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
  • ptakeuchi

    Roger, thanks for your comment. I’d assume that Sigma would have done their engineering due diligence and provided a collar with lens foot if they were concerned that there would be risk to the lens mount.

  • It should be fine just hanging there. My concerns (and they’re just that, no scientific evidence) is that size lens hanging from a strap and getting jostled around. Static weight is one thing, but momentum of that weight falling a foot on a strap or banging into something might be more of an issue.

  • Ari

    Thanks for the info. Good to know. Have you used the outer focus points at f/1.4?

  • Nemo Niemann

    Thanks for the “thumbs up”.

  • Nemo Niemann

    I almost always use outer focus points (usually using the the right-most focus point, but in vertical mode, so the top point), since I shoot fashion and beauty. I had absolutely no issues with either the 5Ds or the 1Dx2.

  • ptakeuchi

    Nemo, your concern is understood. I appreciate all the work Roger and his team does for the community and as a lens rental business. I rented the Sigma 50mm Art from them last year and was so impressed with the quality and leery of spending the time to buy from Adorama or B&H and go through a series of testing and returns until I was satisfied, that I bought the lightly used copy I rented from Lens Rentals. I trust them to test and clean the lenses before they go out. Time is money these days and I’d prefer not to spend my time mulling over sample variations and boxing up returns. If you have the $ and need the quality, it will likely be worth buying a used copy from LR rather than new or used somewhere else.

  • ptakeuchi

    Roger, any comment on the effect of mounting this on a D810 body attached via an arca plate to a tripod? Will all of that weight hanging forward, put too much stress on the D810’s lens mount? They are roughly the same weight: Sigma 39.9oz, D810 34.9oz. I have the Zeiss Milvus 85 which is about the same weight as the Sigma though smaller so presumably less weight hanging forward.

  • Ari

    I seems very sharp, but AF capabilities using the outer focus points is the the most important feature at least for me. I’d love to see a comparison of AF capabilities using the outer focus points at f/1.4 between Sigma 85 1.4 Art and Canon 85 1.2L II in various conditions. I´m using almost all the time only the outer focus points. Occasionally I also would like to use it at full aperture as well or close to it on my Canon bodies.

  • Marius Godeanu

    I didn’t find anything wrong with the Art – it’s just that my old one is simply ALMOST THERE. I was expecting more judging from the size, weight, price and the new Art formula. I will probably try another sample in the summer when I can test it properly with the way I usually shoot : contre-jour in bright summer sun 😉 hopefully it should show it’s ground there.

  • dyna

    Ha! Tis the American way, right? “That DXO point spread! Greater than a field goal! Impossible to overcome!” The fallacy IS rather ridiculous but it’s how some operate, unfortunately. So if there is to be one set of numerics, let there be another! And pass the bourbon because, sincerely, all the specifications are mind-numbing.

  • William Wilson

    Looking forward to your review of the Rokinon 85 1.2. I’m renting the Zeiss planar in May. I’m buying an 85 prime this year. It’s just that so many options are available now. It’s getting hard to decide.

  • Hysz

    I am aware. I am sorry that I am wasting your time.

    Well can I ask would you say DxO has a merit, or it’s like people saying :garbage, alternative facts, no pictures during tests = no tests etc.

    I think DxO does a splendid job with what they can, and people are either too stubborn to learn new things, or they don’t care about ‘objective’ results, only how it renders in real time.

    As far as I know there is actual testing going on at DxO, you think ‘we’ [stupid people who might have hit their head too hard] can rely on those numbers? Any alternative? [if not]

  • Brandon Dube

    Breaking the whole interchangeable lens thing is a pretty big deal.

  • Hysz

    but it’s possible to fix curvature! YAAAAY! Win.I hit my head very much. And since then I am just trying things at random 🙁

    BTW: They said those little lenses could be cheap in production.

  • Brandon Dube

    You can use microlenses to fix field curvature. It is very expensive and prevents the development of interchangeable lens solutions.

  • Hysz

    bbc[DOT]com/news/science-environment-36438686

    Could those micro lenses be used to correct your field curvature?

  • Brandon Dube

    You don’t need to know anything about photon buckets to bend rays 🙂

  • Hysz

    was that a nice way to say I’m stupid? Or do you really do lenses, or optical thingies without sensors?

  • Hysz

    I was joking about secret, but it made for more ‘climate’. Isn’t it possible to ‘curve the field curvature with another mirror that is kinda more cylindrical, like those: digitaltrends[DOT]com/photography/create-awesome-360-degree-videos-dslr-gopro-eye-mirror-accessory/

    But not curve outwards, rather curve them in the same way [negative] than field curvature is. End result should be straight line or s something. Or just probably wasting your time, because I have no idea what am I talking about. But I am not trolling, curious.

  • Brandon Dube

    I don’t really know anything about sensors, sorry.

  • Hysz

    Can I share another stupid idea? What if individual pixels [photo-diodes on sensor] had an aperture? That way, once collected X% light, it would shut off, close – never overexpose.

    Another thing [I really hit hard today, there was blood], what if those photo-diodes could store ‘time’. Let me explain. I imagine it[pixel] like a cup, once photons reach max, it will just sit there. So one thing is record WHEN it got this and that photon [I know, probably impossible], but then you could go back and with one future slider you could add and delete photons added after X time for example. And it would work per pixel or per sensor part so even if you overblown highlights, you can go back in time and gather 30% of light there, cool?

    And last: what if pixel could grab full info > dump, gather > dump [all during one exposure]. And then you would be left with pixels that have enormous ‘cups’ mentioned earlier = incredible dynamic range?

    Just say I am stupid, but I think some might be possible.

  • Brandon Dube

    CeFO isn’t really secret. Many projects are sponsored by a corporate member and carry NDAs. The fundamental research we do is usually funded by NSF or someone else not interested in secrecy.

    With telescopes there’s e.g. the newtonian, which is a 1 mirror design. With 2 mirrors there’s the Ritchey-Chretien, cassegrain, gregorian, and a few other forms. Three mirrors allows you to make a three mirror anastigmat, which is corrected for all of the primary aberrations except field curvature. Some TMA solutions exist that also correct field curvature but there aren’t a large number.

    A TMA is near the limit for what you can do with rotational symmetry because any more mirrors is too much stuff in the way. Freeform optics are used when you tilt and decenter mirrors to get them out of the way. It depends on the size of the aperture, but at the moment we’re building/testing a design the mirrors for which fit in the palm of your hand, and each of which is > $80,000.

    Freeform designs usually don’t go further than a TMA because there is a propensity for the complexity to become unweildly. 4 and 5 mirror designs have been done, though.

    Usually you don’t do mirrors + lenses (a catadioptric system) because that adds color back into the mix, where only mirrors lets you design without any concern at all for color. Catadioptric freeform designs certainly aren’t a hot topic.

  • Hysz

    for a second there I thought you send me a heart.

    OK, I understand this, so some supersecret organization is actually making a ‘hybrid’ or sorts? The way you worded it seemed like mirrors only, but I hit my head today really hard, and I am sure there will be optical lens, like glass element <3
    Thank you very much for everything. You are quite literally someone real famous, with that knowledge etc.

  • Brandon Dube

    When you design with lenses, you have to deal with color aberrations. Mirrors have none.
    When you design with mirrors you have to deal with the object and image being on the same side of things, so every new surface you add gets in the way of the other surfaces.

    This means you have relatively few surfaces (< 3) to correct with, so you can only achieve a narrow FoV or a fast aperture, almost* never both.

    I also work with CeFO (http://centerfreeformoptics.org/) on developments in aberration theory that allow you to use very strange shapes for mirrors to exceed what was thought to be the limit of what was possible in the past.

  • Nemo, there’s copy variation, but it’s not bad on this lens at all. I’d expect you to see very similar results. If you don’t then exchange it.

  • Dyna, I was going to do it until you said, “Lost by 4 points”. Now I can’t ever. 🙂

  • Marius, it could be. Compared to the old one I would expect you to see a significant improvement in resolution with the new one. The old one isn’t a bad lens, but the difference should be noticeable.

  • Nemo Niemann

    I rented the 85 from you guys about a month ago for a shoot. I was so impressed, I contemplated buying the copy I used — it was so sharp and well behaved. Now I’m paranoid. Because I don’t really “read MFT” well (if truly at all), are all the copies really that consistent — as you stated — and there is little noticeable different in “real world” application? Or did I have a truly stellar copy and should kick myself for not going ahead and buying it, warranty or no?

  • dyna

    Good, bad, or ugly, I’d love to see a bench test with the Tamron SP 85mm 1.8 VC. DXO says it’s as sharp as the Sigma and it only lost by 4 points, which would be within sample variation… based on their methods, anyway. I’d be curious to see what there is to see.

  • Marius Godeanu

    I ordered my Sigma Art and after some “poor man’s” testing I found this:
    https://mgphotographer.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/sigma-85-1-4-art-vs-sigma-85-1-4-hsm-old-model-on-d810-what-am-i-doing-wrong/

    I really wanted to like the Sigma 85 Art, but is it possible I have a monster EX ( the old sigma 85 ) lens 😀 Besides the heavy purple fringing on the old lens – and a bit more sharpness in the corners, the old lady still holds her own. Or I’m doing it wrong ? Could it be that I received a lemonish 85 Art ?

Follow on Feedly