
Thanks for the feedback.
I don’t know about this review but ever since I got the sigma I’ve never even use my Gmaster anymore because over all the Sigma is the better lens for the money and value
I went with the Sigma myself.
I enjoy watching your videos, and use information from your tests and others to influence my purchases.
I use a Sony A7Riv and a Sony A6500 as my "B" camera. I aim to get as high resolution as I can,
and note how lens technology is improving with time, hence always looking for upgrade possibilities.
I do my own testing of the lenses I own, to check if I have received a lower quality dud example, and to learn
more about my lenses.
I sometimes can not achieve as good a result as you (or other testers) achieve, especially edge sharpness.
To what extent do you think manufacturers loan you optimized examples to test, better than the example
that we are likely to buy, knowing that you are an influencer?
Also I check sharpness in Lightroom at 2:1 magnification, and find that this picks up defects when 1:1
magnification still looks OK. Can you please comment on your techniques for showing deficiencies in
lens sharpness.
I seem to have harped on lens sharpness, but I find other aspects of lens deficiencies easier to correct in
lightroom or other software.
My tests are shown at a 2:1 pixel level. As for "cherry-picking"; I often do a second round of tests when I receive a second copy of a lens (either my own personal copy I buy or another loaner for a different reason). I have found that in almost every case the two copies perform very similarly, so I don't think that's the case. I've also returned lenses from companies loaning them to me because I know they aren't performing up to specification (they've been damaged), so I know I'm not always sent the cream.
What a complete evaluation. Looks like the Sony is closer to a f1.5. I’m surprised that when you look at real images the Sigma is way more appealing, considering the test analysts I thought the opposite was going to be true.
People have drawn different conclusions from this test...which is fine. I mostly want to put the data out there and let people draw their own conclusions.
Sir Dustin.....waiting for this
I had a lot of requests for this!
Sigma sharper but your portraits look more pleasant with gm... hmmm
Interesting feedback.
Superb concise comparison as usual Dustin, I appreciate you man ✌🏻
I loved the first Art 85mm but damn as a wedding photographer that beast was just too cumbersome. I swapped to the GM which is a class lens but the CA and sharpness let it down imo, now sold the GM for the lighter, sharper, less CA new Art version.
This new one is a treat. I snapped one up myself.
This is the most detailed review I have ever seen. Both have major flaws. Ca distortion in one, pincushion distortion in the other. The far corner advantage of the GM disappears in most portrait work so, for me, the win goes to the Sigma. If one used it for landscape, the GM may be a better choice. I noticed a different color palette in the portrait work with more reds in your skin tones with the GM vs a more green appearance in the Sigma. That made the GM'S portrait images more appealing for me despite the resolution advantage of the Sigma. Quite a mixed bag. Personally, I feel the ca's of the Sony so badly affect image quality that the Sigma gets the win for me. Too bad you can't compare this to the performance of the Nikon z 85. The only thing not covered here is af performance. That usually favors the OEM lens.
I covered AF in the Sigma review, and I actually think overall I favor the Sigma for AF. It focuses smoother and faster, and my Eye AF results were flawless.
Lets start this Superfight :D
:)
Would Sony launch 85 1.4 GM mark 2 please:)
I suspect such a lens is still several years away. Sony would have to be able to really improve on this one...and I'm not sure that's possible, yet.
But what about shooting against the sun ?
Not a great idea with either of them.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your opinion on this. I have GM right now and thinking about new Sigma DN. But price of new Sigma is similar to what I can get for used GM, so I am still undecided. I have tried both very quickly and had a feeling that the GM is much better with backlit scenes.
Amazing work and dedication Destin, you are my go to for reviews
I appreciate that!
1200 vs 1800 bucks..ill take the sigma. the sigma 85 (for nikon) old lens body (dn is a tweaked formula) was already sharper than the GM. here its just the same.
Fair enough.
Thank you for the extensive testing. I'm reminded of the Canon 85mm f1.2L II where the lack of pin-sharp focus with skin texture and dreamy bokeh produces some lovely images (and it had lots of chromatic aberration). I'm just not sure that zooming in to 100% to see marginal differences in focus is what an 85mm portrait lens is about, and I do think that quality of bokeh is really important in portraits - the softer the better. Personally, I already find the sharpness of the Sony can accentuate skin defects (particularly in close-ups). Obviously, this is not the case for other lenses (e.g. 35mm), which may be used for applications where sharpness is absolutely critical and pixel peeping is much more valuable. I absolutely love my Sigma 35mm f1.2 lens, for example.
There's no question that different people value different things in their work, so having options that aren't identical in their design philosophy is a good thing. We've got choices!
Samyang 85mm 1.2 vs these lenses?
They have nicer build and more features, obviously, and a little better autofocus. The Samyang is a not a lot worse optically.
That Sigma looks to be a great buy ! A huge win for Sigma .
I think so.
Still not selling my Milvus 85! I also get mildly annoyed by Sigma’s yellow cast!
The Milvus is a fabulous lens. I don't see the cast you are referring to, though.
Dustin Abbott sorry, i meant in my Sigma 35 1.2 lens. Nice work as always btw
Even with the amount of in-depth testing shown here, there will still be people trying to argue that the sigma isn't better at 2/3 the price.
There is no clear winner. If you're looking for a dreamy look, then the GM is much better, just look at 15:08. If you want more sharpness, then the Sigma wins. For portraits, I prefer a dreamy kind of rendering, but for action, I would prefer sharpness.
A used GM cost the same or less than a new sigma. I'll take the GM rendering
I do think the Sigma is real world sharper, but that doesn't make it better for everyone.
Sj
???
Sigma is the best!
They've definitely had some winners recently.
Au
???
Dustin Abbott sorry I may have wrongly pushed the keyboard. I have preordered the canon r5, RF 501.2 RF 85 1.2 ans Rf 24-70 2.8. Do you recommend them? As you know I always highly regard your opinion. Thanks!
havent been for awhile. video production level is down. get your lighting better. some back lighting or window lighting. also, that audio is horrific. get a lavaliere mic or an overhead boom mic. invest in that. room echo and distance from mic is very evident.
I went back and checked this video to see if your criticisms have merit. They don't.
I think its a poor audio quality ✌️
???