p.1 #1 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
Okay, got my computer back after 3 days, and here are some more results. I shot these on a tripod with live view manual focus @ 10x. I converted from CR2 to TIFF in ACDSee, and made JPEGs in Elements 5. I didn't do any processing other than levels; no sharpening. The exact center didn't have any text, so I chose two areas near the center instead of one at the center.
p.1 #3 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
At f/1.4, it looks to me like the 85L has a significant advantage in center resolution. But the Sigma looks a little better in the corner samples. And as far as chromatic aberrations go, the Sigma looks like it's in a different league from the 85L. CA looks amazingly well-controlled on the Sigma. The 85L doesn't even come close, frankly.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
Thank you for taking the time to execute these tests. They're a great service to those in the market for an 85mm lens. I noticed the links from some of your previous comparisons are broken. Do you plan to restore those? If not, I can host the images on my smugmug account so that they'll be available long-term.
I agree with the previous posters, looks like Sigma has a definite edge in the corners while the Canon leads in the center.
p.1 #7 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
Wow...Thanks for this..I have the Sigma 85 and love it...Have owned a few 85L's over the years.....I suspected the Sigma to be about as sharp and actually better in a number of ways...AF speed, CA and flare...It's nice to see a side by side...Here's a set I've put together over the last couple days...The last ten or so include crops.
p.1 #9 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
news print is good and I appreciate your posting. Thank you. do you have anything photographed in a 3d or real work environment. Love to see the q of blur this lens produces. I liked the 50 when I owned and am interested in the signature of blur and similarities to the 50. Hopefully no focus issues as with the 50
Oct 24, 2010 at 12:36 AM
Guest
Guest
p.1 #10 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
Wow... the L seems to be loaded with fringing in the corners... that does seem to increase as it's stopped down. It looks sharper at f/1.4 (no wonder) but the Sigma gets even by f/2.
I can't comment, owning neither, but am I the only one who thinks that the L got demolished, more so taking VFM into account?
p.1 #12 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
snapsy, through an interesting combination of circumstances, those earlier pictures are irretrievably gone. I do think I'll do some shots to compare bokeh; but check Matt's Flickr examples - they're very telling.
Tom, I think I'll do what someone asked about earlier, or in one of my previous threads, and shoot something close with Christmas tree lights in the background. I'll try to do that and get the shots up today.
p.1 #13 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
While I appreciate the effort, taking pictures of newspapers is a waste of time. The very least you can do is go out and shoot a real subject (human being maybe?).
And again, it's been beaten to death, but it's worth mentioning. Corner sharpness at super large apertures is *irrelevant*.
Again, thanks for the effort, but the methods are flawed and the conclusion isn't terribly helpful.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
While I appreciate the effort, taking pictures of newspapers is a waste of time. The very least you can do is go out and shoot a real subject (human being maybe?). Again, thanks for the effort, but the methods are flawed and the conclusion isn't terribly helpful.
+1
Sorry but I hard it find to trust the above test. I see many flaws with it. I've never seen CA or 85LII being so soft at f/8. 85LII is one of the sharpest lenses I own and f/8 result seems to be like a total fake. The only real test I believe is my own and when I use the lens in real life. I just checked my last shoot with it and I found 1 image with CA. And that is out of more than 100 images!!! I find it very strange that people buy lenses solely relying on test like above or the-digital-picture.com lens comparison. Real life results can be totally different from those types of tests.
p.1 #15 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
deepbluejh wrote:
While I appreciate the effort, taking pictures of newspapers is a waste of time. The very least you can do is go out and shoot a real subject (human being maybe?).
And again, it's been beaten to death, but it's worth mentioning. Corner sharpness at super large apertures is *irrelevant*.
Again, thanks for the effort, but the methods are flawed and the conclusion isn't terribly helpful.
While I appreciate the effort, calling this test irrelevant is a waste of time. The very least you can do is trying to understand how a simple test subject translates to other images. (But that's too much to ask of a human being maybe?)
And agian, it's been beaten to death, but it's worth mentioning. What's *irrelevant* to you may be *relevant* to others.
Again, thanks for the effort, but the criticism is flawed and the suggestions aren't terribly helpful.
p.1 #16 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
Good on Sigma. Also keep in mind that the 85L is a 20+ year old lens (the mark II version has the same optical design as the mark I, just different coatings).
p.1 #17 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
For me; mainly a portrait and wedding guy; I could give a crap about corner sharpness at or near max aperture. Purple fringing in the corners; does not mean much to me. The 3d magic produced by 85l either version, is unmatched in an af lens attached to an eos body. Period. That is what I care about. I am also assuming that most who would purchase an 85l would use it in a similar app; if not; there are other lenses to suit those apps. For me and again I am guessing, for others who own or are considering owning an 85L, I and we would love to see this lens in a portrait situation at or near wide open. It may produce a great image. A portrait shot would givd us all a better indication of fore and bg blur and '3d magic' this lens provides.
If one is shooting landscapes or trains while letting the least amt of light in possible w/o distortion; perhaps the siggy would be better in that application. However, I would compare against the 70/200 4is or the new is zoom of same range in the 2,8 version.
Now I am not trashing entirely your comparison; as I do believe it has some merit, but also would love to see it in action in wide-open portraiture.
Tom
p.1 #19 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
very impressed with the sigma, I still love my 85L2 very much but if I have to do it all over again i wouldn't hesitate to give this sigma a go first, lots of positive reports from people at POTN as well, portraiture from the sigma appear to be great from what i can see. What impressed me the most is the AF accuracy of this sigma (base on user reviews anyway) which is a big surprise to me. For $900 this lens got lots of bang for the buck.....dang it.
p.1 #20 · Sigma 85 vs 85L II, round 4: printed page
alundeb wrote:
While I appreciate the effort, calling this test irrelevant is a waste of time. The very least you can do is trying to understand how a simple test subject translates to other images. (But that's too much to ask of a human being maybe?)
And agian, it's been beaten to death, but it's worth mentioning. What's *irrelevant* to you may be *relevant* to others.
Again, thanks for the effort, but the criticism is flawed and the suggestions aren't terribly helpful.
+1,000,000
A cursory search would show that Ernie has posted several threads on this lens, including some with much more real world type results. I'm not one to shoot newspapers and do 100% crops, but I appreciate getting an idea of what the lens can do. If somebody doesn't agree with this type of thread, don't effing click on it. Simple.
All the Debbie Downers around here really bring me down.
