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
  • Hysz

    I see. Well this might be as good time as ever, you seem to know this thing, can you tell me if mirror is better or worse than lens in developing a prime lens let’s say. Just in theory. There are very poor mirror 500mm f8 lenses for example. What if there were some really, really good mirrors? I guess they would use them often, if they were better… But what is your take?

  • Brandon Dube

    Sure, but a full-field display inherently looks everywhere.

  • Hysz

    Yeah, but [in my mind] X and Y decenter is easy to see and understand etc. But to have a let’s say circle, and only 11th hour up to 12th is ‘bulged’ a bit, it’s not that easy, because you might not look there. Am I understanding this correctly?

  • Chris

    Focus shift is sharpest focal plane moving while you step down but not changing distance. In body data will allow body to predict difference between aperture at focus and aperture at capturing.

  • Brandon Dube

    An off-axis system is a case of a decentered system. There is no general pragma for what angles or whatever need to be analyzed. If you decenter in Y, the behavior is different to if you decenter in X, and so on. The behavior depends both on how you broke symmetry as well as the power/curvature of the elements that have had symmetry broken.

  • Greg Dunn

    Or in the lens. For sure the Canon system allows the lens to contain correction data at multiple focus distances, which is then passed to suitable bodies during the initialization sequence. This is programmed into a ROM during manufacture. Of course this can’t be altered by the user, but if it is indeed inherent to the design, there should be no need for that.

  • Chris

    Focus shift is something to care about. It has something to do with optical design and cannot be corrected by AF system unless there is manufracturer correction data in your body.

  • Samuel H

    Great to hear. Thanks.

  • Lee

    I think it’d definitely be an interesting one to look into since anecdotally it seems Nikon users are reporting better results than Canon at least with respect to CA.

  • HF

    Stills mainly. It is our preferred portrait lens at portrait sessions or weddings. We don’t do studio shots where the stopped-down focussing could be a problem, but have the Batis as backup. In video mode, though, the noise is much lower than when doing stills. Maybe the drive power is reduced then.

  • Hysz

    I look at the pictures in this link, and I am sure you were being hostile towards me, lol. Joking, I can’t begin to understand the amount of details that went into the paper, but it seems to be the case, when one ‘angle’ so to speak can be off, and it affects the whole ‘lens’. Thing is, does ‘selective curvature’ isn’t something with mirrors only? Like telescopes, and not glass elements? From what I have seen, they should be at the same angle, because the lenses are ‘grinded’ that way, and the mirror was probably made in a different fashion [it was way bigger]. Just me, non physics thinking.

    [it is first thing in the morning so I might have sounded dumb, please ignore if it was a dumb post]

  • Hysz

    if anything it proves the same thing with different methods.

  • Roland Delhomme

    Gentlemen, thanks for the always fascinating discussions on optics, engineering and construction, testing, variation, methodology-time well spent and truly a joy to read. Roger, you do us all a great service; Thank You.

  • Samuel H

    The Batis is sharp but its bokeh is not good enough *for me*.
    Good to also hear users saying good stuff about the AF of the GM. Are you using it for stills, or video?

  • I don’t have those yet. But the 35mm and 45mm were excellent.

  • Patrick Chase

    One last small remark on the topic of PSFs: The other place where I’ve found them useful is for simulation, particularly to get product buy-off for statistical/test limits. By this I mean that I convolved the spatially-variant PSF with reference images to model expected nominal- and worst-case behaviors.

    A quick search of the literature reveals that this is a well-known technique (I didn’t know that at the time, but considered it such an obvious thing to do as to not be worthy of note). See for example http://www.imagescienceassociates.com/mm5/pubs/Image_Capture_Simulation_Using_an_Accurate_and_Realistic_Lens_Model.pdf

  • HF

    I have the GM and find AF to be quite good. The Batis AF is slightly faster and more quiet, but it doesn’t come close to the rendering.

  • Eloise

    Do you have any measurements / comparisons with Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8? Seems like it might be a good alternative for people with slightly smaller budget (and physical pockets).

  • Samuel H

    Yes, and the 85GM has bokeh to lust for, and is 33% lighter.
    Then again the 85GM is 50% more expensive than the Sigma, and I have read bad stuff about its AF, particularly in video mode but also for stills.

  • Preedee Kanjanapongkul

    I agree with you. In term of sharpness and field curvature, Sigma is the best. While it also performs very well in term of lateral CA, vignette and distortion, it has problem with longitudinal CA which both Sony 85 GM and Otus 85 perform better. If we look at lens configuration in Sigma, Sony 85 GM and Otus 85, Otus 85 has 6 elements made of anomalous partial dispersion glasses, Sony 85 GM has 3 ED glasses and Sigma 85 has only 2 SLD glasses. These may be reasons why Otus 85 and Sony 85 GM corrected LoCA better than Sigma 85 and explain why Sigma 85 has lower price.

    OOF or bokeh quality may be subjective. In my opinion, Sony 85 GM is the best among 3.

  • HF

    In terms of value, yes, probably the best. In terms of sharpness, too. But there is rendering of OOF elements, CAs, cats eyes etc. I think the Sony 85 GM to be superior, personally.

  • HF

    I thin the 85GM is a great alternative. I find its rendering even clearly better than the ART lens (less CA, almost no cats eye bokeh, plenty sharp,too) and it is smaller and lighter.

  • Samuel H

    WOW, what an amazing performance. Hopefully they’ll start making E-mount versions of their Art lenses at some point…

  • Munchma Quchi

    Yep. Too good for the Otus. Few and far between but they’re out there.

  • Munchma Quchi

    DXO = Alternative Facts

  • Lee

    Yeah, that sort of thing is my biggest problem with WordPress (that and the 20,000 line CSS file you have to futz with if you want to customize things much)

  • You might be a super duper pro if the Otus is too soft and amateurish for you?

  • Brandon Dube

    The software is shifting to a Server/Client architecture instead of a monolithic application. The server is written in asp.net core, and the client is written in javascript. Unless we end up open sourcing it I won’t really say more than that.

    I’m affiliated with Olaf, not LR, but my understanding is that the LR blog is run on wordpress and it would be difficult (read: not going to be done by LR’s programmers) to inject something like d3.js or highcharts or whatever into the blog as needed.

  • Brandon Dube

    Parula does not work well for this data because the gradation of Parula is too smooth. A difference of 0.1 at most spatial frequencies is about the limit of what is significant, but with Parula things are quite subtle unless the change is more on the scale of 0.3 or so. The software for this runs on a modern version of Matlab (R2015a) with Parula as a default. Among the color maps shipped with Matlab and available through cbrewer2, Jet fits this data best despite its shortcomings.

  • JB I have no idea, other than it’s moving to a freestanding database instead of thousands of Excel files.

Follow on Feedly