Personally, I think the differences between the Otus 85mm 1.4 and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art have more to due with optical design than anything 'special'. You'll get a special result when the lens does what it is you need. So, that's a subjective thing. The Otus reigns supreme in exactly what it's supposed to. It's a symmetrical planar design, highly corrected for aberration and gives extreme sharpness. This is one of the reasons the planar design is also used for macro lens design. The Planar lens design, for what it does, will never be surpassed. That's just my opinion. Maybe for me, the Planar lens design is the thing that's 'special'. :) The Sigma on the other hand, is a much more complex and contemporary design, which appears to be concerned with two things primarily, with incredible sharpness as a given. The first: maximum light transmission. in my shots I see almost no vignetting at any aperture which to me is kinda special. :) The second: the ability to resolve even the highest resolution sensors. In this test I notice you're using the 5D Mk IV. I'm shooting on an a7r ii and I can say for sure, it resolves every pixel available. The MTF curve for Sigma is also basically flat. All things considered: no vignette, high resolution, edge to edge sharpness, and incredibly fast, silent auto focus. This lens is a home run. And at $1200, it's a grand slam, at least for me. One thing to note, the similarities to the Tamron are not accidental. The formulas are quite close between the two. Thanks for the review. Two thumbs up.
You should have one million subscribers. Excellent review, explaining all the attributes of the lens bokeh, sharpness, microcontrast, rendering, and performance. Regards, Keep going!
Thanks for your great review buddy. It has been a long time I'm waiting for Sigma 85 ART for my Nikon D750, but I'm still hesitant about it! I hope you release the final video very soon to put our minds in ease.
Great review, as usual! Sigma's biggest advantage in my opinion is the amazing strength of having pretty much no vignetting - but I guess thats what you'd have to expect with an 86mm front filter and its massive size! :) Looking forward to the final verdict/review!
There's definitely some pluses that come from having a very big front element, though the resulting size of the lens will cost them with other potential buyers.
+Dustin Abbott I'm wondering if this is worth trading in the Tamron SP f/1.8 VC? The down sides are that this is way bigger and heavier, has no VC or OS in Sigma speak, as well as more $$$. The only upside is the 2/3 or a stop of light/blur/separation. Oh look at that, I just answered my own question.
It's not really an easy decision. They both have strengths and weaknesses. You just have to evaluate what suits your purposes more and what weaknesses you can more easily put up with.
Another excellent review, J. I think 85mm is a favorite prime of many portrait photographers, that said, out of the many 85's that I've shot with, I don't think I've ever came across one that wasn't great to amazing.. I've never shot the new 85mm Sigma Art, but I own the older version, and it's awesome. My favorites of all time are: the Canon f1.2L, f1.8, Ziess ZE f1.4 and Samyang 85mm f1.4.. Bang for the Buck, the Samyang is hard to beat, if it had the ease of A.F. it could easily best some thousand dollar lenses for image quality.. Think it's just hard to make a poor 85mm. Lol
There's definitely some give and take, but there's no question that 85mm is a focal length that does seem easy to get right. I personally think buying an 85mm for the feature set and "character" is probably the right choice for many people.
Excellent review as I've come to expect so thank you for not disappointing me Dustin (lol!)! The Sigma is a very impressive piece of kit but OMG @ the Otus!! Now I've got to save for the Otus as well as the 5D MK4 (my G.A.S is back with a vengeance lol!)😳 Have a great Christmas mate and I hope that 2017 brings you health, wealth and happiness.🍀🌲
Hey Dustin , great review. Based on shooting with both Tamron and sigma 85mm would you be missing out on anything other than the 1.4f by going with the Tamron? I go back and forth between the two and not sure if the difference is really worth the price gap. What's you personal and professional opinion?
Dustin, you don't sound blown away by this lens. Give that it's not long enough for an 85, is this thing something you'd recommend? My very wealthy friend has the Otus 85 nikon mount and was kind enough to let me use it for a few weeks, and I'm completely spoiled now. Thanks for a thorough review!!!
I think my final review (look for it at the end of the week) will give a more nuanced response to your question, but, there are things I'm not crazy about, but in other ways I think it is a pretty fantastic lens and really a strong value compared to competitors.
Merry Christmas to you, too. I'm afraid that I don't have the Canon on hand to compare with. Expect the Sigma to be the sharper lens by a good margin at wide apertures, but many will argue (myself included) that it's overall rendering isn't quite as special.
I watched both Tamron 85mm and sigma 85mm art, omg I can't design because the price isn't too far away, and both good from different categories. Well overall build, with vc and images quality for Tamron. Great image quality, more open in apeture, good bulid. The 1.4 and 1.8 is the main factor that stopping me picking one of them, more stop or VC. Is that worth to pick (sigma) for more open aperture??
Great video, Dustin. I am curious how these two compare with the Nikkor 85 1.8G which I own... and I'm not overly pleased with.... so I may be considering one of these in the future. When comparing the two bench shots... it seemed to me like maybe the points of focus may have been different? It seemed like maybe the Otus shot was focused on the edge of the bench, while the Sigma shot was focused somewhere more in the middle of the bench... that could explain the different in the amount of background blur.
Hi Dustin! Another great video review. Thanks a lot again. I know you played with Samyang 85/100/135 mm in the past. How do you thing Sigma will compare to that lens? Image quality wise.
The 85mm was and is a bargain, but it has been very outclassed by this last crop of 85mm lenses. The 135 f/2 is another story. It's pretty fantastic optically.
Just to be fair, Sigma 85 Art kills Samyang 135/2 in the centre. Proof is the pudding: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1058&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Alexander Moloksher I don't know if that is quite "killing it" (the difference for field use would essentially be imperceptible), and the Samyang's low CA means that it has better real world contrast. That being said, there's no denying the Sigma is incredibly sharp.
Great review, as always. If you compare the mtf results at lenstip, between the Tamron and the Sigma, one can get the impression that there are significant real world differences between the two, but I don't believe many will agree on that after seeing your video. It was also very interesting to see the Otus comparison as well. It does have a superior rendering, and demonstrates that resolution isn't as important that many seem to think. Thank you!
Lenstip meassured the sharpness at short to medium distance. the sharpness at infinity can be very different as portrait lenses are not optimised for shooting at distant subjects. This proves only a single thing: public's opinion can easilly be manipulated with skillfully crafted set of tests. and yes, many will see no difference in the tests that were offered in the video. but how well these tests represent the real state of affairs? :))
Alexander Moloksher You may have a point. However, from my experience with the lenses I have that are tested by lenstip, when sharpness levels is at 42-44 (tested on Canon FF) the sharpness is really god already. It is hard to see improvements after that. I find that qualities like color, clarity and contrast is much more important than increased sharpness when sharpness reach such levels.
Lars Kvinge you are correct. Colour, contrast, bokeh are as important. While I agree that Otus is a superior lens than Sigma Art with better colour, contrast and bokeh quality, the Tamron lens has no play in this battle of titans :) It is a mediocre lens with slightly better than average qualities. If I were you, I would consider renting Sigma 85/1.4 Art for a day and see what transpires. It is an absolute champion for the price. If price and lack of autofocus was not an issue, then the Otus the Great is certainly a better lens to consider.
Great video as always. I am looking forward to see the final video review. But as a portrait lens and indoor photography which lens is better Sigma or Tamron? Keep in mind price and size are not a problem. Thanks
"Slightly" is a bit of an understatement.. I realise that you are strong Tamron brand supporter and "slight" bias towards the Tamron lens is/was expected :) here are couple of points: 1. You know fully well that sharpness at Minimum Focus Distance and at the Infinity is not always equal. In fact, we are looking at Ultimate (?) Portrait Lens shoot out here. Who takes portrait shots at infinity? That's in not what these lenses are created for. their primary function is to perform to the ultimate perfection for full body shots and closer. not shooting 100 meters away. Yet, you are conveniently judge the percieved sharpness of the lens shooting tree branches 100 meters away? 1.a. wind, inconsistent light, vibration, haze is also a factor. at infinity all portrait lenses would perform relatively close - I mean mediocre. let's see how Sigma stack up against the Tamron at"portrait" distances. 2. you are also aware that some n(many) lenses exibit focus breathing fenomenon where they are not true to their focal length at Minimum Focus Distance or at infinity. Yet, you are conveniently ommited this fact. And again, this is the Portrait Lens - let's see how true the Sigma 85 Art to it's true focal length at portrait distances to the subject. And, 3 degree variation is just a nit picking really, unless you are really determined to prove that Tamron 85 VC lens plays in same league with this Sigma lens. Not a chance, sorry. 3. Otus vs Sigma - outdoor shot. that is grossly unfair comparison. different cameras, sensors, different light, reflections, composition, time of the day, day and year. and yet you are conveniently considered the comparison is to be fair. well, not really, Dustin and again, you are fully aware of this and still presented the facts to Tamron brand benefit. book shot - yes, Otus is well controlled for CA. is it really a problem that there is a minor level of CA we found in Sigma? no, they are easily corrected in post. not a problem at all.. So what is the big deal then? 4. Sigma 85 Art outresolves (or very close ot it) your camera. Hence you get close results with your Tamron favorite. Put the Sigma on Canon 5DS R and take some shots at portrait range distances. It kills Tamron in the centre, mid and extreme corners at any given aperture, be that wide open or even at F5.6. you can easily see that Sigma outperforms the Tamron in the centre: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=1047&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 there are few more but I believe that is enough for now.. in conclusion: brand bias and ungrounded speculations aside, this lens is the ultimate auto focusing protrait lens. Yes Otus is great, fantastic, marvelous lens. The king.. but that comes at cost: No Auto Focus, Vignetting, Price. Equally heavy and large.. yes, one can argue that Tamron 85/1.4 VC is lighter, smaller than Sigma 85/1.4 Art and is an OK lens in fact. Yes, it is very true, it is an just OK of the lens, but please. Be honest with your audience and admit the fact that this Sigma lens is better than Otus is SOME departments at least (Sharpness, Vignetting, Distortions, price, etc) . If you are brand influenced, then disclaimer in order. Who are we kidding here: people that do not have in depth understanding of Digital photography? My point is: any person with such an indepth knowledge of photography, lioke yourself, is capable of setting test condition to either side benefit at will.
Alexander Moloksher I would say from your statements that you might be the brand loyalist, not myself. You aren't required to agree with my conclusions or my methods, but I am very transparent about them. In an earlier episode I already covered the lenses at a shorter distance, and I deal with portraits even more in the final review (not yet released). I do like the Tamron lens, in part because it is reasonably sized and yet doesn't really give up much sharpness in real world shooting, but I make the point again in the final review that for a studio lens I prefer the Sigma (and explain why).
I am an honest person that also happened to shoot with Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC quite a lot and that lens is very good. My point is: it is pointless to test a lens for something it was not designed for: be that shooting distant siubjects at infinity with a dedicated protrait studio lens or taking head shots with super telephoto lens. I mean we can, but what does that prove? nothing.. I totaly agree with you: Tamron 85 1.4 VC is good, above average lens. and yes, it does not give up much of the sharpness and is resonable compromise between quality, size and price. where Sigma lens is aiming at the best of the best with it's goal to delivery absolute, ultimate, industry best performance. Crusade for perfection, if you will.. This AUTO FOCUSING portrait lens bests the Great Otus on so many levels and still 3.5 time cheaper in USA? well in Australia Otus 1.4/85 is 5 (!!!) times more expensive than the Sigma Art 85 /1.4. once again, let's be honest with your audience and with yourself and admit that Sigma 85 1.4 Art deserves the title of the best, I mean it, the best , auto focusing 85mm large aperture Portrait lens of the presense. you know that better than me, you are very capable photographer, this lens is the result of ultimate Japanese style crusade for perfection. Let's give Sigma some credits here. They deserve alot of it. Thank you.
@@alexandermoloksher1291 This is an old comment but it kind of struck as it seems to be deluded in some ways. As Dustin Abbott said in another video, he thinks the Sigma is slightly better for studio but overall the Tamron is better for general purpose usage, which is why I bought it. The comment saying that the lens is outperforming a 30mp sensor is a bit ambitious here. A 30mp sensor is still a good value for resolution even by today's standards. So the fact that there was some chromatic aberration that was visible even through a UA-cam video with lower resolution is enough to throw that argument from the Window. Also, a side by side comparison in this video (and many others) shows that the Tamron can do as good if not better than the Sigma in certain situations. The fact that the Sigma shows a bit less contrast than the Tamron at lower apertures and doesn't get better when stopped down is further proof that it had reached its limit... I also found that the Tamron had smoother and more artistic (ironically) bokeh than the Sigma ART, partly because it is closer to 83mm while the Tamron is around 87mm but also because it is better engineered in this aspect. These are shown and proven in this video and others, so no need to adopt a condescending and manipulative attitude to lure Dustin into saying things that are not true. In the end, while both lenses are eventually great great lenses, there are many people like myself who will prefer the more portable, cheaper and just as highly performing counter-part from Tamron. Other will find better use for the Sigma.
Thanks! Sounds like the ART lens would suit monochrome especially well. I'm not sure when I'll be buying into a Quattro system or if I'll forgo it for the FUJI GFX, but the fanfare had made me think that this 85mm was a must-have. Now I'm wondering if the 50-100mm should be my long lens, afterall, due to its versatility.
Another great video Dustin! One question. How would you compare wide open performance of this thing to the 35mm ART? I know it`s apples and oranges but i`m talking sharpness here. Since i have that lens and i`m really happy with it. If the 85 is like 35 when it comes to sharpness i`m buying it :)
hi Dustin thx a lot for this early review. plz i have a question if u don't mind as im still confused about choosing my first 85mm for my portrait photography and i have 2 choices between the new sigma 85 1.4 art or the canon 1.2 plz which one u recommend for me . thx
That really comes down to your shooting style. If you are going to shoot more in a studio, I'd go with the Sigma. If you want to do outdoor environmental portrait,s the Canon has gorgeous subject isolation and bokeh that the Sigma doesn't quite match.
You may want to consider the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. Not only will you then have one of the best (if not the best) macro lenses, you will also have what a lot of photographers consider one of the best portrait lenses. My two cents.
i am trying to get more into portrait photography or model photography for that matter, currently i got the tamron 90mm macro 2.8, but i am thinking about the sigma 85 1.4, do you think there will be any major differences in those lenses? or should i just stick with the 90mm?
Thank you Dustin for a great review. Here in Australia, the Sigma 85 1.4 Art is not available as yet. I already have a Canon 85mm F1.8 lens (Non L lens). How does that compare?
Hey Dustin, In the shot of the Bible (Book of John) at 16:00 when you are comparing the Sigma to the Otus, I noticed that the white balance is significantly different. It looks like for the Sigma shot you have both yellow indoor lighting combined with natural lighting which is making it very "blue". Maybe you can redo the test with only natural lighting so chromatic aberration isn't mistaken for white balance shift. I think the sigma will probably still be slightly worse than the Otus but it'll be more fair of a comparison.
The color rendition is different even when shooting a test chart under the exact same light (which you will see in my final review). The Sigma definitely has a lot more CA...which will be clear in my final review.
In the end, its just a tool to use creatively, these tests some time get a bit uninteresting to watch. Till I bought the Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART. If thats what the Otus can do ! - Then I am all for a budget outcome. The end images have so many opportunities to be digitally enhanced/altered after. Its a special look you get at f1.4 on that lens. Its as close as I know the way I see people as far as DOF. I have taken a few photos so far but a wide range.. A bit of very demanding low light , speed light flash in and out or studio and full day light. For the cost, for me I could it very motivating thing, I am very happy with the results while still learning how to use it. But with my disasters so far. it will not cover up bad technique. I think some times not if you get the image at the "Right point of time" it can be a snap that any one might have caught. This is a lens you create images with. I think thats what passionate photographers do and sets their work above and they are keen amateurs and people who makes a living from photography. I am pretty happy in my lens as the cost made it accessible while still dreaming of my Rolls Royce. I got an attitude of gratitude to Sigma. ( Yes I paid full list price and received no discount for my lens or rebate in any way. I do not get paid to say this. It'd just a great lens I think. )
Just going to stick with my Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM until Canon ships an update. That said even on APS-C I shoot f/7.1 in my studio for all head shots. You said defraction sets in past f/5.6 on those lens on the 5D4.. Seems to early for that.. But the reason to use a prime in studio is just overall better image quality. Its not always just about sharpness.
Diffraction isn't the same as a lens no longer having peak sharpness. Diffraction level on the 5D4 is somewhere around f/7.3. I don't know what body you are shooting, but at f/7.1 you may actually be past the diffraction edge on an APS-C body where the pixel pitch is more dense. I'm hearing rumors of a new 85mm f/1.4L IS, but nothing on the 85mm f/1.8. That and the 50mm f/1.4 are definitely due for updates.
Dustin Abbott Using canon 70D & 80D. Technically the diffraction could be setting in sooner. But I pixel peep and its just not noticeable until at least f/11. But I would never shoot f/2.8 in studio unless I was going for something extremely artistic. Yea I am interested in the rumored 85 with IS coming from Canon. It is for sure on my to get list in the future. My current 85 f/1.8 is showing its age. Mostly with chroma when shot faster then f/2.8. Looks like Canon could be pushing all their prime lenses to IS, with higher pixel pitch 4 stop IS is just going to have to be essential for sharp images even when shot fast and open.
dear Dustin would please tell me between the two cameras I don't care about the 4k video, canon 5d mark 3 and canon 5d mark iv which one I should buy and I know the mark iv has more mega pixel than the mark 3 but in term of quality is that a huge diferance between the tow. thanks
Hey Dustin, What is the display resolution you use on your website? I just wanted to know for future reference too, but I know UA-cam is in no ways of a means of comparison. But a calibrated 5K iMac, now that's another story. LOL
Display resolution for the website, or the photos I upload there? I typically output photos at a 2048px on the long end resolution (that's basically FB's high def standard).
that's ok thanks for the vid. But yeah the CA on this lens is a no go as I use mine to reproduce some of my artwork and it's important that it receives as little editing as possible
Well not sure but looks to me that the magnification on the two lenses is almost identical...but the Sigma has a larger field of view. The image is cropped on the Tamron, and, I suspect on many other 85mm's. Now you know why it has such a monster diameter front element....and why its so heavy. I do believe its 85mm. Measure a few tree's and see if I am right. If the tree's are the same size or larger on the Sigma then I am right about the field of view the lenses are providing
It is so refreshing and so so nice to see a Christian so dedicated to his photography though in the past we might have different views as in gear but I surely appreciate the view of a Christian man when it comes to an honest opinion. Marry Christmas by the way.
The final book comparison with the Otus is totally inaccurate because the Otus shot is ISO 100 and Sigma's shot is 500 which is more that 4 times the noise.
With all due respect, the former was shot with a 6D and the latter with a 5D Mark IV. The 5D Mark IV does not have 4x the noise at ISO 500. The difference in noise is basically imperceptible.
Another wonderful and informative review Dustin. I am noticing now from your reviews and others alike that modern manual focus lens such as the Zeiss, Samyang/Rokinon lens have zero chromatic aberration, whereas autofocus lenses almost always have some degree of CA. Is there a reason why? Is it the the lens/elements or grouping ? I am no engineer, just a amateur photographer that notices things :) Keep up the great work and as always, Thank you.
Interesting observation. I think that Zeiss really engineers for this, though the tradeoff is that Zeiss lenses often have quite a lot of vignette. The Tamron 85 actually has very CA, too, and it is an autofocusing lens.
DXOmark, ever the contrarians, have declared the Sigma to have less Chromatic Aberration than the Otus. What is your take on that? (In the video you claim the difference is considerable, in favour of the Otus).
I don't agree with that conclusion at all, and I think it is the nature of the lab tests that picks up on lateral chromatic aberrations (these show up towards the edges even on two dimensional targets), but longitudinal CA (LoCA) only shows up when shooting three dimensional objects. I suspect their test methods don't include that, whereas I do a lot of that kind of testing because I do real world shooting. I think my tests here demonstrate that the Sigma is definitely guilty of a fair bit of LoCA - much more than the Tamron, or the Otus, and that robs it of some real world contrast.
+Anders Vesterholt Because DXO only tests with charts, and those things don't show up well with charts. Sigma lenses sometimes produce better results in the lab than they do in the real world, while Zeiss lenses are often good pretty much everywhere
You must be right. But that means DXO should look into how they test CA - they claim it has almost none, but that's not what your test shows :) Either way - the Art seems like a very good lens, and I'm considering purchasing one.
That is true. I'm a Nikon shooter looking for an 85mm for portraits. The Otus would be perfect, but is out of my price range. The Samyang XP 1.2 is like a "poor" mans Otus that really appeals to me, but does not seem to ever be made in a Nikon mount. The 1.4G from Nikon has both some softness at 1.4, but also loads of CA. The Sigma Art appears to only have CA as a drawback. And perhaps a somewhat clinical sharpness, that I don't know if I'll really like for portraits. Difficult decisions! But your reviews really help.
When comparing the Outs vs Sigma you forget the photo with sigma lens was shooting in ISO 640 and the Outs was ISO 100 so the sharpness must be different here
The difference between ISO 100 and 640 on a 5D Mark IV (for the Sigma) is so negligible as to be a non-factor. The bigger difference is that they were shot two years apart and the conditions weren't identical.
I was waiting for years for this lens. I pre-ordered it and cancelled it after much thought. It was too late, too big, and too expensive(campared to Tamron). 4-5 years ago, I would've paid $2500 for this lens.
untouchable360 I've never waited for, or wanted a Sigma, but I'll keep my Tamron for today. I'm confident that I'll be buying any new Canon 85 1.4 though, based on the 35 1.4LII
No where near a Otus killer, and in fact for me not even a Milvus killer, more expensive lenses are that way for a reason sometimes. And I would say the Milvus has 90% of the Otus, with a near 0 CA, and something just beautiful in the OOF areas, but not quite the Otus, but close.
Dustin Abbott yeah and that's the downfall as it has limited what I use it for. If I have control over the scene I'll use it. Otherwise it's definitely a AF lens and wish I could add a second 85
Personally, I think the differences between the Otus 85mm 1.4 and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art have more to due with optical design than anything 'special'. You'll get a special result when the lens does what it is you need. So, that's a subjective thing.
The Otus reigns supreme in exactly what it's supposed to. It's a symmetrical planar design, highly corrected for aberration and gives extreme sharpness. This is one of the reasons the planar design is also used for macro lens design. The Planar lens design, for what it does, will never be surpassed. That's just my opinion. Maybe for me, the Planar lens design is the thing that's 'special'. :)
The Sigma on the other hand, is a much more complex and contemporary design, which appears to be concerned with two things primarily, with incredible sharpness as a given. The first: maximum light transmission. in my shots I see almost no vignetting at any aperture which to me is kinda special. :) The second: the ability to resolve even the highest resolution sensors. In this test I notice you're using the 5D Mk IV. I'm shooting on an a7r ii and I can say for sure, it resolves every pixel available.
The MTF curve for Sigma is also basically flat. All things considered: no vignette, high resolution, edge to edge sharpness, and incredibly fast, silent auto focus. This lens is a home run. And at $1200, it's a grand slam, at least for me. One thing to note, the similarities to the Tamron are not accidental. The formulas are quite close between the two.
Thanks for the review. Two thumbs up.
You should have one million subscribers.
Excellent review, explaining all the attributes of the lens bokeh, sharpness, microcontrast, rendering, and performance.
Regards, Keep going!
Maybe someday...
Wow, I really like this video! Merry Christmas to you!
Thanks - the same to you!
Thanks for your great review buddy. It has been a long time I'm waiting for Sigma 85 ART for my Nikon D750, but I'm still hesitant about it! I hope you release the final video very soon to put our minds in ease.
I'm editing the final review now and will release it at the end of the week.
Great review, as usual!
Sigma's biggest advantage in my opinion is the amazing strength of having pretty much no vignetting - but I guess thats what you'd have to expect with an 86mm front filter and its massive size! :)
Looking forward to the final verdict/review!
There's definitely some pluses that come from having a very big front element, though the resulting size of the lens will cost them with other potential buyers.
+Dustin Abbott I'm wondering if this is worth trading in the Tamron SP f/1.8 VC? The down sides are that this is way bigger and heavier, has no VC or OS in Sigma speak, as well as more $$$. The only upside is the 2/3 or a stop of light/blur/separation.
Oh look at that, I just answered my own question.
It's not really an easy decision. They both have strengths and weaknesses. You just have to evaluate what suits your purposes more and what weaknesses you can more easily put up with.
Thanks Dustin, Happy Christmas!
Thanks! Same to you!
Another excellent review, J. I think 85mm is a favorite prime of many portrait photographers, that said, out of the many 85's that I've shot with, I don't think I've ever came across one that wasn't great to amazing.. I've never shot the new 85mm Sigma Art, but I own the older version, and it's awesome. My favorites of all time are: the Canon f1.2L, f1.8, Ziess ZE f1.4 and Samyang 85mm f1.4.. Bang for the Buck, the Samyang is hard to beat, if it had the ease of A.F. it could easily best some thousand dollar lenses for image quality.. Think it's just hard to make a poor 85mm. Lol
There's definitely some give and take, but there's no question that 85mm is a focal length that does seem easy to get right. I personally think buying an 85mm for the feature set and "character" is probably the right choice for many people.
Excellent review as I've come to expect so thank you for not disappointing me Dustin (lol!)!
The Sigma is a very impressive piece of kit but OMG @ the Otus!! Now I've got to save for the Otus as well as the 5D MK4 (my G.A.S is back with a vengeance lol!)😳
Have a great Christmas mate and I hope that 2017 brings you health, wealth and happiness.🍀🌲
The Otus is special. The closest non Otus lens I've seen is the new 35L II from Canon. It's also very special.
Dustin Abbott Have you reviewed the new Canon 35mm yet?
Andy Keeble I did at the end of last year. I'm expecting my own copy any day.
Dustin Abbott excellent!👍
How does it compare to the old sigma 85mm f1.4? Thanks for the in-depth review and Merry Xmas!
Merry Christmas to you, too. It's quite a different lens. Sharper wide open, less vignette, and just a different rendering overall.
Hey Dustin , great review. Based on shooting with both Tamron and sigma 85mm would you be missing out on anything other than the 1.4f by going with the Tamron? I go back and forth between the two and not sure if the difference is really worth the price gap.
What's you personal and professional opinion?
I do think the Sigma has a little better rendering overall, but they are very close. I own the Tamron and love it.
Dustin, you don't sound blown away by this lens. Give that it's not long enough for an 85, is this thing something you'd recommend? My very wealthy friend has the Otus 85 nikon mount and was kind enough to let me use it for a few weeks, and I'm completely spoiled now. Thanks for a thorough review!!!
I think my final review (look for it at the end of the week) will give a more nuanced response to your question, but, there are things I'm not crazy about, but in other ways I think it is a pretty fantastic lens and really a strong value compared to competitors.
Dustin Abbott Thanks, your reviews are terrific. Mucho appreciated.
How looks like the Canon 85mm f1.2 against Sigma 1.4, can you tell us??? Merry Christmas to you brother!!!
Merry Christmas to you, too. I'm afraid that I don't have the Canon on hand to compare with. Expect the Sigma to be the sharper lens by a good margin at wide apertures, but many will argue (myself included) that it's overall rendering isn't quite as special.
www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/
I watched both Tamron 85mm and sigma 85mm art, omg I can't design because the price isn't too far away, and both good from different categories. Well overall build, with vc and images quality for Tamron. Great image quality, more open in apeture, good bulid. The 1.4 and 1.8 is the main factor that stopping me picking one of them, more stop or VC. Is that worth to pick (sigma) for more open aperture??
Only you can answer that. Many people can get away with F1.8, but that depends on your shooting priorities.
Great video, Dustin. I am curious how these two compare with the Nikkor 85 1.8G which I own... and I'm not overly pleased with.... so I may be considering one of these in the future.
When comparing the two bench shots... it seemed to me like maybe the points of focus may have been different? It seemed like maybe the Otus shot was focused on the edge of the bench, while the Sigma shot was focused somewhere more in the middle of the bench... that could explain the different in the amount of background blur.
Nevermind. I take that back. I saw the shot again in your other video. The Sigma is focused on the edge of the bench as well.
Hi Dustin! Another great video review. Thanks a lot again. I know you played with Samyang 85/100/135 mm in the past. How do you thing Sigma will compare to that lens? Image quality wise.
The 85mm was and is a bargain, but it has been very outclassed by this last crop of 85mm lenses. The 135 f/2 is another story. It's pretty fantastic optically.
Just to be fair, Sigma 85 Art kills Samyang 135/2 in the centre. Proof is the pudding:
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1058&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Alexander Moloksher I don't know if that is quite "killing it" (the difference for field use would essentially be imperceptible), and the Samyang's low CA means that it has better real world contrast. That being said, there's no denying the Sigma is incredibly sharp.
Thanks guys.
great video👍🏻that lense is mind blowingly sharp
It is definitely incredibly sharp.
Great review, as always. If you compare the mtf results at lenstip, between the Tamron and the Sigma, one can get the impression that there are significant real world differences between the two, but I don't believe many will agree on that after seeing your video. It was also very interesting to see the Otus comparison as well. It does have a superior rendering, and demonstrates that resolution isn't as important that many seem to think. Thank you!
I do find that Sigmas often do better in lab testing than real world results, while some of the recent Tamron lenses seem to do the opposite.
Remember too that there can possibly be sample variation. I find my copy of the Tamron to seem sharper than what chart tests seem to indicate.
Lenstip meassured the sharpness at short to medium distance. the sharpness at infinity can be very different as portrait lenses are not optimised for shooting at distant subjects. This proves only a single thing: public's opinion can easilly be manipulated with skillfully crafted set of tests. and yes, many will see no difference in the tests that were offered in the video. but how well these tests represent the real state of affairs? :))
Alexander Moloksher You may have a point. However, from my experience with the lenses I have that are tested by lenstip, when sharpness levels is at 42-44 (tested on Canon FF) the sharpness is really god already. It is hard to see improvements after that. I find that qualities like color, clarity and contrast is much more important than increased sharpness when sharpness reach such levels.
Lars Kvinge you are correct. Colour, contrast, bokeh are as important. While I agree that Otus is a superior lens than Sigma Art with better colour, contrast and bokeh quality, the Tamron lens has no play in this battle of titans :) It is a mediocre lens with slightly better than average qualities.
If I were you, I would consider renting Sigma 85/1.4 Art for a day and see what transpires. It is an absolute champion for the price. If price and lack of autofocus was not an issue, then the Otus the Great is certainly a better lens to consider.
Great video as always. I am looking forward to see the final video review.
But as a portrait lens and indoor photography which lens is better Sigma or Tamron? Keep in mind price and size are not a problem.
Thanks
If neither of those things are an issue, then I think the Sigma is [slightly] my preferred portrait lens.
"Slightly" is a bit of an understatement.. I realise that you are strong Tamron brand supporter and "slight" bias towards the Tamron lens is/was expected :)
here are couple of points:
1. You know fully well that sharpness at Minimum Focus Distance and at the Infinity is not always equal. In fact, we are looking at Ultimate (?) Portrait Lens shoot out here. Who takes portrait shots at infinity? That's in not what these lenses are created for. their primary function is to perform to the ultimate perfection for full body shots and closer. not shooting 100 meters away.
Yet, you are conveniently judge the percieved sharpness of the lens shooting tree branches 100 meters away?
1.a. wind, inconsistent light, vibration, haze is also a factor. at infinity all portrait lenses would perform relatively close - I mean mediocre.
let's see how Sigma stack up against the Tamron at"portrait" distances.
2. you are also aware that some n(many) lenses exibit focus breathing fenomenon where they are not true to their focal length at Minimum Focus Distance or at infinity. Yet, you are conveniently ommited this fact. And again, this is the Portrait Lens - let's see how true the Sigma 85 Art to it's true focal length at portrait distances to the subject. And, 3 degree variation is just a nit picking really, unless you are really determined to prove that Tamron 85 VC lens plays in same league with this Sigma lens. Not a chance, sorry.
3. Otus vs Sigma - outdoor shot. that is grossly unfair comparison. different cameras, sensors, different light, reflections, composition, time of the day, day and year. and yet you are conveniently considered the comparison is to be fair. well, not really, Dustin and again, you are fully aware of this and still presented the facts to Tamron brand benefit.
book shot - yes, Otus is well controlled for CA. is it really a problem that there is a minor level of CA we found in Sigma? no, they are easily corrected in post. not a problem at all.. So what is the big deal then?
4. Sigma 85 Art outresolves (or very close ot it) your camera. Hence you get close results with your Tamron favorite.
Put the Sigma on Canon 5DS R and take some shots at portrait range distances.
It kills Tamron in the centre, mid and extreme corners at any given aperture, be that wide open or even at F5.6. you can easily see that Sigma outperforms the Tamron in the centre:
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=1047&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
there are few more but I believe that is enough for now..
in conclusion: brand bias and ungrounded speculations aside, this lens is the ultimate auto focusing protrait lens. Yes Otus is great, fantastic, marvelous lens. The king.. but that comes at cost: No Auto Focus, Vignetting, Price. Equally heavy and large..
yes, one can argue that Tamron 85/1.4 VC is lighter, smaller than Sigma 85/1.4 Art and is an OK lens in fact. Yes, it is very true, it is an just OK of the lens, but please. Be honest with your audience and admit the fact that this Sigma lens is better than Otus is SOME departments at least (Sharpness, Vignetting, Distortions, price, etc) . If you are brand influenced, then disclaimer in order.
Who are we kidding here: people that do not have in depth understanding of Digital photography?
My point is: any person with such an indepth knowledge of photography, lioke yourself, is capable of setting test condition to either side benefit at will.
Alexander Moloksher I would say from your statements that you might be the brand loyalist, not myself. You aren't required to agree with my conclusions or my methods, but I am very transparent about them. In an earlier episode I already covered the lenses at a shorter distance, and I deal with portraits even more in the final review (not yet released). I do like the Tamron lens, in part because it is reasonably sized and yet doesn't really give up much sharpness in real world shooting, but I make the point again in the final review that for a studio lens I prefer the Sigma (and explain why).
I am an honest person that also happened to shoot with Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC quite a lot and that lens is very good. My point is: it is pointless to test a lens for something it was not designed for: be that shooting distant siubjects at infinity with a dedicated protrait studio lens or taking head shots with super telephoto lens. I mean we can, but what does that prove? nothing..
I totaly agree with you: Tamron 85 1.4 VC is good, above average lens. and yes, it does not give up much of the sharpness and is resonable compromise between quality, size and price.
where Sigma lens is aiming at the best of the best with it's goal to delivery absolute, ultimate, industry best performance. Crusade for perfection, if you will..
This AUTO FOCUSING portrait lens bests the Great Otus on so many levels and still 3.5 time cheaper in USA? well in Australia Otus 1.4/85 is 5 (!!!) times more expensive than the Sigma Art 85 /1.4.
once again, let's be honest with your audience and with yourself and admit that Sigma 85 1.4 Art deserves the title of the best, I mean it, the best , auto focusing 85mm large aperture Portrait lens of the presense.
you know that better than me, you are very capable photographer, this lens is the result of ultimate Japanese style crusade for perfection. Let's give Sigma some credits here. They deserve alot of it. Thank you.
@@alexandermoloksher1291 This is an old comment but it kind of struck as it seems to be deluded in some ways. As Dustin Abbott said in another video, he thinks the Sigma is slightly better for studio but overall the Tamron is better for general purpose usage, which is why I bought it. The comment saying that the lens is outperforming a 30mp sensor is a bit ambitious here. A 30mp sensor is still a good value for resolution even by today's standards. So the fact that there was some chromatic aberration that was visible even through a UA-cam video with lower resolution is enough to throw that argument from the Window. Also, a side by side comparison in this video (and many others) shows that the Tamron can do as good if not better than the Sigma in certain situations. The fact that the Sigma shows a bit less contrast than the Tamron at lower apertures and doesn't get better when stopped down is further proof that it had reached its limit... I also found that the Tamron had smoother and more artistic (ironically) bokeh than the Sigma ART, partly because it is closer to 83mm while the Tamron is around 87mm but also because it is better engineered in this aspect. These are shown and proven in this video and others, so no need to adopt a condescending and manipulative attitude to lure Dustin into saying things that are not true. In the end, while both lenses are eventually great great lenses, there are many people like myself who will prefer the more portable, cheaper and just as highly performing counter-part from Tamron. Other will find better use for the Sigma.
Thanks! Sounds like the ART lens would suit monochrome especially well.
I'm not sure when I'll be buying into a Quattro system or if I'll forgo it for the FUJI GFX, but the fanfare had made me think that this 85mm was a must-have. Now I'm wondering if the 50-100mm should be my long lens, afterall, due to its versatility.
If you are going APS-C, then I think the 50-100 is a good choice. 85mm is pretty long as a single focal length on APS-C.
Another great video Dustin! One question. How would you compare wide open performance of this thing to the 35mm ART? I know it`s apples and oranges but i`m talking sharpness here. Since i have that lens and i`m really happy with it. If the 85 is like 35 when it comes to sharpness i`m buying it :)
I think the 85 ART is a bit sharper corner to corner. The 35 has less CA, though.
Fantastic! CA is easy to remove. Thanks for the info!
hi Dustin thx a lot for this early review. plz i have a question if u don't mind as im still confused about choosing my first 85mm for my portrait photography and i have 2 choices between the new sigma 85 1.4 art or the canon 1.2 plz which one u recommend for me .
thx
That really comes down to your shooting style. If you are going to shoot more in a studio, I'd go with the Sigma. If you want to do outdoor environmental portrait,s the Canon has gorgeous subject isolation and bokeh that the Sigma doesn't quite match.
thx a lot 😊
You may want to consider the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. Not only will you then have one of the best (if not the best) macro lenses, you will also have what a lot of photographers consider one of the best portrait lenses.
My two cents.
The 100L is nice, for sure. I do reach for it as a portrait lens, though if I want more subject isolation I go for a wider aperture lens.
which should i buy sigma 85mm 1.4 art or canon 85mm 1.2L ????
What's more important to you? Sharpness (Sigma) or bokeh/softer backgrounds (Canon)?
i am trying to get more into portrait photography or model photography for that matter, currently i got the tamron 90mm macro 2.8, but i am thinking about the sigma 85 1.4, do you think there will be any major differences in those lenses? or should i just stick with the 90mm?
You will be able to get a more shallow DOF (1.4 is two stops faster than f/2.8). That is the primary difference.
Thank you Dustin for a great review. Here in Australia, the Sigma 85 1.4 Art is not available as yet. I already have a Canon 85mm F1.8 lens (Non L lens). How does that compare?
The Sigma blows it away in basically every category. Not really the same class of lens.
Brilliant review as ever Dustin, best on the net even.
Thanks. That's kind
Hey Dustin,
In the shot of the Bible (Book of John) at 16:00 when you are comparing the Sigma to the Otus, I noticed that the white balance is significantly different. It looks like for the Sigma shot you have both yellow indoor lighting combined with natural lighting which is making it very "blue". Maybe you can redo the test with only natural lighting so chromatic aberration isn't mistaken for white balance shift. I think the sigma will probably still be slightly worse than the Otus but it'll be more fair of a comparison.
The color rendition is different even when shooting a test chart under the exact same light (which you will see in my final review). The Sigma definitely has a lot more CA...which will be clear in my final review.
In the end, its just a tool to use creatively, these tests some time get a bit uninteresting to watch. Till I bought the Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART. If thats what the Otus can do ! - Then I am all for a budget outcome. The end images have so many opportunities to be digitally enhanced/altered after. Its a special look you get at f1.4 on that lens. Its as close as I know the way I see people as far as DOF. I have taken a few photos so far but a wide range.. A bit of very demanding low light , speed light flash in and out or studio and full day light. For the cost, for me I could it very motivating thing, I am very happy with the results while still learning how to use it. But with my disasters so far. it will not cover up bad technique. I think some times not if you get the image at the "Right point of time" it can be a snap that any one might have caught. This is a lens you create images with. I think thats what passionate photographers do and sets their work above and they are keen amateurs and people who makes a living from photography. I am pretty happy in my lens as the cost made it accessible while still dreaming of my Rolls Royce. I got an attitude of gratitude to Sigma. ( Yes I paid full list price and received no discount for my lens or rebate in any way. I do not get paid to say this. It'd just a great lens I think. )
Just going to stick with my Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM until Canon ships an update. That said even on APS-C I shoot f/7.1 in my studio for all head shots. You said defraction sets in past f/5.6 on those lens on the 5D4.. Seems to early for that.. But the reason to use a prime in studio is just overall better image quality. Its not always just about sharpness.
Diffraction isn't the same as a lens no longer having peak sharpness. Diffraction level on the 5D4 is somewhere around f/7.3. I don't know what body you are shooting, but at f/7.1 you may actually be past the diffraction edge on an APS-C body where the pixel pitch is more dense. I'm hearing rumors of a new 85mm f/1.4L IS, but nothing on the 85mm f/1.8. That and the 50mm f/1.4 are definitely due for updates.
Dustin Abbott Using canon 70D & 80D. Technically the diffraction could be setting in sooner. But I pixel peep and its just not noticeable until at least f/11. But I would never shoot f/2.8 in studio unless I was going for something extremely artistic. Yea I am interested in the rumored 85 with IS coming from Canon. It is for sure on my to get list in the future. My current 85 f/1.8 is showing its age. Mostly with chroma when shot faster then f/2.8. Looks like Canon could be pushing all their prime lenses to IS, with higher pixel pitch 4 stop IS is just going to have to be essential for sharp images even when shot fast and open.
dear Dustin would please tell me between the two cameras I don't care about the 4k video, canon 5d mark 3 and canon 5d mark iv which one I should buy and I know the mark iv has more mega pixel than the mark 3 but in term of quality is that a huge diferance between the tow. thanks
I personally think the 5D IV is worth the upgrade, if you can afford it. The features and image quality have made a pretty huge step forward.
thanks
oh yes by the way does the sigma 85mmf/1.4 fit on the Nikon d810 body? thanks
It definitely does. That's a great platform for it.
thank you very much
Rendering. Great review as always! liked!
Thank you, Raymund.
Please cover autofocus accuracy/performance.. I know you had some problems with the 35 Art
No fears. That's thoroughly covered in the final review (already filmed, just editing it)
What Mic do you use your voice is always so clear
I use a RODE Smart Lav+ and a Be Audio Crystal Clip lavaliere mics.
Hey Dustin, What is the display resolution you use on your website? I just wanted to know for future reference too, but I know UA-cam is in no ways of a means of comparison. But a calibrated 5K iMac, now that's another story. LOL
Display resolution for the website, or the photos I upload there? I typically output photos at a 2048px on the long end resolution (that's basically FB's high def standard).
Well I said "display" as I know some web hosting companies will limit you, as they are not full screen size on my Mac
Crewchief 227 I don't actually know the exact question to that. My column width for text in my reviews is about 800px - that's as much as I know.
that's ok thanks for the vid. But yeah the CA on this lens is a no go as I use mine to reproduce some of my artwork and it's important that it receives as little editing as possible
That's too bad. It would otherwise be very good for that.
Well not sure but looks to me that the magnification on the two lenses is almost identical...but the Sigma has a larger field of view. The image is cropped on the Tamron, and, I suspect on many other 85mm's. Now you know why it has such a monster diameter front element....and why its so heavy. I do believe its 85mm. Measure a few tree's and see if I am right. If the tree's are the same size or larger on the Sigma then I am right about the field of view the lenses are providing
I've done many tests against many other 85mm lenses since then. The Sigma is definitely on the short side.
It is so refreshing and so so nice to see a Christian so dedicated to his photography though in the past we might have different views as in gear but I surely appreciate the view of a Christian man when it comes to an honest opinion. Marry Christmas by the way.
Merry Christmas to you, and thanks for the kind words. A little disagreement never hurt anyone :)
The final book comparison with the Otus is totally inaccurate because the Otus shot is ISO 100 and Sigma's shot is 500 which is more that 4 times the noise.
With all due respect, the former was shot with a 6D and the latter with a 5D Mark IV. The 5D Mark IV does not have 4x the noise at ISO 500. The difference in noise is basically imperceptible.
Another wonderful and informative review Dustin. I am noticing now from your reviews and others alike that modern manual focus lens such as the Zeiss, Samyang/Rokinon lens have zero chromatic aberration, whereas autofocus lenses almost always have some degree of CA. Is there a reason why? Is it the the lens/elements or grouping ? I am no engineer, just a amateur photographer that notices things :) Keep up the great work and as always, Thank you.
Interesting observation. I think that Zeiss really engineers for this, though the tradeoff is that Zeiss lenses often have quite a lot of vignette. The Tamron 85 actually has very CA, too, and it is an autofocusing lens.
DXOmark, ever the contrarians, have declared the Sigma to have less Chromatic Aberration than the Otus. What is your take on that? (In the video you claim the difference is considerable, in favour of the Otus).
I don't agree with that conclusion at all, and I think it is the nature of the lab tests that picks up on lateral chromatic aberrations (these show up towards the edges even on two dimensional targets), but longitudinal CA (LoCA) only shows up when shooting three dimensional objects. I suspect their test methods don't include that, whereas I do a lot of that kind of testing because I do real world shooting. I think my tests here demonstrate that the Sigma is definitely guilty of a fair bit of LoCA - much more than the Tamron, or the Otus, and that robs it of some real world contrast.
P.S. You can see the methods I've used, but DXO's tests are not overly transparent. I appreciate their data, but not always their conclusions.
is this lens far better than the nikon 85mm f1.8g?
It's definitely sharper. I haven't used the Nikon lens, so I can't really say definitively.
So the 85 Art scores higher on DXOMark than 85 Otus. How can that be explained? Otus has better microcontrast and better CA control.
+Anders Vesterholt Because DXO only tests with charts, and those things don't show up well with charts. Sigma lenses sometimes produce better results in the lab than they do in the real world, while Zeiss lenses are often good pretty much everywhere
You must be right. But that means DXO should look into how they test CA - they claim it has almost none, but that's not what your test shows :) Either way - the Art seems like a very good lens, and I'm considering purchasing one.
It is a good lens, but it certainly isn't better than the Otus.
That is true. I'm a Nikon shooter looking for an 85mm for portraits. The Otus would be perfect, but is out of my price range. The Samyang XP 1.2 is like a "poor" mans Otus that really appeals to me, but does not seem to ever be made in a Nikon mount. The 1.4G from Nikon has both some softness at 1.4, but also loads of CA. The Sigma Art appears to only have CA as a drawback. And perhaps a somewhat clinical sharpness, that I don't know if I'll really like for portraits. Difficult decisions! But your reviews really help.
Beautiful place!
Thank you
When comparing the Outs vs Sigma you forget the photo with sigma lens was shooting in ISO 640 and the Outs was ISO 100 so the sharpness must be different here
The difference between ISO 100 and 640 on a 5D Mark IV (for the Sigma) is so negligible as to be a non-factor. The bigger difference is that they were shot two years apart and the conditions weren't identical.
Sir Abbott the family man ! 😀😁
I am that!
To my eyes at 1.8 the Sigma is noticeably sharper than the Tamrom, even in the center.
+dopamining That's why I share the data and allow you to draw your own conclusions, even if they aren't my own.
I was waiting for years for this lens. I pre-ordered it and cancelled it after much thought. It was too late, too big, and too expensive(campared to Tamron). 4-5 years ago, I would've paid $2500 for this lens.
The lens market has gotten incredibly competitive in the past 2-3 years. It does making choosing the right lens tough.
untouchable360 I've never waited for, or wanted a Sigma, but I'll keep my Tamron for today. I'm confident that I'll be buying any new Canon 85 1.4 though, based on the 35 1.4LII
Captain Zouave If it is anything like the 35L II, all bets are off. Then again, I expected the 16-35L III to be like that and was disappointed.
ThnQ maaaan ❤😍
You're welcome!
Rendering looks much better on the Sigma.
And that's why I share these types of tests - so you can draw your own conclusions.
Actually, it is winter 70% of the time in Canada. LOL!
It feels like it this time of year!
Get your pastry place to sponsor you, you are already show casing their work in a lot of sample images and those are making me want to eat them.
LOL. Unintentional effect!
No where near a Otus killer, and in fact for me not even a Milvus killer, more expensive lenses are that way for a reason sometimes. And I would say the Milvus has 90% of the Otus, with a near 0 CA, and something just beautiful in the OOF areas, but not quite the Otus, but close.
I do agree that the Otus and (to a lesser extent) Milvus are very special in their rendering. Not practical for a lot of shooters, though.
Dustin Abbott yeah and that's the downfall as it has limited what I use it for. If I have control over the scene I'll use it. Otherwise it's definitely a AF lens and wish I could add a second 85
awesome
Thanks!
Dark and inky.
:)
What's the big difference with getting this OR the Sigma 50-100mm???
A lot if you are shooting full frame! If you are shooting APS-C, the 50-100 might be the better option.
Ouch! I have a 6D and 70D
You probably should go with this lens, then, as the 50-100 isn't really compatible with your 6D.
Thanks!