Geek Articles

MTF Tests for the Sigma BBL: The Big, Beautiful, 85mm Art Lens

Yes, I know the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens just too big for you; reading the online forums, you’d think it was about the same size and weight and a 600mm f/4 lens. It’s not, of course, although it is a hefty lens at nearly 40 ounces. But that’s just a few ounces more than a Canon 85mm f/1.2 L; a few less than a Zeiss 85mm Otus. So while it wouldn’t be my first choice for a backpacking lens, it’s not as wrist-breakingly huge as some make it out to be. (OK, full disclosure, backpacking isn’t my area of expertise. The closest I get to camping is staying at a hotel without room service).

While you guys get the ‘It’s so big’ jokes out of the way, I’ll point out that making a lens bigger is not a goal of the lens designer, but it is sometimes a necessity. If you want to get great optics and eliminate aberrations, you either need lots of pieces of glass or very expensive pieces of glass ground into very expensive shapes. The Sigma 85mm Art has 14 elements, compared to 8 for the Canon 85mm f/1.2, and eleven for both the Zeiss 85mm Otus and Milvus lenses. If you want to keep the price lower and the image quality excellent, then more glass is sometimes the compromise you make.

Of course, that explanation assumes that yes, they did make the image quality excellent. Given what we’ve seen from the rest of the Sigma Art line, I certainly expected this one to be excellent. And our Photo Guys article on real-world use certainly seems to suggest Sigma did the right thing with this lens. But I don’t trust what I see in photographs, so let’s get the optical bench out and see if it’s really so. (That was a joke for all the people who say ‘I don’t trust what I see in MTF plots, I want to see photographs.’ A joke.)

MTF Results

This is the MTF results generated in our usual fashion: 10 copies were tested, each at four different rotations, and all the results averaged to give you the MTF shown below.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2017

 

That’s most impressive to me at a glance, but it’s probably easier for you to be impressed if you look at some comparisons. So I’ll make some comparisons between the Sigma Art’s MTFs and some other lenses below. For those of you who don’t speak MTF, it’s pretty simple. “0” Image Height is the center of the lens, “20” is almost to the corner. Higher MTF is better, and if the dotted and solid lines are close together for each color, that’s good too. There’s a lot more to MTF, but that will get you by.

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Non-Art vs. Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art

First, let’s compare the new Sigma Art (on the right) to the older Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens (left). It’s no comparison.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2017

 

Sigma 85mm Art vs Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE

The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE is close to the Sigma in price and makes a good comparison – unless you’re comparing autofocus capabilities, of course.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2017

 

This one I have to give the edge to the Sigma. That’s not surprising, the Zeiss is a decades old design, and while it’s razor sharp stopped down a bit, it’s a little soft and dreamy looking wide open. It’s a good example of a lens people love for its unique look, rather than its resolving ability.

Sigma 85mm Art vs. Zeiss 85mm Otus

Well, sooner or later we had to compare it against the best 85mm we know of, the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Otus. I chose sooner.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

The Sigma certainly holds it’s own. Of course, the Otus is sharper in the center, especially at higher frequencies. It’s sharper than about anything other than super telephotos in the center. Away from the center, the Sigma very much holds it’s own.

Variation

We’re still listening to outside consultants argue about the best way to present a variation number, so I’m going to stick with just using our variation graph. The Sigma shows excellent copy-to-copy variation control, as good or better than the Canon L, Nikon G, or Zeiss offerings in this focal length.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

 

Conclusions

This was an MTF test. It was only an MTF test. Had this been an actual lens review you would have been instructed to purchase the Sigma from my affiliate link to help send my kids to college. As MTF tests go, though, this is just another ho-hum spectacular triumph for the Sigma Art series. From an MTF standpoint, it’s better than any other 85 except the Otus, and it makes a very respectable showing against that fine lens.

There’s a lot more to imaging than MTF. Even I, the ultimate MTF geek, know that. What we found out today is the Sigma is a really, really sharp lens at an excellent price. That makes it worth further investigation if you are thinking about an 85mm lens. It doesn’t make it the right choice for you, lots of other factors need to be considered. But the Big Beautiful Lens is worth a long, hard look.

Addendum:

I was so impressed with the BBL that I thought I would run Field of Focus graphs on it to. Color me impressed (the graphs are colorful, get it?). It is perfectly flat from one side to the other. Superb.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2017

 

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

Lensrentals.com

February, 2016

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Geek Articles
  • JB

    Thanks for taking the time to respond! Good luck with the switch away from Matlab. Do you know what direction you’ll be heading in? There are lots of great free alternatives for static rendering out there, and an increasingly impressive array of tools for making interactive visualizations for the web. The great thing about tackling this sort of challenge now (as opposed to say 10 years go) is that virtually all the best tools come cost-free!

  • JB, we here you. I’m actually investing a ton of other people’s time (AKA my money) into smart people reprogramming everything to be entirely MatLab free, so the MatLab stuff isn’t being worked on right now.

  • We can only go 20mm off axis, so we’ll not be able to see edges on any of the MF lenses. Plus there’s the having to have a mount made for each one at $1,000 per mount.

  • My powers of persuasion are probably negative with most of the manufacturers. Unless I promised to stop publishing if they did. Although Sigma probably likes me OK today. 🙂

  • Well, I got the graphs right. At my age I’m kinda proud to have like 90% 2017s.

  • JB

    I took a shot at this a couple years ago, and I guess I’m ready to take another shot at it now…

    Please, please, please stop using the “Jet” colormap for graphs like the Field of Focus presentations at the end of this post. Everything else here is done so beautifully. It just breaks my heart to see you go to all this trouble only to present the data in what is an objectively suboptimal way. If you’re in Matlab, it takes about 10 characters to switch from “Jet” to “Parula” which is immediately miles better. The “Viridis” colormap (from Matplotlib/Python land) would be even better still, and it is just a download and a few more keystrokes away.

    Otherwise, this continues to be a great site with tons of great information!

  • Brandon Dube

    Well, an Off-Axis system should be analyzed by full field displays, not a few points. Here’s some information;
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536338.pdf

    45/135 is not always the case for an off-axis system. It depends how you have taken it off axis.

  • John Krumm

    Okay Roger, now please use your powers of persuasion to convince Sigma to start making these lenses again for Pentax so you (and I) can use them on a K1.

  • Lee

    Not that we don’t believe the people who have had huge problems with Art lenses, but I’m amazed how many people forget that if you’ve had 1 or 2 copies of a lens made in the tens of thousands or more then your report is anecdotal if not coincidental.

  • Lee

    Well the MTF lines clearly start off lower, but they’re flatter, as is the field of focus. Sounds like the Otus 85 may be a little better for portraits* and the Sigma 85 Art a little better for other things like stitching for landscape and architecture.

    *I don’t buy into “too sharp for portraits.” You’re lighting too harshly for your subject’s age and/or you need a better MUA.

  • Preedee Kanjanapongkul

    I’ve just noticed that MTF graph of Otus in this article is better at off-axis than MTF graph from previous publication (according to https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-g-master-lens-mtf-and-variance/), which is clear that coverglass come into effect. This is implying that Zeiss had corporated coverglass thickness in their optical formulas. Surely, I don’t know that, whether Sigma do the same things or not and this makes me even more curious that MTF graph of this Sigma may be even better if thickness of coverglass used in Olaf is optimized for this Sigma.

  • JP

    Glad to know I’m not the only one who still puts down 2016- it’s in your signature block at the end of the article.

  • Patrick Chase

    Sorry about the repeat-reply, but here’s a real-world example where PSFs were indispensable: Several years ago I was asked to help with a system that was having IQ issues, including grotesque variation. The simulated through-focus curves and the MTF measurements in production both looked passable, but the images had glaringly obvious astigmatism.

    I finally asked the OE to simulate PSFs at 0.1 mm intervals through-focus, at which point the problem became obvious: This particular system had an off-axis reflective lens. As you are perhaps aware (I was not) those exhibit astigmatism along 45-135 deg axes instead of tan-sag. Unfortunately the through-focus curves were tan-sag, as were the test patterns used for alignment and QA in production.

    Arguably the OE screwed up royally by not generating 45-135 curves to begin with, and by not insisting on 45-135 targets in mfg, but once we were in that situation examination of the PSFs was the fastest way to debug it and figure out how to proceed (alignment with the right targets helped a lot, as you might expect. Also, off-axis systems are weird).

  • Patrick Chase

    The OEs I worked with mostly used Zemax.

    I suspect that the PSF may be more useful to somebody (like me) who was/is in the business of correcting images than to an OE. Needless to say the Fourier transform of the PSF (SFR) is *very* useful in filter design :-).

  • Brandon Dube

    The easiest way to identify astigmatism is to type tow;fie;go into Code V, or its equivalent action into Zemax, Oslo, or other design code 🙂

    Personally I think the PSF has limited use in and of itself. When there are few aberrations they are useful, but after you build something and throw all the odd aberrations into things it often becomes difficult to understand what is in a PSF.

  • Brandon Dube

    Here’s the spectrum of the photopic filter,
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3705db8100c349f484861534e65a34f862770bce97d8ae717ba333511636e975.png
    You would have to multiply this by the black body spectrum of the 150W tungsten bulb in the fiber source. I think its temperature is 3500K, but haven’t looked at the spec in years. The camera in the MTF bench would also have to have its spectral response multiplied into things.

    In practical terms, the spectrum is heavily weighted to green, but is broadband.

  • We certainly will David.

  • Yes, the Otus has a gentle curve, which I could see be an advantage for portraiture perhaps. But the Sigma is SO impressive.

  • Carl Eberhart

    Well done Roger, as usual sir !! The best MTF test and comparisons anywhere !!

    “But, but it doesn’t autofocus consistently on the test card in the dark at a distance of 3 feet…it doesn’t have weather sealing or stabilization…therefore I’ll stick with the same brand as my camera”…hahaah….SHADDUP… 😀

    The Art is clearly the king of all 85mm lenses, period. (Otus sharper in the center at higher frequencies…so what? Just encourages the few wealthy photog geeks who use it, to do “bullseye” composition, and that always sucks and looks amateurish! Unless you put your subject dead center…THE SIGMA WINS…)

    Canon is having to make their new one with stabilization, because it won’t be this sharp, and they still want to charge over $2k for it…yawn…Oh and I almost forgot, they didn’t have the n**s to design a new f/1.2 85mm lens…yawn.

  • David Kudell

    Sharpness is impressive, holding up to the Otus! Excited about the upcoming Sigma Cine Primes that will be based on the Art lenses. I’m hoping you plan to offer those for rent.

    I’d love to see some AB comparison images of the Sigma vs the Zeiss Otus to check out the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. I was thinking about renting each to check that out, but that would be a great LR blog post! ?

  • Preedee Kanjanapongkul

    Thank you for your excellent review article, Roger.

    According to MTF graphs, Otus is sharper than Sigma until 8mm away from center. At 8mm and beyond, Sigma is sharper than Otus. I have suspicions that 1. Otus has some field curvature and 2. Sigma has less field curvature. I own Otus 85 and result from my own field test confirm the first hypothesis. These may explain why MTF of Otus drops rapidly and Sigma has better MTF at off-axis.

    PS. If we take the actual area of sensor in to account, the total area where Otus is sharper is equal to ? x 8^2 = 201.06 sq.mm. on both APS-C and 35mm sensor. The total area where Sigma is sharper on APS-C is (24 x 16) – 201.06 = 182.94 sq.mm. and 35mm sensor is (36 x 24) – 201.06 = 662.94 sq.mm.

  • Patrick Chase

    That’s reasonable and fairly common practice. I mostly asked because I know the Sigma is known to have a bit of axial CA and spherochromaticism, and was wondering how that would be reflected in your MTF results.

    FWIW when I was an imaging system architect (working closely with OEs) we typically used through-focus curves at multiple wavelengths. You can learn *lot* about how a system behaves that way. For example astigmatism and axial CA are easily detected.

  • Patrick, ours is the optional halogen passed through a photopic filter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopic_vision before it enters the commimator. The theory is that it should mimic the light wavelengths humans are most sensitive too, although I’m not sure I totally buy into that. In practice it’s wavelengths from 475 to 675nm with an intensity peak at about 570nm. (Those numbers are off the top of my head, I may be off a small amount)

  • Patrick Chase

    I have a question about the measurements: Are you using a broadband light source for these? If so what distribution? If not what specific wavelength[s]?

    I’ve looked through your blog posts from when you started working with the image bench, but didn’t see that spelled out. My apologies if you’ve already documented this.

    EDIT: The datasheet for your bench says “white LED or optional halogen” fed through a collimator. Is it one of those?

  • BigEater, not in recent years, not at all. If you go back 5 years or more, then yes, I was beating the bad quality drum with the rest of them. But this isn’t our Grandfather’s Sigma anymore. They’re reliable, and when something does go wrong service (in the USA at least) is excellent.

  • Ian, it did me, cause I love it too. But the 1.2 has never been about sharpness, it’s about blur. It goes from in focus to fuzzy cloud in about 2 inches.

  • Ian

    Thanks as always for the great tests and write ups on the latest gear. I’m glad you didn’t put up the Canon 85L f/1.2II MTF chart as a comparison as it would probably make us cry. As you said, however, a lens is more than just a set of MTF curves, which explains why so many of us love our 85Ls despite their many optical & mechanical “charms”.

  • Adam Sanford

    The only wildcard with f/1.4 Art lenses is AF, and both LensTip and TDP are claiming the new AF design (more power) apparently has eliminated the non-dock-correctible AF inconsistency that plagued the 35 Art and 50 Art.

    So it’s an 85mm lens that outresolves everything but the Otus for 1/3 – 1/4 of the price *and it autofocuses well*. It’s not perfect — no IS, huge and heavy, weather sealing = ?? — but I still predict this will be Sigma’s biggest hit yet.

  • Thanks Roger! Much more meaningful test than the DxO garbage.

  • BigEater

    A couple off people on Nikonrumors were complaining about their newish Sigma lenses falling apart. Is that something you guys have had problems with?

Follow on Feedly