urbanwild wrote:
For a 1.8, I think it's pretty excellent to be honest. I do have this lens and the Sigma 85 art and I decided to keep both when I really only wanted to keep one. The 1.8S is perfect when wanting a small kit, but the Sigma creates images that have that little extra dreaminess for my liking. Depending on the scene though, the difference is very slim and the rational decision would be to sell the Sigma and enjoy the 1.8S.
Here's a situation where I don't think it makes a big enough difference for most, but it will show some subtle differences. It's not a perfect test on a tripod, etc., but still helpful I hope. Edits are the same except a slight adjustment to exposure slider based on aperture and ISO differences (which were small).
Thank you for doing this @urbanwild You managed to get a cooperative (and pretty) subject as well It is so insightful to see these comparisons. Yes, I have both the 85ART and 85S and like you, I have held on to both
sanjayg wrote:
Thank you for doing this @urbanwild@ You managed to get a cooperative (and pretty) subject as well It is so insightful to see these comparisons. Yes, I have both the 85ART and 85S and like you, I have held on to both
Thank you for the kind words! Tough to sell that Sigma, isn't it?!!! It's keeping me from being interested in the 1.2S which is a good thing financially
urbanwild wrote:
Thank you for the kind words! Tough to sell that Sigma, isn't it?!!! It's keeping me from being interested in the 1.2S which is a good thing financially
You are right on the money I have no craving for 85-1.2S since the 85ART does so well. I also have the 40ART and a D850 to use it (I just can't bring myself to sell that camera despite having Z6/Z7s) Of course, the Sigma ARTs do so well on mirrorless bodies so I am enjoying both DSLR and the Z gear.
As with the 50mm f1.8S thread, hoping to shift back to these lens threads instead of the 1.8S thread of recent....more intuitive for those wanting to see images from these lenses. From a recent wedding with the Zf and the 85mm f1.8S:
p.14 #12 - the Sigma f1.8 image is a clear winner here. Why? Less globbing in highlights, with better green/yellow integration (top left greens); softer, more authentic facial highlights; smoother transitions in the teal frame supports behind her head; lower contrast bokeh in general; better handled lining in OOF shopping trolley; slightly warmer tones; much nicer reflection; less brassy clothing transitions.
I would expect as much, this is Sigma's ART short tele trademark look, and the Nikon is more of a general purpose lens. Thanks for posting these, they always tell the story. An even better example would feature more on-plane focus to heavily out of focus - to best judge focal plane to transition handling. Say, a less acute angle to the shopfronts, and a little greater focus distance.
philip_pj wrote:
p.14 #12 - the Sigma f1.8 image is a clear winner here. Why? Less globbing in highlights, with better green/yellow integration (top left greens); softer, more authentic facial highlights; smoother transitions in the teal frame supports behind her head; lower contrast bokeh in general; better handled lining in OOF shopping trolley; slightly warmer tones; much nicer reflection; less brassy clothing transitions.
I would expect as much, this is Sigma's ART short tele trademark look, and the Nikon is more of a general purpose lens. Thanks for posting these, they always tell the story. An even better example would feature more on-plane focus to heavily out of focus - to best judge focal plane to transition handling. Say, a less acute angle to the shopfronts, and a little greater focus distance....Show more →
Thanks and I agree with your assessment. I've kept both so far but I barely use the Sigma 85 despite loving its output. The Nikon 85 1.8S makes it out when I want a smaller lens (travel, street) whereas I've been using the 105 1.4E more when I want portraits. Still, I'm keeping the Sigma 85 since my interest will change again at some point and I don't see myself buying the 85 1.2S.
I'll be home again soon here and can do another comparison in the next week or so.
It is definitely a great tool lens and I like how the images render. Not ultra-sharp and ultra-contrasty like some modern lenses, but really pleasing images, modern coatings and compact size--really the portrait lens that most of us actually need. Sure the 1.2 is impressive and exciting, but the portability and performance of the 1.8S is hard to argue with.
I've got a bag with the Z8 and the 26, 40, and 85 f/1.8S. Small kit that can do some work.
RoamingScott wrote:
Eh, maybe. I really prefer the Sony version, didn't enjoy the Z nearly as much. The Z has no business being as long as it is.
I sure wish Nikon would push out an 85/1.4 that has the character of the 35 and 50.
we need a new roadmap. I'd love to know what's coming down the line.
85 1.4, you're right, that would sell!
The 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 S are too long, I agree. Especially the 50, wth is going on there?
I would prefer an 85 1.4 S of course, you know me.
But for a 1.8? It's obviously WAY better than the Sony FE 85 1.8.
can't compare it to the GM i or ii.
But for a 1.8 S, I think it's awesome. I just looked at my stuff from years back. Nice little 85 for the money.
Totally workable for anything really.
I think the 24-70 2.8 S and 85 1.8 is a nice combo for an event.
Dj R wrote:
But for a 1.8? It's obviously WAY better than the Sony FE 85 1.8.
I completely disagree with this, but of course, all just opinions. The FE 85 1.8 is a standout lens on the mount for its price to performance ratio. It absolutely competes with the Z, all while being tiny.
I used to shoot the Sony FE 85/1.8 a lot (it was my main street portrait lens) and apart from being sharp and very fast reliable focusing I didn't like it optically. Quite a lot of LOCA and the bokeh wasn't smooth once your subject is not is the close range. It also has much stronger mechanical vignetting (which causes the "cat's eye" effect bokeh).
I now shoot the Nikon Z 85/1.8 and like it much more. Really no comparison for me. Smoother rendering, less CA, less mechanical vignetting. The Sony still focuses faster though... but that's about it. I find it surprising how anyone could prefer the Sony version optically, but like Scott says: all just opinions/matter of taste in the end.
I agree Jochenb.
I am usually in agreement with Mr Scott.
But the FE 85 1.8 was quite pedestrian, even for it's price point, which was quite low.
The S 85 1.8 is special for a 1.8. It punches almost like a 1.4, and has some special sauce. Not as clinical as most other 1.8s I've worked with. And especially compared with the 35/50 1.8 S. It's not just the added compression either!
Flat out nicer rendering.
Lots of people on this board seemed to sell their 85 1.4s (Nikon, Sigma, etc) when they picked up the 1.8S feeling that there's not enough of a difference between them all. The 1.8S is a great lens and I really like it for clean looking portraits and travel, but must admit there's a little sterility in the out of focus areas. Great for commercial-look portraits, but a bit bland for the artistic look perhaps.
I'm also keen to see what an 85mm f1.4 non-S will look like. I don't know if it would convince me to sell the 1.8S, but that could be the perfect option to finally move on from the heavy Sigma art.
I'm going to use a Megadap ETZ21 Pro and try the 85 GM 1.4 II on the Z8 this week.
it's a bit sterile on Sony. super curious about how it renders on nikon.
I would guess the same, but I don't know ANYTHING about adapting!
if it does not work great, I'll get the S 1.8
I have the plena for making statements, but the S 1.8 (or GM) would be the workhorse.
It is so insightful to see these comparisons. Yes, I have both the 85ART and 85S and like you, I have held on to both 
