Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition
Talk to any photographer who specializes in wedding or portrait photographer, and you’ll get a unanimous agreement as to what the preferred focal length – the 85mm. And with good reason; the 85mm is such an incredible focal length because of the nearly true to life compression it provides (with limited to no barrel distortion), and the options available have always been renown for being incredibly sharp. With an extensive range of brands and lens mounts, it should come to little surprise to know that the 85mm is one of the most common focal lengths in photography. And when talking 85mm, it’s impossible not to mention the lens which has often been called the crown jewel of the focal length, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. But while being the crown jewel, Canon just recently announced a new lens in this beloved focal range, swapping out a 1/3rd of a stop for a few stops of IS with the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS. But how does it compare against the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II? And how does it compare to the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art – our current king of the sharpness (for under $2500; I’m looking at you Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4). Well let’s take these three lenses out for a test drive, and see how well they perform in real life situations.
I’ll start by saying that this is a practical look into the new Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS and its competition. While I won’t contain any MTF charts here (though I know Roger will have some soon), I will look to see how this lens holds up on location, against its esteemed competition. So without wasting too much time, let us look to see how these three giants hold up when put against each other.
Image Quality
I want to start by taking a look at the photo quality of the three lenses. My testing began with taking these lenses to the park with my model and shooting at three different apertures for all three lenses: f1.4, f1.8 and f2.8 as well as f1.2 for the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. All these photos were taken in a controlled environment (or as controlled as one can be), using the Canon 5DSR.
This first set of comparisons reveals that the Canon 85mm f1.2L II has the best bokeh of the three lenses. As expected, it has best ability to create depth and separate the subject from the background which is essential in a portrait lens. It gives a dream-like look to the image that is unmatched by the others. This is not to say that the other lenses can’t hold a candle to the f/1.2. On the contrary, they all have a pretty similar look at f/1.4. In fact, it was surprising to me that if I pixel peep these photos, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art has the sharpest image by a small margin over the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is the softest of the three, which is expected from such an older design.
Things shape up a little more evenly at f1.8. All three lenses perform almost exactly the same. The bokeh looks exactly the same and sharpness is exceptional. Once again, I found that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art seemed to be sharper, something that Roger had alluded to in his initial testing of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. This could come down to a few factors including my model not keeping as still as she was supposed to. Whatever the case, all three performed exceedingly well and pretty evenly, and look identical without pixel peeping.
Once again, at f/2.8 all three lenses perform exactly the same and are all gorgeous and sharp. Obviously stopping down decreases the ability for the lenses to separate the subject from the background but they show their absolute sharpness at this point and the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is the softest still, but we’re really splitting hairs to criticize it for the subtle difference. Once again, the differences are marginal with regards to sharpness which could be due to my model not being perfectly still but it brings me to my next point.
Focus
I’d like to discuss why there needed to be a new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS lens: Focus. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II has one major shortcoming that the other two lense don’t. The focus is extremely slow and noisy. It’s been an issue for years all of us portrait photographers have learned to deal with it. Another small issue with the lens that falls under this category is that the front element extends when focusing (this is a very small quibble but worth mentioning). The Canon 85mm f1.4L IS has luckily fixed this problem, and to a pretty high degree. Not only is it much faster than the 1.2, with the addition of IS, it has the added benefit of Stabilization. This separates this lens from the others by a pretty large margin. It makes focusing in low light that much easier. Here are a couple low light shots I took with the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS including a pitch black shot of a huddle of giraffes at the Memphis Zoo (taken handheld, not perfectly sharp but I was surprised by how well it came out as I couldn’t see to focus).
The Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art is a very middle of the road lens with regard to focus. It’s not super fast but it’s certainly not slow. It’s very accurate and works really well. No complaints there at all.
Handling
Here’s where things bet a lot more interesting (in case they weren’t already). I weighed each of these lenses with a clear filter installed and their front and rear caps on as well. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS is the lightest of these three lenses clocking in at 1009 grams. The Canon 85mm f1.2L II came in second at 1034 grams and the Sigma 85 f1.4 Art was a whopping 1216 grams. The extreme weight of the Sigma definitely has an effect when hand-holding and it really causes a lot of fatigue quickly. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS feels a little front heavy in the hand and I could see it giving my arms a workout after a while. Funny enough, even though the Canon 85mm f1.2L II is heavier, because it is shorter it has better balance on the camera. I felt a lot less strain carrying the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II around. All this said I think the benefits the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS add outweigh the balance issues I have with it.
Conclusion
I probably sound all over the place in this comparison and probably haven’t helped you make a final decision on which of these lenses is the best fit for you. The thing is, there are pros and cons for each of these lenses. Let’s break them down like this: The Canon 85mm f1.2L II is the standard and is really middle of the road in this comparison. It’s a great lens with that dreamy bokeh but is the most expensive and is slow to focus. The Canon 85mm f1.4L IS performed amazingly with everything I threw at it. It’s sharper than the 1.2, faster, and has image stabilization but is still pretty expensive. The budget Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens is sharp and quick but is really heavy. My new choice to keep in my camera bag for a wedding is definitely going to be the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS for the image stabilization alone. That adds a whole new layer to the focal length and is a great addition. Does it de-throne the Canon 85mm f1.2L II as the portrait standard? I don’t think so. The bottom line is: If you’re looking to create that dreamy, airy look, there is no better option than the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. But if you’re looking for a solid 85mm, with sharpness and speed, it’s hard not to pay attention to both the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. Below you will find several other example photos taken with the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS. I had a ton of fun with it.
219 Comments
Bob B. ·
“This first set of comparisons reveals that the Canon 85mm f1.2L II has the best bokeh of the three lenses. ”
OK…hate to be nit-picky, but then, this is a nit-picky topic. 🙂 In the first group, why are you so much closer to the subject (very noticeably in a lens comparison), when you shoot with the new Canon IS Lens compared to the other lenses? That is going to exaggerate the bokeh blur for the new lens in a comparison more than if the subject was at the same distance.
So…going by this, the 85mm f/1.2 would show even more separation and softness of the background if the subject had been the same distance from the lens, right? (I could never do lens testing, I would never get it right!!! LOL!).
I own the 85mm f/1.2 II. I just LOVE that lens and its dreamy bokeh and have no desire to “up grade”. I also have a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART, so if I need faster focus (the big drawback of the 85mm f/1.2 II), I have that lens to go to. I get it though that most people are going to want the modern lens. This comparisono is interesting and should spark MUCH debate! 🙂
Thanks for posting this, and I totally understand your mixed feelings about the lenses… It’s what make photography so interesting!!!!
Jack Hogan ·
Yeah, that comment took me by surprise not only because of the substantial differences in the setup (closeness to subject, background lighting, etc.) but because of its surety: I honestly did not like the f/1.2’s bokeh best. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Bob B. ·
Well, true: “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I like my background SOFT to bring out the subject and create that “mood”. For me the Canon f/1.2 II does it best, (especially with a little tweaking in post production), and it would look a LOT softer than the new Canon f.1.4 IS if the subject was kept at equal distance from the camera in this test. Having the subject closer than all the other lenses definitely blurs the background more for the Canon f/1.4 IS “relative” to the other lenses. So this is not a fair comparison for bokeh. The bokeh for the new lens is harsher than the f/1/2 II, and that is the downside of the ever-so-slightly sharper, more modern new lens. They are both great lenses for different reasons. Hence. Phillips frustration. LOL!
carpandean ·
Looking at the photos in the first set, I definitely liked the Canon 85/1.4’s bokeh better than the 85/1.2’s, especially when comparing both at f/1.4 (f/1.2 helps the older lens a little, but when I pulled them up side-by-side, I still found the f/1.4’s to be smoother.) The paragraph that followed really surprised me, as I couldn’t understand the (as Jack put it) “surety” of the statement.
However, I’m glad that you pointed out the difference in setup and specifically the distance to subject. It’s not really a fair comparison.
Ioannis stavrou ·
If this is true… Would you like to hold on your hand a Schneider-Kreuznach FF PRIME T2.1 / 75MM CANON EF?? ****THIS BRAND WILL KILL ANY CANON LENS**** THIS IS WHEN YOU TRANSFORM YOUR CAMERA INTO SUPER-CAMERA!! AVAILABLE FOR CANON / NIKON / SONY & PL
Bob B. ·
"This first set of comparisons reveals that the Canon 85mm f1.2L II has the best bokeh of the three lenses. "
OK...hate to be nit-picky, but then, this is a nit-picky topic. :-) In the first group, why are you so much closer to the subject (very noticeably in a lens comparison), when you shoot with the new Canon IS Lens compared to the other lenses? That is going to exaggerate the bokeh blur for the new lens in a comparison more than if the subject was at the same distance.
So...going by this, the 85mm f/1.2 would show even more separation and softness of the background if the subject had been the same distance from the lens, right? (I could never do lens testing, I would never get it right!!! LOL!).
I own the 85mm f/1.2 II. I just LOVE that lens and its dreamy bokeh and have no desire to "up grade". I also have a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART, so if I need faster focus (the big drawback of the 85mm f/1.2 II), I have that lens to go to. I get it though that most people are going to want the modern lens. This comparisono is interesting and should spark MUCH debate! :-)
Thanks for posting this, and I totally understand your mixed feelings about the lenses... It's what make photography so interesting!!!!
Jack Hogan ·
Yeah, that comment took me by surprise not only because of the substantial differences in the setup (closeness to subject, background lighting, etc.) but because of its surety: I honestly did not like the f/1.2's bokeh best. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Bob B. ·
Well, true: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I like my background SOFT to bring out the subject and create that "mood". For me the Canon f/1.2 II does it best, (especially with a little tweaking in post production), and it would look a LOT softer than the new Canon f.1.4 IS if the subject was kept at equal distance from the camera in this test. Having the subject closer than all the other lenses definitely blurs the background more for the Canon f/1.4 IS "relative" to the other lenses. So this is not a fair comparison for bokeh. The bokeh for the new lens is harsher than the f/1/2 II, and that is the downside of the ever-so-slightly sharper, more modern new lens. They are both great lenses for different reasons. Hence. Phillips frustration. LOL!
carpandean ·
Looking at the photos in the first set, I definitely liked the Canon 85/1.4's bokeh better than the 85/1.2's, especially when comparing both at f/1.4 (f/1.2 helps the older lens a little, but when I pulled them up side-by-side, I still found the f/1.4's to be smoother.) The paragraph that followed really surprised me, as I couldn't understand the (as Jack put it) "surety" of the statement.
However, I'm glad that you pointed out the difference in setup and specifically the distance to subject. It's not really a fair comparison.
Ioannis stavrou ·
If this is true... Would you like to hold on your hand a Schneider-Kreuznach FF PRIME T2.1 / 75MM CANON EF?? ****THIS BRAND WILL KILL ANY CANON LENS**** THIS IS WHEN YOU TRANSFORM YOUR CAMERA INTO SUPER-CAMERA!! AVAILABLE FOR CANON / NIKON / SONY & PL
AND DON"T BE TRICKED THAT CANON CAM+CANON LENS IS THE MAX OUTPUT!!
Arthur Meursault ·
Blues Brothers, “What kind of music do you usually have here?” Oh, we got both kinds, we got country and western.
Lens Rentals, “What kind of lens testing do you usually have here? Oh, we got both kinds, we got Canon and Sigma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM&feature=youtu.be&t=28s
Zach Sutton Photography ·
I’m always trying to push more content for Nikon, Sony, Fuji and others…but the Sigma 85mm is the highest rated 85mm right now per Rogers testing (and excluding the Otus), so it seemed like a lens worth throwing into the mix, since it’s certainly on many people’s Xmas list this year. In regards to Nikon, their 85mm could use a refresh, so it wasn’t included cause it wouldn’t be a fair fight. (Canon’s 85mm f/1.2L was only included because of it’s f/1.2 capabilities)
As for the other brands being neglected, it simply comes down to what the majority of our staff uses, which is Canon and Sony. It wouldn’t be particularly fair to have a lifelong Canon shooter to review Nikon gear, because there is a learning curve needed when switching systems…and we all work in that chaotic “Overwhelmed and out of time” state of mind.
Hope that clarifies our seeming bias.
Unrest ·
I’d argue the Nikon 85 1.4 G is a superior lens compared to the overrated Canon 85 1.2 L.
Albert ·
It is certainly the lightest of the bunch, which makes it eminently usable.
PAC ·
You could but you’d be wrong.
Astro Landscapes ·
I wouldn’t touch the 85 1.2’s with a ten foot pole, even if they were free and the ten foot pole had prize grabber hands on the end of it.
mais51 ·
If you really want to know head over to the phozone.de, they’ve tested both Nikon 85 AFS F1.4 and the latest Canon 85 F1.2 – the results will surely surprises you – suffice to say that the Canon is nowhere nearly as good as the Nikon.
mais51 ·
I suppose there is no point of bringing out the Nikon lens here – this is a Canon specific test, having said that I agree with you.
Tim Glaser ·
For getting that sort of ‘portrait dreamy separation’ look that you are talking about here, would you consider the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 a strong contender? Obviously a different focal length/FoV but I feel like the use case of both lenses is similar.
Oleg ·
It would be a dream to have the Nikon 105/1.4 for Canon 🙂
appliance5000 ·
Get an adapter and slap it on. Dreams can come true.
Oleg ·
Ha ha, almost! Now imagine to manually focus a 105/1.4 lens wide open 🙂 The main reason why my Otus 85 is now mostly collecting dust… I use to shoot with a Zacuto finder, but it’s a pain. It would probably work on a Sony mirrorless body though (EVF + focus peaking).
appliance5000 ·
or EVF with image magnification – I never trust peaking . You can get nikon /sony adaptors with electronic pass through to control the aperture – I think.
Larry Templeton ·
Slap it on a Sony a7rIII. Now it’s stabilized and you can focus with accurate peaking in the EVF or on the back.
Oleg ·
Tried on the Sony a7r2 – no dice if you’re taking kids pictures… Even regular portraits are challenging sometimes.
Arthur Meursault ·
Sony, Nikon and Zeiss all make excellent 85mm lenses. The article is titled “Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition”
As to the learning curve, you mount the lens on the camera, turn to A priority and press the shutter. I haven’t picked up a Canon since I took an AE-1 to Europe in 1985 but I am sure I could figure one out in 2-3 minutes.
PAC ·
His trying to say in a nice way that they don’t have time to compare every 85mm that every fanboy wants compared. We are lucky that he took his own time to do this comparison and share it with us because I guarantee it wasn’t done when he was on the clock with Lensrentals.
WKYA_Radio ·
Get a clue dude
colt15 ·
You, (WYKA) with your pointless response, seem to be the one who needs a clue.
Jake ·
I don’t understand, you said your staff uses “Canon and Sony” then where is the Sony 85mm 1.4? Not very clarifying on your bias. Sorry, but usually this site is fantastic in it’s clarity.
Zach Sutton Photography ·
The easiest way to test a lens is to use the same camera body throughout. Obviously using a 5DS R for 3/4 of the lenses, and an a7RIII or a9 for the other comparison would yield different results in color, contrast, and so on.
This is a comparison of the top three options for Canon shooters.
Arthur Meursault ·
Why don’t you use a mirrorless Sony as the base sensor and use adapters to test the competition?
Brandon Dube ·
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/
Arthur Meursault ·
Brandon,
# 1 this ‘test’ wouldn’t suffer from the use of adapters.
# 2 buy better adapters. Novoflex.
# 3 most of the lab testing done at LR and published here requires the use of adapters.
# 4 y’all need to get a sense of humor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/76cz99/what_activity_or_hobby_is_so_filled_with_hateful/
Brandon Dube ·
This would suffer from a bad adapter the same as anything else. I have yet to see a single manufacture produce “good enough” adapters so consistently that I haven’t seen a bad adapter from them. Olaf’s Imagemaster uses match machined plates of 1/4″ thick brass to guarantee parallelism between each mount and the mechanical interface. That is not really an “adapter” in the same sense.
Arthur Meursault ·
Brass? Brass is 3 on the Mohs scale. Drop that adapter once and there goes your parallelism.
Any adapter worth its salt would be made out of tungsten carbide or unobtanium (which is impossible to get).
Brandon Dube ·
Again, it’s not really an “adapter,” and you tend to not drop parts of a quarter million dollar machine.
Arthur Meursault ·
People drop expensive items more often and more easily than you can drop a pointless argument.
Lens Rentals used to do objective testing and across many different lenses and OEMs.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout/
If it’s not an ‘adapter’ then what is it ? And FFS make up a term that is not a synonym for adapter.
Brandon Dube ·
I’m not sure what you want out of this conversation.
WKYA_Radio ·
That guy has problems
Arthur Meursault ·
A term that describes the adapter used on OLAF that is not a synonym for ‘adapter’. That would be a start.
PS – good thing you’re a lens nerd and not an attorney. You’d lose every case in your opening argument.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client swears that no one can identify him as the bank robber as he wore these pantyhose during the robbery, just as he is doing today.”
Franz Graphstill ·
I thought Roger called them “lens mounts”.
Of course, you’ll call that a lens adapter…
Arthur Meursault ·
If it makes it possible to adapt many different brands of lenses to a common device then everyone would call that an adapter.
Larry Templeton ·
That’d take all the fun out of the ritual. ?
Ralph Hightower ·
I appreciate it that Phillip mentioned the camera that he used and that it was consistent through the testing because he mentioned the handling and balance of the lens/camera combinations. He used the 5DSR camera, which I think was appropriate to do a stress test of the lenses.
Jim A. ·
I wouldn’t call it bias, I’d call it choice. I imagine the crew at LensRentals has, more than almost anyone, the ability to choose what they see as the best for their needs. If that means they commonly choose Canon and Sony gear, I’d say that’s a telling assessment of what’s currently viewed as superior among a well informed bunch. I’ve never understood the tribal defense of different brands among commenters. I get that buying into a less popular brand traps you if you invest too much, but it doesn’t change objective facts among those free to choose whatever they want. If you prefer Nikon, or Hassleblad, or whatever, great. Don’t knock the reviewer because he didn’t make the same choice as you. They’re providing information, not team spirit.
Matt ·
I wasn’t thinking of it as a bias so much as a bad/misleading title. It isn’t a comparison to the competition. It’s a comparison to the previous Canon staple with the highly rated Sigma thrown in for a as a control. If the article were called “A look at the new Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS” people would have gotten what they expected to see.
Roger Cicala ·
Arthur, if you look, you’d see that we’ve done more Sony testing, actually, than any other recently. Sigma’s a close second, then Canon. We tend to test new releases and if you follow the number of recent new releases (not counting kit lenses), that’s roughly the same order.
There is also the reality that for scientific testing I have to have 10 copies to compare. There are excellent lenses (the Nikon 28mm f/1.4 comes to mind, but there are others) that I would love to test, but rental demand is so low that we don’t carry enough copies.
Arthur Meursault ·
With all respect Roger. I and others have been coming here for years because of the kind of testing you typically do. I appreciate the work you’ve done and how much I’ve learned from LR but in my opinion this was a fluff filler piece and neither a ‘test’ or ‘of the competition’.
Roger Cicala ·
Well, but this was not my piece 🙂
Arthur Meursault ·
Blues Brothers, "What kind of music do you usually have here?" Oh, we got both kinds, we got country and western.
Lens Rentals, "What kind of lens testing do you usually have here? Oh, we got both kinds, we got Canon and Sigma.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Zach Sutton Photography ·
I'm always trying to push more content for Nikon, Sony, Fuji and others...but the Sigma 85mm is the highest rated 85mm right now per Rogers testing (and excluding the Otus), so it seemed like a lens worth throwing into the mix, since it's certainly on many people's Xmas list this year. In regards to Nikon, their 85mm could use a refresh, so it wasn't included cause it wouldn't be a fair fight. (Canon's 85mm f/1.2L was only included because of it's f/1.2 capabilities)
As for the other brands being neglected, it simply comes down to what the majority of our staff uses, which is Canon and Sony. It wouldn't be particularly fair to have a lifelong Canon shooter to review Nikon gear, because there is a learning curve needed when switching systems...and we all work in that chaotic "Overwhelmed and out of time" state of mind.
Hope that clarifies our seeming bias.
Unrest ·
I'd argue the Nikon 85 1.4 G is a superior lens compared to the overrated Canon 85 1.2 L.
Phil Tography ·
You could but you’d be wrong.
Astro Landscapes ·
I wouldn't touch the 85 1.2's with a ten foot pole, even if they were free and the ten foot pole had prize grabber hands on the end of it.
mais51 ·
If you really want to know head over to the photozone.de, they've tested both Nikon 85 AFS F1.4 and the latest Canon 85 F1.2 - the results will surely surprises you - suffice to say that the Canon is nowhere nearly as good as the Nikon.
mais51 ·
I suppose there is no point of bringing out the Nikon lens here - this is a Canon specific test, having said that I agree with you.
Tim Glaser ·
For getting that sort of 'portrait dreamy separation' look that you are talking about here, would you consider the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 a strong contender? Obviously a different focal length/FoV but I feel like the use case of both lenses is similar.
Arthur Meursault ·
Sony, Nikon and Zeiss all make excellent 85mm lenses. The article is titled "Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition"
As to the learning curve, you mount the lens on the camera, turn to A priority and press the shutter. I haven't picked up a Canon since I took an AE-1 to Europe in 1985 but I am sure I could figure one out in 2-3 minutes.
Phil Tography ·
His trying to say in a nice way that they don’t have time to compare every 85mm that every fanboy wants compared. We are lucky that he took his own time to do this comparison and share it with us because I guarantee it wasn’t done when he was on the clock with Lensrentals.
Jake ·
I don't understand, you said your staff uses "Canon and Sony" then where is the Sony 85mm 1.4? Not very clarifying on your bias. Sorry, but usually this site is fantastic in it's clarity.
Zach Sutton Photography ·
The easiest way to test a lens is to use the same camera body throughout. Obviously using a 5DS R for 3/4 of the lenses, and an a7RIII or a9 for the other comparison would yield different results in color, contrast, and so on.
This is a comparison of the top three options for Canon shooters.
Arthur Meursault ·
Why don't you use a mirrorless Sony as the base sensor and use adapters to test the competition?
Brandon Dube ·
https://www.lensrentals.com...
Arthur Meursault ·
Brandon,
# 1 this 'test' wouldn't suffer from the use of adapters.
# 2 buy better adapters. Novoflex.
# 3 most of the lab testing done at LR and published here requires the use of adapters.
# 4 y'all need to get a sense of humor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/As...
Brandon Dube ·
This would suffer from a bad adapter the same as anything else. I have yet to see a single manufacture produce "good enough" adapters so consistently that I haven't seen a bad adapter from them. Olaf's Imagemaster uses match machined plates of 1/4" thick brass to guarantee parallelism between each mount and the mechanical interface. That is not really an "adapter" in the same sense.
Arthur Meursault ·
Brass? Brass is 3 on the Mohs scale. Drop that adapter once and there goes your parallelism.
Any adapter worth its salt would be made out of tungsten carbide or unobtanium (which is impossible to get).
Brandon Dube ·
Again, it's not really an "adapter," and you tend to not drop parts of a quarter million dollar machine.
Arthur Meursault ·
People drop expensive items more often and more easily than you can drop a pointless argument.
Lens Rentals used to do objective testing and across many different lenses and OEMs.
https://www.lensrentals.com...
If it's not an 'adapter' then what is it ? And FFS make up a term that is not a synonym for adapter.
Brandon Dube ·
I'm not sure what you want out of this conversation.
Arthur Meursault ·
A term that describes the adapter used on OLAF that is not a synonym for 'adapter'. That would be a start.
PS - good thing you're a lens nerd and not an attorney. You'd lose every case in your opening argument.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client swears that no one can identify him as the bank robber as he wore these pantyhose during the robbery, just as he is doing today."
Franz Graphstill ·
I thought Roger called them "lens mounts".
Of course, you'll call that a lens adapter...
Larry Templeton ·
That’d take all the fun out of the ritual. 😂
Jim A. ·
I wouldn't call it bias, I'd call it choice. I imagine the crew at LensRentals has, more than almost anyone, the ability to choose what they see as the best for their needs. If that means they commonly choose Canon and Sony gear, I'd say that's a telling assessment of what's currently viewed as superior among a well informed bunch. I've never understood the tribal defense of different brands among commenters. I get that buying into a less popular brand traps you if you invest too much, but it doesn't change objective facts among those free to choose whatever they want. If you prefer Nikon, or Hassleblad, or whatever, great. Don't knock the reviewer because he didn't make the same choice as you. They're providing information, not team spirit.
Matt ·
I wasn't thinking of it as a bias so much as a bad/misleading title. It isn't a comparison to the competition. It's a comparison to the previous Canon staple with the highly rated Sigma thrown in for a as a control. If the article were called "A look at the new Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS" people would have gotten what they expected to see.
Roger Cicala ·
Arthur, if you look, you'd see that we've done more Sony testing, actually, than any other recently. Sigma's a close second, then Canon. We tend to test new releases and if you follow the number of recent new releases (not counting kit lenses), that's roughly the same order.
There is also the reality that for scientific testing I have to have 10 copies to compare. There are excellent lenses (the Nikon 28mm f/1.4 comes to mind, but there are others) that I would love to test, but rental demand is so low that we don't carry enough copies.
Arthur Meursault ·
With all respect Roger. I and others have been coming here for years because of the kind of testing you typically do. I appreciate the work you've done and how much I've learned from LR but in my opinion this was a fluff filler piece and neither a 'test' or 'of the competition'.
Roger Cicala ·
Well, but this was not my piece :-)
SpecialMan ·
Great article, But all this talk of separation leads to a question: which is more important for separating subject from background? Is it the overall background blur, or is it more about the subject having prominent and well-resolved edges in contrast to the blur that makes it stand out?
Michiel953 ·
What is more important to yoú?
To me it’s not the separation as such, it’s how smoothly out-of-focus goes into in-focus and then into out-of-focus again. The Nikkor 58/1.4G does an admirable job there.
But if you shoot a ‘portrait’ at say five metres distance with an 85, nothing but air in front, nothing behind the subject for the first few hundred metres, you probably wouldn’t want your lens to ‘etch’ separation onto the image.
Michiel953 ·
What is more important to yoú?
To me it’s not the separation as such, it’s how smoothly out-of-focus goes into in-focus and then into out-of-focus again. The Nikkor 58/1.4G does an admirable job there.
But if you shoot a ‘portrait’ at say five metres distance with an 85, nothing but air in front, nothing behind the subject for the first few hundred metres, you probably wouldn’t want your lens to ‘etch’ separation onto the image.
Brandon Dube ·
In TV and cinema they often use a technique called rim lighting (light up the back of people) to produce a halo effect on their hair, shoulders, etc, that enhances separation more than going from 85mm f/2.8 to 85mm f/1.4 would.
Michiel953 ·
Interesting comparison, and it’s easy to see the new 1.4 Canon is a great lens.
But why wasn’t the Nikon 85/1.4G included?
Franz Graphstill ·
Because it’s not that good a lens. The 105mm Nikon is impressive, but the 85mm G is decidedly ordinary.
Michiel953 ·
You sound like an expert.
Steinar Knai ·
You see Robert, this is the kind of garbage you get when you don’t include the lenses in the comparison. “decidedly ordinary”, my foot! And where prey, is the proof?
Chris ·
“But why wasn’t the Nikon 85/1.4G included?”
Because it doesnt mount to a Canon camera and is not an option for wedding shooters with Canon gear
Dilbert ·
I personnally don’t care that it wasn’t included… this is not a paid review I feel we are being nit-picky no? But yes, you could mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera although yeah…. manually focusing for a wedding would not be something I’d recommend but it would still be easy to mount with a cheap ring adapter although aperture would be hard to control precisely. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/995121-REG/fotodiox_nk_g_eos_p_pro_canon_eos_camera.html) At any rate, I don’t care for perfection or bias as I can draw my own conclusions so thanks to the author for this review.
Michiel953 ·
Interesting comparison, and it’s easy to see the new 1.4 Canon is a great lens.
But why wasn’t the Nikon 85/1.4G included?
Franz Graphstill ·
Because it's not that good a lens. The 105mm Nikon is impressive, but the 85mm G is decidedly ordinary.
Steinar Knai ·
You see Robert, this is the kind of garbage you get when you don't include the lenses in the comparison. "decidedly ordinary", my foot! And where prey, is the proof?
Chris ·
"But why wasn’t the Nikon 85/1.4G included?"
Because it doesnt mount to a Canon camera and is not an option for wedding shooters with Canon gear
Dilbert ·
I personnally don't care that it wasn't included... this is not a paid review I feel we are being nit-picky no? But yes, you could mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera although yeah.... manually focusing for a wedding would not be something I'd recommend but it would still be easy to mount with a cheap ring adapter although aperture would be hard to control precisely. (https://www.bhphotovideo.co... At any rate, I don't care for perfection or bias as I can draw my own conclusions so thanks to the author for this review.
Michael Ogle ·
I always crack up when stabilization is brought up…even the Otis is stabilized on A&E mount
Mike Earussi ·
Quite correct, they’re all stabilized on a Sony even the Sigma using the MC-11 adapter. So now subtract IS from the mix (since they all have it) and which one is now the best?
Oleg ·
A stabilized elevator?
Michael Ogle ·
I always crack up when stabilization is brought up...even the Otus is stabilized on A&E mount
Mike Earussi ·
Quite correct, they're all stabilized on a Sony, even the Sigma using the MC-11 adapter. So now subtract IS from the mix (since they all have it) and which one is the best?
Oleg ·
“compression it provides (with limited to no barrel distortion)” it seems you are confusing perspective distortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) with one of optical aberrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics).
All three lenses are great, let’s just see the MTF charts and move on 😉
Franz Graphstill ·
I have replaced the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. I considered keeping the 1.2, but I found I didn’t need it.
The Sigma is inspiringly sharp, starting from wide open. I have used it in the studio, and the extraordinary sharpness makes superb images. Yes, it’s heavy, but that’s because they haven’t stinted on elements for correcting aberrations – the weight is completely justified. I find it nicely balanced on a 5Ds.
I haven’t tried the 85mm f/1.4 IS, but I despise the current tendency to add IS to short lenses. I don’t want an IS group in an 85mm lens – I was really glad Sigma didn’t pander to the IS fans.
I have owned the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 G, and I wasn’t impressed (using it on a D810). My copy (at least) suffered from coma. The Sigma Art is a much better lens.
Nicolas Bousquet ·
The IS is because without it, a kitlens telezoom that does have IS would be almost as capable for low light shots.
Fast apperture may be for bokeh/subject separation but it may also be for low light… And Canon doesn’t have IBIS.
Franz Graphstill ·
I have replaced the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. I considered keeping the 1.2, but I found I didn't need it.
The Sigma is inspiringly sharp, starting from wide open. I have used it in the studio, and the extraordinary sharpness makes superb images. Yes, it's heavy, but that's because they haven't stinted on elements for correcting aberrations - the weight is completely justified. I find it nicely balanced on a 5Ds.
I haven't tried the 85mm f/1.4 IS, but I despise the current tendency to add IS to short lenses. I don't want an IS group in an 85mm lens - I was really glad Sigma didn't pander to the IS fans.
I have owned the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 G, and I wasn't impressed (using it on a D810). My copy (at least) suffered from coma. The Sigma Art is a much better lens.
Nicolas Bousquet ·
The IS is because without it, a kitlens telezoom that does have IS would be almost as capable for low light shots.
Fast apperture may be for bokeh/subject separation but it may also be for low light... And Canon doesn't have IBIS.
DrJon ·
I started using an 85/1.2 II on a 5DmkII and I was really surprised to find that the AF was quite good. (Especially as I’d been avoiding buying one for years assuming it wouldn’t be.) Yes if you go from minimum focus distance to infinity and back it takes a while (the potential for very small DoF means lots of focus steps), but if you’re already in the ballpark it was fine. Specifically I could photography seagulls catching bread thrown into the air with over a 90% hit rate. The trick was just be to within 5-10m of the required focus distance already.
However I now use it on a 5Dsr and I feel (without being that scientific) it’s slower to focus. Maybe the high-res camera just goes for a tighter focus with shallow-DoF lenses? It’s the same battery so doesn’t have less oomph. (Although it might have less focusing current, using more elsewhere.)
My issue with the 85/1.2 II is actually the amount of purple you get on just out-of-focus high-contrast (i.e. black-white) edges, as it is a bit much and certain raw editors don’t remove it all that well without side-effects. If that will be an issue the 100 L macro is also a great portrait lens, if you don’t need wider than f2.8 anyway. (BTW the non-L USM macro really isn’t.)
On the up side, with an FF body and the 85/1.2 it’s never too dark…
Tom Stanworth ·
I agree about the AF. For portraits, I have never found the 85 1.2 L II AF to be an issue, because once already in the ballpark it is quick enough. Not that I’d use it for moving subjects mind you…. That said, I am sure the 85 L is enough quicker to make the photographer feeling much more confident shooting people in more of a candid (wedding?) setting, or modelling where they’re on their feet and shifting back and forth a lot.
DrJon ·
I started using an 85/1.2 II on a 5DmkII and I was really surprised to find that the AF was quite good. (Especially as I'd been avoiding buying one for years assuming it wouldn't be.) Yes if you go from minimum focus distance to infinity and back it takes a while (the potential for very small DoF means lots of focus steps), but if you're already in the ballpark it was fine. Specifically I could photography seagulls catching bread thrown into the air with over a 90% hit rate. The trick was just be to within 5-10m of the required focus distance already.
However I now use it on a 5Dsr and I feel (without being that scientific) it's slower to focus. Maybe the high-res camera just goes for a tighter focus with shallow-DoF lenses? It's the same battery so doesn't have less oomph. (Although it might have less focusing current, using more elsewhere.)
My issue with the 85/1.2 II is actually the amount of purple you get on just out-of-focus high-contrast (i.e. black-white) edges, as it is a bit much and certain raw editors don't remove it all that well without side-effects. If that will be an issue the 100 L macro is also a great portrait lens, if you don't need wider than f2.8 anyway. (BTW the non-L USM macro really isn't.)
On the up side, with an FF body and the 85/1.2 it's never too dark...
Tom Stanworth ·
I agree about the AF. For portraits, I have never found the 85 1.2 L II AF to be an issue, because once already in the ballpark it is quick enough. Not that I'd use it for moving subjects mind you.... That said, I am sure the 85 L is enough quicker to make the photographer feeling much more confident shooting people in more of a candid (wedding?) setting, or modelling where they're on their feet and shifting back and forth a lot.
Woody Stemms ·
The Nikon 85mm f1.8 was, and is, a very fine lens. Used one for more than 40 years, and will probably mount it on a digital body one of these days. The comparison photos shown are “nice” but until and unless these 85’s are put throught the same studio setup as the rest of the DPR reviews, and on a tripod, they are subjective, and barely worthy of mention.
Nicolas Bousquet ·
Why shall lensrental care of the dpreview studio setup, really ?
On top of that, trying to review a lens in a studio shooting chart or static scenes is nice if you actually plan to shoot that in reality.
If you don’t the setup is unrealistic and thus is going to give irrelevant information.
Woody Stemms ·
The Nikon 85mm f1.8 was, and is, a very fine lens. Used one for more than 40 years, and will probably mount it on a digital body one of these days. The comparison photos shown are "nice" but until and unless these 85's are put throught the same studio setup as the rest of the DPR reviews, and on a tripod, they are subjective, and barely worthy of mention.
Nicolas Bousquet ·
Why shall lensrental care of the dpreview studio setup, really ?
On top of that, trying to review a lens in a studio shooting chart or static scenes is nice if you actually plan to shoot that in reality.
If you don't the setup is unrealistic and thus is going to give irrelevant information.
Jamieson Dean ·
Now include even a basic AF tracking test with these lenses on any current Canon body, and you’ll quickly discover that the new Canon 1.4 IS does in fact have far superior AF than either the 1.2 or the Sigma.
Jamieson ·
Now include even a basic AF tracking test with these lenses on any current Canon body, and you'll quickly discover that the new Canon 1.4 IS does in fact have far superior AF than either the 1.2 or the Sigma.
tom rose ·
” The extreme weight of the Sigma definitely has an effect when hand-holding and it really causes a lot of fatigue quickly. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS feels a little front heavy in the hand and I could see it giving my arms a workout after a while.”
May I suggest a few trips to the Gymn’ or a few dozen daily press-ups at home?
Dimitrov_ ·
What competition – where is Nikon, Sony etc
androidreally? ·
the title, “Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition” makes it clear, to me, at least, that the only competition an EF mount lens are other EF mount lenses. This argument was brought up already.
Dimitrov_ ·
What competition - where is Nikon, Sony etc
CarlosinSeattle ·
The title, "Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition" makes it clear, to me, at least, that the only competition an EF mount lens has are other EF mount lenses. This argument was brought up already.
Steinar Knai ·
I’d argue that both the Nikon 85 1.4G and the 85 1.8G are worthy competitors and would give all these lenses a run for their money. In addition, Tamron’s 85 1.8 SP VC is an outstanding lens with stabilization and preferred by many pro’s compared to the Sigma 1.4 A.
Lensrentals is a very important voice in the market place and it is too bad that it does not recognize that and include at least the Tamron and Nikon 85mm lenses in such a comparison. Anything else gives the impression of a bias and if there is one, let us know why and show it by comparing images. The argument that the employees use this or that is amateurish and can’t be taken seriously.
So Lensrentals; realize the weight your voice has in the market, more than ever after the merger and give us comparisons representative of the market reality when you take the time to write.
Arthur Meursault ·
Amen brother. I remember when a LensRental comparison was objective and covered a dozen or more different lenses.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout/
Roger Cicala ·
This was a Canon mount comparison. I agree the Tamron 85mm would have been a nice addition, it’s an awesome lens. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 would have been a nice addition, too. And the Zeiss 85mm Milvus, and perhaps the Otus.
I totally agree that Nikon as a system has very worthy competitors in this focal length and probably better cameras. But until Nikon starts releasing their lenses in EF mount, I totally miss your point about why they belong in an EF mount comparison.
Roger
Steinar Knai ·
Roger, with all due respect for you and your employees, you can’t do a “just after work” comparison any more. Your voice carries too much weight and I don’t think you want to be branded as a Canon/Sony fanboy club. If you want to avoid the fanboy arguments, you have to do a generic 85mm, fast lens comparison, period. I am certainly not a fanboy and I love and respect your blog and I would hate to see it becoming partial to anything but image and build quality.
Jamieson Dean ·
Jeez, get off it already. This was an article written about the new Canon 85 lens, comparing the two other lenses that anyone looking at the new lens would consider. This site is NOT the only site directly comparing these three lenses, and only these three lenses, as that’s the most logical comparison. Who do you think you are, telling someone what they literally can or cannot write about? When you have a lens website, you can do things your way.
Steinar Knai ·
I’ll tell you who I am; a pro photogr
Jamieson Dean ·
I’m a professional full-time photographer of 17 years, and I happen to own the new Canon 85mm 1.4, but I’ll tell you what I don’t own; Lens Rentals blog. Neither do you. So we don’t get to decide how or what they post, we only get to decide if we want to read it.
Cthulhu ·
Get off your high horse, buddy, nobody cares that you shoot events, everybody shoots events. The author makes it clear he’s comparing sub $2500 lenses and that this isn’t a full benchmark. You have a problem with reading comprehension, also with your ginormous unchecked ego.
Ada ·
Well, you are obviously a Nikon guy complaining about a Canon oriented article.
Nobody here cares who you are and what your business is. Again, who are you to tell Lensrentals what to do and what not …
Roger Cicala ·
Steinar, I don’t disagree with your point in general, but I’m not the author here, nor the blog editor, so this is not my voice. The general Lensrentals blog has Roger Cicala geeky articles and other stuff too. The other stuff is not usually scientific geeky stuff, it’s technique articles, in-the-field comparisons, etc. Those aren’t meant to be scientific, they are impressions, and I think worthwhile.
I’ll have a scientific bench comparison about the 85mm f/1.4 L IS soon (I’m doing contract work for the next week but soon after that). It will be the end-all-be-all comparison of MTF. But it won’t tell you a think about how it feels in the hand, how accurate the AF is, how well the IS works, etc. This has value too.
The only thing in Phillip’s article I can comment on is “the Sigma has the sharper image by a small margin”. On the bench the margin isn’t small, it’s significant for those who prize resolution above all things. But I believe in the field, IS and AF may narrow the gap, bokeh may be more important, etc.
dennis williams ·
I would not expect to see a Nikon or any non Canon native lens in an article comparing a Canon lens to its competition. Nikon lenses are not an option for a Canon 5DSR owner. That choice ended when the guy bought the Canon. Just as I cannot use the Canon 135mm L f2. I bought a Nikon D8xx series. My issue would be with the series with the person- I would not want any of the lenses if this is what I go home with.
Dillan K ·
I’m saddened that they didn’t review an FD 85mm f/1.2L. This review isn’t complete!
/s
Arthur Meursault ·
At the very least title the article appropriately. ‘The Canon Sigma 85mm Shootout’
Steinar is very much on message – “Your voice carries too much weight” – don’t let the good (and high level) of work you’ve done be diluted by these kinds of articles.
colt15 ·
Agree that it needs to be retitiled. But I thought the article was fine in its context if labeled properly. And of course doing a Nikon / Sony article would provide some balance.
Steinar Knai ·
I'd argue that both the Nikon 85 1.4G and the 85 1.8G are worthy competitors and would give all these lenses a run for their money. In addition, Tamron's 85 1.8 SP VC is an outstanding lens with stabilization and preferred by many pro's compared to the Sigma 1.4 A.
Lensrentals is a very important voice in the market place and it is too bad that it does not recognize that and include at least the Tamron and Nikon 85mm lenses in such a comparison. Anything else gives the impression of a bias and if there is one, let us know why and show it by comparing images. The argument that the employees use this or that is amateurish and can't be taken seriously.
So Lensrentals; realize the weight your voice has in the market, more than ever after the merger and give us comparisons representative of the market reality when you take the time to write.
Arthur Meursault ·
Amen brother. I remember when a LensRental comparison was objective and covered a dozen or more different lenses.
https://www.lensrentals.com...
Roger Cicala ·
This was a Canon mount comparison. A whole lot of people have been making the Canon 85 f/1.2 vs Sigma Art decision for months and now there's a third lens in that very common decision tree. I think Phillip did a nice job giving a quick overview for people making that comparison.
I agree the Tamron 85mm would have been a nice addition, it's an awesome lens. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 would have been a nice addition, too. As would the Zeiss 85mm Milvus, and perhaps the Zeiss Otus 85. That's a lot to ask of someone who was just trying to get some information about the most common comparisons after work.
I totally agree that Nikon as a system has very worthy competitors in this focal length and probably better cameras. But until Nikon starts releasing their lenses in EF mount, I totally miss your point about why they belong in an EF mount comparison, other than for fanboys. I go to great lengths to keep this blog from becoming a Fanboy Forum. In fact, as I've said in print a whole lot, I tend to not test some things simply because I know it will bring out the fanboys in droves. That's what the click-bait sites are for, and this will never, ever be one of those. Not while I'm working here.
This blog still does multi-mount comparisons but they are done objectively on an optical bench, take weeks to do, and when it is done I do them and make them as scientific as I can. That's not what this was.
Roger
Steinar Knai ·
Roger, with all due respect for you and your employees, you can't do a "just after work" comparison any more. Your voice carries too much weight and I don't think you want to be branded as a Canon fanboy club. If you want to avoid the fanboy arguments, you have to do a generic 85mm, fast lens comparison, period. I am certainly not a fanboy and I love and respect your blog and I would hate to see it becoming partial to anything but image and build quality. After all, the heading of the article was "Comparing the Canon 85 mm f1.4 IS against the competition" . It said nothing about only Canon mounts and as a reader and photographer I believe I then have a right to assume that both Nikon and Tamron are competitors and expect them to be part of the report. I do not wish to critisize your employee, but again I want to remind you of the obligation you, as a dominant player in the market, have to be seen as being objective and inclusive.
Jamieson ·
Jeez, get off it already. This was an article written about the new Canon 85 lens, comparing the two other lenses that anyone looking at the new lens would consider. This site is NOT the only site directly comparing these three lenses, and only these three lenses, as that's the most logical comparison. Who do you think you are, telling someone what they literally can or cannot write about? When you have a lens website, you can do things your way.
Steinar Knai ·
I'll tell you who I am; a pro photographer who has followed and admired Lensrentals since they were a backyard garage outfit to where they are today; the largest lens and camera rental outfit in North America. because of their market dominance, they can not be seen as being partial to any brand. My point was only, if you want to compare only Canon mount lenses in an article, then say so in the heading. Otherwise readers may think that they only consider Sigma to be worthy competition to Canon. A simple question of correct communication by a corporation.
I live in France and do international event and fashion photography. Now who the hell are you?
Jamieson ·
I'm a professional full-time photographer of 17 years, and I happen to own the new Canon 85mm 1.4, but I'll tell you what I don't own; Lens Rentals blog. Neither do you. So we don't get to decide how or what they post, we only get to decide if we want to read it.
Cthulhu ·
Get off your high horse, buddy, nobody cares that you shoot events, everybody shoots events. The author makes it clear he's comparing sub $2500 lenses and that this isn't a full benchmark. You have a problem with reading comprehension, also with your ginormous unchecked ego.
Ada ·
Well, you are obviously a Nikon guy complaining about a Canon oriented article.
Nobody here cares who you are and what your business is. Again, who are you to tell Lensrentals what to do and what not ...
Roger Cicala ·
Steinar, I don't disagree with your point in general, but I'm not the author here, nor the blog editor, so this is not my voice. The general Lensrentals blog has Roger Cicala geeky articles and other stuff too. The other stuff is not usually scientific geeky stuff, it's technique articles, in-the-field comparisons, etc. Those aren't meant to be scientific, they are impressions, and I think worthwhile.
I'll have a scientific bench comparison about the 85mm f/1.4 L IS soon (I'm doing contract work for the next week but soon after that). It will be the end-all-be-all comparison of MTF. But it won't tell you a think about how it feels in the hand, how accurate the AF is, how well the IS works, etc. This has value too.
The only thing in Phillip's article I can comment on is "the Sigma has the sharper image by a small margin". On the bench the margin isn't small, it's significant for those who prize resolution above all things. But I believe in the field, IS and AF may narrow the gap, bokeh may be more important, etc.
Dillan K ·
I'm saddened that they didn't review an FD 85mm f/1.2L. This review isn't complete!
/s
Arthur Meursault ·
At the very least title the article appropriately. 'The Canon Sigma 85mm Shootout'
Steinar is very much on message - "Your voice carries too much weight" - don't let the good (and high level) of work you've done be diluted by these kinds of articles.
Les ·
Sorry, I could not get past the first sentence of this blog post. It’s so confidently wrong. Either that or your local wedding photog market consists of shooters that always use the same lens at the same stop, in which case I recommend eloping!
Doing things the same as everyone else is great when you are making Big Macs, but not when you are running a business in a competitive, creative, and cost-conscious field.
Les ·
Sorry, I could not get past the first sentence of this blog post. It's so confidently wrong. Either that or your local wedding photog market consists of shooters that always use the same lens at the same stop, in which case I recommend eloping!
Doing things the same as everyone else is great when you are making Big Macs, but not when you are running a business in a competitive, creative, and cost-conscious field.
iSimonius ·
how does the 85 equivalent Fuji 50mm compare?
ONLY JOKING!!
LOL
Larry Templeton ·
You mean “the Fuji 56mm f/1.2” 😉
iSimonius ·
how does the 85 equivalent Fuji 50mm compare?
ONLY JOKING!!
LOL
Larry Templeton ·
You mean “the Fuji 56mm f/1.2” ;)
Azmodan ·
Sigma has the worst bokeh however, a lot busier than the others. The 85 f/1.4L IS defocuses faster than the Sigma and looks even better than the 85 f/1.2L II by a small margin IMO.
Larry Templeton ·
I feel like so many people (including the reviewer here) are conflating blur—from being out of focus— and the true “character” of bokeh as one and the same.
“Sigma has the worst bokeh…” What are you talking about? The background is blurred almost beyond recognition here in all photos. There’s no transition in it either. There’s the girl (who, in case the test result are off, won’t hold still) and there’s what looks to be trees, perhaps, a mile in the background.
Ian Goss ·
Proof-reading!
Ian ·
RE: 85L II autofocus – “It’s been an issue for years all of us portrait photographers have learned to deal with it.” We have, but unfortunately our models have not and in my experience, most did not appreciate the tradeoff for the bokeh. Instead, it was, “Do we have to shoot with that slow lens again?”, “Can’t we use that other lens,” etc. I sold mine a few months ago and have been waiting for reviews like this, so thank you for confirming my next purchase 🙂
Sir Stewart Wallace ·
My good sir, can you please test this against the Tamron 85?
Brian F Leighty ·
Man you guys really should chill out. This was a basic SUBJECTIVE comparison of three CANON mount lenses. Roger is normally the one doing the measurements and things that can truly be considered OBJECTIVE. Both have valid relevance. If you don’t like this post then just read Roger’s. I think Phillip did a good job assessing the differences between them and neither him nor Lens Rentals should be getting all this flack for a simple review. Sheesh
Brian F Leighty ·
Man you guys really should chill out. This was a basic SUBJECTIVE comparison of three CANON mount lenses. Roger is normally the one doing the measurements and things that can truly be considered OBJECTIVE. Both have valid relevance. If you don't like this post then just read Roger's. I think Phillip did a good job assessing the differences between them and neither him nor Lens Rentals should be getting all this flack for a simple review. Sheesh
Andy ·
I can’t accurately tell sharpness from the samples but to my eyes the 85mm 1.4 has better bokeh then the Art at each aperture. Look at the tree definition on each series. The 1.4 has less definied and softer tree trunks. Im actually a Sigma Art fan but the new lens looks very positive. I dont really count in the 1.2 personally as its too slow and generally soft….
Andy ·
I can't accurately tell sharpness from the samples but to my eyes the 85mm 1.4 has better bokeh then the Art at each aperture. Look at the tree definition on each series. The 1.4 has less definied and softer tree trunks. Im actually a Sigma Art fan but the new lens looks very positive. I dont really count in the 1.2 personally as its too slow and generally soft....
Federico Gallinari ·
I can’t believe that out of Rentrental are published reviews of this type.
Test free of technical significance, based on an arbitrary judgment … questionable.
This test should be carried out in a scientific way, always at the same distance the subject and lens, and with the exact same background.
I can bet that brightest optics will produce a blurred (slightly) softer at the same aperture of a lens less bright, for the effect of spherical aberration on the circle of confusion.
The conclusions are almost obvious, if you need the smoothest bokeh you have to choose 1.2, if you need more sharpnes and contrast with better af (lightest elements) you can choose sigma, if you need more sharpness, af and stabilization …and the native brand quality you can choose 1.4is…..that’s it, no test needed to know that.
Dillan K ·
You can choose to ignore it, if you don’t like it. I don’t understand the angst. Of course, you’re one of a crowd, here.
Federico Gallinari ·
As you can choose to ignore my post!
If someone write something to internet, in a public and international site….he must accept that all the people can give them opinions,
It’s called: “democracy”
Dillan K ·
You’re absolutely right! I’m sorry, I really didn’t understand why you and others were getting upset about the article.
It isn’t democracy. It’s freedom of speech. You’re right, on this site, we are free to voice opinions. I should respect that.
Federico Gallinari ·
I can't believe that lensRentrental can publish reviews of this type.
Test free of technical significance, based on an arbitrary judgment ... questionable.
This test should be carried out in a scientific way, always at the same distance the subject and lens, and with the exact same background.
I can bet that brightest optics will produce a blurred (slightly) softer at the same aperture of a lens less bright, for the effect of spherical aberration on the circle of confusion.
The conclusions are almost obvious, if you need the smoothest bokeh you have to choose 1.2, if you need more sharpnes and contrast with better af (lightest elements) you can choose sigma, if you need more sharpness, af and stabilization ...and the native brand quality you can choose 1.4is.....that’s it, no test needed to know that.
Dillan K ·
You can choose to ignore it, if you don't like it. I don't understand the angst. Of course, you're one of a crowd, here.
Federico Gallinari ·
As you can choose to ignore my post!
If someone write something to internet, in a public and international site....he must accept that all the people can give them opinions,
It's called: "democracy"
Dillan K ·
You're absolutely right! I'm sorry, I really didn't understand why you and others were getting upset about the article.
It isn't democracy. It's freedom of speech. You're right, on this site, we are free to voice opinions. I should respect that.
Krzysztof Sic ·
85/1.2 II L – I have it and it’s nice lens, but…focus by wire, high level of CA to 2.0, slow focus and front lens which “comes out” when you’re focusing is a bad thing in this lens. I think that Canon 85/1.4 IS is the best choice now if you’re using Canon cameras – because of AF, colors and IS (which is good for videos only in my opinion).
Krzysztof Sic ·
85/1.2 II L - I have it and it's nice lens, but...focus by wire, high level of CA to 2.0, slow focus and front lens which "comes out" when you're focusing is a bad thing in this lens. I think that Canon 85/1.4 IS is the best choice now if you're using Canon cameras - because of AF, colors and IS (which is good for videos only in my opinion).
Dominic Schulz ·
I would love someone trying how the new lens behaves in “bad-bokeh” situations. the 1.2 can get very very ugly in certain situations and needs to be stopped down then. hope it got fixed.
Dominic ·
I would love someone trying how the new lens behaves in "bad-bokeh" situations. the 1.2 can get very very ugly in certain situations and needs to be stopped down then. hope it got fixed.
Shark ·
LOL….. 98% of all people will not see a difference in bokeh between the f1.2 and f1.4.
and if oyu shoot for a client these 98% MATTER.. not the 2% of photo nerds who will pixelpeep boekh differences.
Shark ·
LOL..... 99% of all people will not see a difference in bokeh between the f1.2 and f1.4 lens.
and if you shoot for a client these 99% MATTER.. not the 1% of photo nerds who will pixelpeep bokeh differences.
what about chromatic aberations? what about build quality? weather sealing?
this article does not match the usual standard of lensrentals.....
Blake ·
This is a great writeup, thanks.
For the record, I’ve had my Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VR for about a year, & though its heavier than my trusty old Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM, the VR & the “look” are worth it.
That said, IMHO the best bargain in all of Canon telephoto land remains the 85mm f/1.8 USM. I hope they keep it in production as long as they can.
whensly ·
The Canon 85mm f1.8 is nothing to sneeze at and cheap! Might not be the Bokeh MONSTA that the Canon 85Mk II is but so what? A. It’s not that far off under the right circumstances and we don’t all shoot portraits wide open.
Working in studio or with strobes you’re usually stopped down and at that point nobody on the planet can tell the difference. Oh and the Canon 85m f1.8 is about $350 new.
Blake ·
yep, it’s my go-to recommendation to anybody with a Canon DSLR that asks “what should I get to move beyond my kit lens”.
As it’s quite luminous, a $20 macro extension tube turns it into a very useful (yet compact) macro lens as well, & if you don’t go nuts & use a short one you retain AF capability.
Another neat trick: while you lose infinity focus with a macro extension tube, if you use a short one (e.g. 12mm) you still have a few meters of focal range to work with, which extends the “reach” of a short telephoto like this. e.g. I’ve used this technique to get much “closer” to flowers that were simply unreachable otherwise.
& a little 12mm extension tube is so cheap & light, you can always keep one in your bag.
Michael Clark ·
Have you ever shot with the EF 135mm f/2 L? In my opinion it is the best bang/buck ratio in all of telephoto land, even of it does cost around 2X the price of the EF 85mm f/1.8.
Blake ·
Oh yeah, it’s the only long telephoto I own. I love that thing.
I carry a 1.4x TC with me when I need it; instant 200 f/2 :-).
underoverlay ·
Oh yeah, it's the only long telephoto I own. I love that thing.
I carry a 1.4x TC with me when I need it; instant 200 f/2 :-).
underoverlay ·
This is a great writeup, thanks.
For the record, I've had my Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VR for about a year, & though its heavier than my trusty old Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM, the VR & the "look" are worth it.
That said, IMHO the best bang/buck ratio in all of telephoto land remains the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. I hope they keep it in production as long as they can.
whensly ·
The Canon 85mm f1.8 is nothing to sneeze at and cheap! Might not be the Bokeh MONSTA that the Canon 85Mk II is but so what? A. It's not that far off under the right circumstances and we don't all shoot portraits wide open.
Working in studio or with strobes you're usually stopped down and at that point nobody on the planet can tell the difference. Oh and the Canon 85m f1.8 is about $350 new.
underoverlay ·
yep, it's my go-to recommendation to anybody with a Canon DSLR that asks "what should I get to move beyond my kit lens".
As it's quite luminous, a $20 macro extension tube turns it into a very useful (yet compact) macro lens as well, & if you don't go nuts & use a short one you retain AF capability.
Another neat trick: while you lose infinity focus with a macro extension tube, if you use a short one (e.g. 12mm) you still have a few meters of focal range to work with, which extends the "reach" of a short telephoto like this. e.g. I've used this technique to get much "closer" to flowers that were simply unreachable otherwise.
& a little 12mm extension tube is so cheap & light, you can always keep one in your bag.
Adam Sanford ·
Zero comment about mirror-box related bokeh ball clipping with the 85 f/1.2L II and 85 f/1.4L IS?
Recommend you shoot either lens with defocused Christmas tree lights (or streetlights at night) and revisit your bokeh comments.
From the new 85 f/1.4L IS (from a CR forum poster):
https://goo.gl/zQfQHD
From the 85 f/1.2L II (from a recent PetaPixel Christmas light bokeh article):
https://goo.gl/LBZBLC
The shots are lovely, but look at the mirror-box clipping the bokeh balls. It’s kind of hard to un-see.
Oleg ·
Only a TRUE pixel peeper would notice / care 😉 I had a similar photo taken two years ago, and never paid any attention to the clippings.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8bc22f5ea59ea78897c1661588ed739e72b047fe0e535c3dfcfa0a38736e5fc0.jpg
Oleg ·
And this is Sigma 85A – the circles are also far from being perfect.
https://flic.kr/p/PJ9LfW
Adam Sanford ·
Thx for posting. It’s strangely hard to find backlit 85mm Otus and Art bokeh on a Canon body from the Flickr and Shutterdial mining I’ve done.
The Art sample looks like *weird* bokeh more than outright clipped bokeh (clearly shown in the three Canon examples above). Do you have any nighttime lighting bokeh to share from that lens?
Adam Sanford ·
As your non 100% zoomed clip shows, pixel-peeping is not required to spot this phenomenon. 😛
Lovely shot. But even here, it looks like you have a D-shaped bokeh stencil/template attached to your front element, right? That’s not what you pay $1500+ to get.
Full disclosure, I am a Canon guy, but I have to ask why Canon would willingly put out another lens with this odd performance wrinkle. I have not seen this on the 85 Art, Milvus, Otus etc. — which implies this is lens blade/iris related, i.e a *design decision* and not a reality that plagues all FF 85 lenses.
Oleg ·
Thank you Adam. The D-shaped bokeh doesn’t happen often though, and unfortunately there is no perfect lens in our imperfect world LOL. This is the Otus 85 – “cat eye bokeh” and “onion rings” for a much steeper price (contrast was significantly boosted in this pic): https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6796dc05d3264eca59667eb66238b439c4388bef9765a7c855a7ac1d084cc809.jpg
Adam Sanford ·
Zero comment about mirror-box related bokeh ball clipping with the 85 f/1.2L II and 85 f/1.4L IS?
Recommend you shoot either lens with defocused Christmas tree lights (or streetlights at night) and revisit your bokeh comments.
From the new 85 f/1.4L IS (from a CR forum poster):
https://goo.gl/zQfQHD
From the 85 f/1.2L II (from a recent PetaPixel Christmas light bokeh article):
https://goo.gl/LBZBLC
The shots are lovely, but look at the mirror-box clipping the bokeh balls. It's kind of hard to un-see.
colt15 ·
Where’s the sense of proportion? The Sigma’s weight was characterized as “a whopping 1216 grams.” That 182-gram difference hardly warrants the phrase “the extreme weight of the Sigma…”, especially when you’re comparing it to a lens weighing 1035g. I suppose if your equal height colleague weighs 160 pounds and you weigh 175, you wouldn’t mind him being seen as some standard while you’re described as an extremely overweight whopping tub of lard.
Larry Templeton ·
The Sigma isn’t just “a little sharper” than the Canons, it’s a much better lens in almost every way. I think it can keep company with the Otus 85mm. Even by Sigma’s own high standards for the Art primes, their 85mm is an impressive lens.
colt15 ·
Where's the sense of proportion? The Sigma's weight was characterized as "a whopping 1216 grams." That 182-gram difference hardly warrants the phrase "the extreme weight of the Sigma...", especially when you're comparing it to a lens weighing 1035g. I suppose if your equal height colleague weighs 160 pounds and you weigh 175, you wouldn't mind him being seen as some standard while you're described as an extremely overweight whopping tub of lard.
Adam Sanford ·
Thx for posting. It's strangely hard to find backlit 85mm Otus and Art bokeh on a Canon body from the Flickr and Shutterdial mining I've done.
The Art sample looks like *weird* bokeh more than outright clipped bokeh (clearly shown in the three Canon examples above). Do you have any nighttime lighting bokeh to share from that lens?
Adam Sanford ·
As your non 100% zoomed clip shows, pixel-peeping is not required to spot this phenomenon. :-P
Lovely shot. But even here, it looks like you have a D-shaped bokeh stencil/template attached to your front element, right? That's not what you pay $1500+ to get.
Full disclosure, I am a Canon guy, but I have to ask why Canon would willingly put out another lens with this odd performance wrinkle. I have not seen this on the 85 Art, Milvus, Otus etc. -- which implies this is lens blade/iris related, i.e a *design decision* and not a reality that plagues all FF 85 lenses.
TinusVerdino ·
I would pick the 1.2. It has character.
colt15 ·
Define “character.”
TinusVerdino ·
An undefinable quality :p
Michael Clark ·
Character: Uncorrected field curvature that makes it not so good for shooting flat test charts but gives it characteristics when shooting portraits in a three dimensional world that lenses highly corrected for field curvature with flatter fields of focus can’t match. Smoother bokeh, for one. The obsession with performance shooting flat test charts is driving lens design now, not how a lens renders the real world for most photographers.
colt15 ·
@Michael Clark For a champion of the “real world,” it sounds like you’re preferring an image that’s a less accurate depiction of reality over a more accurate one. As such, it’s just an aesthetic choice. Charts aren’t the only thing that can be used to test. Almost any static scene can be shot under controlled conditions. A few months ago, I read several incredibly long arguments at dpreview about old lenses and “3D pop.” The advocates sounded a lot like the people who argue that moon landings were faked. Whenever you mention side-by-side controlled tests that would reveal the advantages they claim exist, they change the subject. I’m glad lens design has proceeded in the direction it has.
Michael Clark ·
All you have to do is compare a classic “shoulder” pose shot with a macro lens to one shot with a traditional portrait lens to see the difference. The one shot with the flat field macro has a spot of the fabric on the shoulder that is practically yelling, “Look at me! Look at me! Look how much sharper I am than the weave of the rest of the fabric of this shirt/blouse/jacket!”
Larry Templeton ·
Ioannis Stavrou.
colt15 ·
Define "character."
Michael Clark ·
Character: Uncorrected field curvature that makes it not so good for shooting flat test charts but gives it characteristics when shooting portraits in a three dimensional world that lenses highly corrected for field curvature with flatter fields of focus can't match. Smoother bokeh, for one. The obsession with performance shooting flat test charts is driving lens design now, not how a lens renders the real world for most photographers.
colt15 ·
@Michael Clark For a champion of the "real world," it sounds like you're preferring an image that's a less accurate depiction of reality over a more accurate one. As such, it's just an aesthetic choice. Charts aren't the only thing that can be used to test. Almost any static scene can be shot under controlled conditions. A few months ago, I read several incredibly long arguments at dpreview about old lenses and "3D pop." The advocates sounded a lot like the people who argue that moon landings were faked. Whenever you mention side-by-side controlled tests that would reveal the advantages they claim exist, they change the subject. I'm glad lens design has proceeded in the direction it has.
Michael Clark ·
All you have to do is compare a classic "shoulder" pose shot with a macro lens to one shot with a traditional portrait lens to see the difference. The one shot with the flat field macro has a spot of the fabric on the shoulder that is practically yelling, "Look at me! Look at me! Look how much sharper I am than the weave of the rest of the fabric of this shirt/blouse/jacket!"
Michael Clark ·
Uncorrected field curvature that makes it not so good for shooting flat test charts but gives it characteristics when shooting portraits in a three dimensional world that lenses highly corrected for field curvature with flatter fields of focus can’t match. Smoother bokeh, for one. The obsession with performance shooting flat test charts is driving lens design now, not how a lens renders the real world for most photographers.
Ioannis stavrou ·
Would you like to hold on your hand a Schneider-Kreuznach FF PRIME T2.1 / 75MM CANON EF?? ****THIS BRAND WILL KILL ANY CANON LENS**** THIS IS WHEN YOU TRANSFORM YOUR CAMERA INTO SUPER-CAMERA!! AVAILABLE FOR CANON / NIKON / SONY & PL
AND DON”T BE TRICKED THAT CANON CAM+CANON LENS IS THE MAX OUTPUT!!
Roger Cicala ·
Such very strong claims for a lens with really poor resolution. Fanboy much?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dca51e88fd20c14ffb55df8e49c1aae06e218593abff19fd306221eee068b97c.png
Ioannis stavrou ·
I am ready to help you Roger regarding Modulation Transfer Function results. Thanks for posting this.
1. Most lenses perform best in the center, causing the results to curve downward to the right.
2. For each set of tests, spatial frequencies (lp/mm) evaluated are 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lp/mm. Because higher spatial frequencies are more demanding on a lens, they result in lower MTF scores.
3. Regarding the below RULES BE CAREFUL:
10 lp/mm > 0.9 is high contrast and punchy, hard to tell lenses measuring this high apart in terms of contrast.
10 lp/mm 0.5 is very sharp
30 lp/mm > 0.3 is sharp if you sharpen a bit
30 lp/mm < 0.2 is getting soft
*****These are not absolute rules, and importantly, they are not very accurate if the lens and sensor do not behave well together. For example, in a symmetrical wide-angle lens with a very high angle of incidence on the sensor in the corner.
4. No lens has a perfect MTF score.
In general, MTF is a measurement of the optical performance of a lens but this is NOT THE ANSWER FOR AN ENGINEERING TEST SO THAT YOU CHECK PERFORMANCE.
IF YOU WANT TO REALLY CHECK THE PERFORMANCE TAKE REAL PHOTO-SHOTS AND COMPARE THE RESULTS SIDE BY SIDE!! USE THE SAME CAMERA FOR THE LENS YOU WANT TO COMPARE.
A SECRET FROM ME: BEST LENS IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE BRAND LEICA!!!
THE BEST OF THE BEST SANDWICH STRUCTURE (ELEMENTS OF THE LENS)
This is a Leica Lens by Walter Mandler. Is extremely rare and precious as a pearl.
***The secret composition***
NaP03 …………………………….. .. 1,6%
Ba(P03)2 ………………………….. .. 5,0%
AI(P03)3 ………………………….. .. 15,7%
Mng ………………………………. .. 5,6%
Can ………………………………. .. 17,9%
Ser ……………………………….. .. 18,9%
Ban ………………………………. .. 10,8%
AIF3 ……………………………….. .. 20,6%
KHFz ………………………………. .. 3,13%
K2TiF5 …………………………….. .. 0,6%
I forgot to mention that I am a scientist and please forgive my overall type of talk. Its because I know the secrets and I mistakable show power.
Sincerely,
I.S
Roger Cicala ·
Is that you, Billy Madison?
Ioannis stavrou ·
Thank you for your nice compliment Roger!! Just don’t spent any money on camera and lens this period of time. In the upcoming years you will see 100-120MP sensor camera with bigger size of sensor.
Just to let you know another secret because of your compliment:
Do you remember that old Canon/Nikon/Kodak ext around $50 film camera??
Are they stronger(in terms of resolution) than a PHASE ONE XF for example?
$50 Film Vs $48,990 medium format
Each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn’t see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you’d need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
Camera companies manipulate people in our days by selling us SAND for GOLD price
Love you all
I.S
Ioannis stavrou ·
Thank you for your nice compliment Roger!! Just don't spent any money on camera and lens this period of time. In the upcoming years you will see 100-120MP sensor camera with bigger size of sensor.
Just to let you know another secret because of your compliment:
Do you remember that old Canon/Nikon/Kodak ext around $50 film camera??
Are they stronger(in terms of resolution) than a PHASE ONE XF for example?
$50 Film Vs $48,990 medium format
Each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
Camera companies manipulate people in our days by selling us SAND for GOLD price
Love you all
I.S
Ioannis stavrou ·
Would you like to hold on your hand a Schneider-Kreuznach FF PRIME T2.1 / 75MM CANON EF?? ****THIS BRAND WILL KILL ANY CANON LENS**** THIS IS WHEN YOU TRANSFORM YOUR CAMERA INTO SUPER-CAMERA!! AVAILABLE FOR CANON / NIKON / SONY & PL
AND DON"T BE TRICKED THAT CANON CAM+CANON LENS IS THE MAX OUTPUT!!
Roger Cicala ·
Such very strong claims for a lens with really poor resolution. Fanboy much?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Ioannis stavrou ·
I am ready to help you Roger regarding Modulation Transfer Function results. Thanks for posting this.
1. Most lenses perform best in the center, causing the results to curve downward to the right.
2. For each set of tests, spatial frequencies (lp/mm) evaluated are 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lp/mm. Because higher spatial frequencies are more demanding on a lens, they result in lower MTF scores.
3. Regarding the below RULES BE CAREFUL:
10 lp/mm > 0.9 is high contrast and punchy, hard to tell lenses measuring this high apart in terms of contrast.
10 lp/mm < 0.75 looks quite hazy and "soft"
10 lp/mm ~0.8 is noticeably hazier than 0.9+
30 lp/mm > 0.5 is very sharp
30 lp/mm > 0.3 is sharp if you sharpen a bit
30 lp/mm < 0.2 is getting soft
*****These are not absolute rules, and importantly, they are not very accurate if the lens and sensor do not behave well together. For example, in a symmetrical wide-angle lens with a very high angle of incidence on the sensor in the corner.
4. No lens has a perfect MTF score.
In general, MTF is a measurement of the optical performance of a lens but this is NOT THE ANSWER FOR AN ENGINEERING TEST SO THAT YOU CHECK PERFORMANCE.
IF YOU WANT TO REALLY CHECK THE PERFORMANCE TAKE REAL PHOTO-SHOTS AND COMPARE THE RESULTS SIDE BY SIDE!! USE THE SAME CAMERA FOR THE LENS YOU WANT TO COMPARE.
A SECRET FROM ME: BEST LENS IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE BRAND LEICA!!!
THE BEST OF THE BEST SANDWICH STRUCTURE (ELEMENTS OF THE LENS)
This is a Leica Lens by Walter Mandler. Is extremely rare and precious as a pearl.
***The secret composition***
NaP03 ................................... .. 1,6%
Ba(P03)2 ................................ .. 5,0%
AI(P03)3 ................................ .. 15,7%
Mng ..................................... .. 5,6%
Can ..................................... .. 17,9%
Ser ...................................... .. 18,9%
Ban ..................................... .. 10,8%
AIF3 ...................................... .. 20,6%
KHFz ..................................... .. 3,13%
K2TiF5 ................................... .. 0,6%
I forgot to mention that I am a scientist and please forgive my overall type of talk. Its because I know the secrets and I mistakable show power.
Sincerely,
I.S
Carl Eberhart ·
Yawn, yet another nobody blogs about how they’d choose a new model of a camera manufacturer’s lens, over a third party candidate that’s as good or better but costs less…besides over the old model from the camera manufacturer. What’s next, you start publishing blogs about pop culture or holiday shopping?
I await the real test from the bench, I care not a wit about what wedding photogs buy 🙂 Of course a wedding photog is not going to buy a third party lens, as they can’t use it to their advantage via the camera manufacturer’s professional services. Again, this is nothing new, and it has nothing whatever to do with how the lenses really compare.
Carl Eberhart ·
Yawn, yet another nobody blogs about how they'd choose a new model of a camera manufacturer's lens, over a third party candidate that's as good or better but costs less...besides over the old model from the camera manufacturer. What's next, you start publishing blogs about pop culture or holiday shopping?
I await the real test from the bench, I care not a wit about what wedding photogs buy :) Of course a wedding photog is not going to buy a third party lens, as they can't use it to their advantage via the camera manufacturer's professional services. Again, this is nothing new, and it has nothing whatever to do with how the lenses really compare.
appliance5000 ·
or EVF with image magnification - I never trust peaking . You can get nikon /sony adaptors with electronic pass through to control the aperture - I think.
Larry Templeton ·
I feel like so many people (including the reviewer here) are conflating blur—from being out of focus— and the true “character” of bokeh as one and the same.
“Sigma has the worst bokeh...” What are you talking about? The background is blurred almost beyond recognition here in all photos. There’s no transition in it either. There’s the girl (who, in case the test result are off, won’t hold still) and there’s what looks to be trees, perhaps, a mile in the background.