I'm not through yet; this is what I did today. Tripod, cable release, MLU, ISO 100, manual focus with live view, converted to JPEG from DPP, sharpness 7. I didn't notice till I saw them in DPP that I'd misaligned and got some wall on the right, but, to quote my brother, being basically lazy, I decided that these will have to do.
I haven't even had a close look at any of them yet; I haven't had time. I'm not sure just how much can be conveyed at these web sizes, to be sure, but here they are for whatever value they might have.
vladik1980, I'll get to that; probably not from these particular shots, but something. I should have time to do that over the weekend. I just wanted to get something up as a next step...
The Sigma results do not appear contrastier but they are just darker. I don't know how the test was done but it seems like the resulting shutter speed using the various aperture settings varied between the two lenses.
Since these are not 100% crops, not much can be discerned with regards to sharpness.
One thing is clear though: the Sigma 85mm field of view is quite a bit wider than the Canon 85mm field of view. I believe the Sigma 50mm suffered from the same flaw. It's probably an indication that the Sigma 85mm suffers from more severe focus breathing than the Canon 85L does.
stargazer78, it's not quite that straightforward. The Sigma focuses a bit closer, maybe an inch or two, no more, so I had to move the tripod back a tad when I mounted the L. That difference is a contributing factor.
I have to agree that at web size the Sigma looks pretty good -- especially since the Canon is stopped down an extra stop in comparison. Bonus that the Sigma also focusses closer. Now it just needs a nickname...
Paul
Ernie Aubert wrote:
stargazer78, it's not quite that straightforward. The Sigma focuses a bit closer, maybe an inch or two, no more, so I had to move the tripod back a tad when I mounted the L. That difference is a contributing factor.
Ah.... I didn't realize you moved the tripod between shots. But if you moved the tripod back when you mounted the "L"... doesn't that mean that the Sigma field of view is even wider than the photos seem to indicate?
Sigma looks to have better sharpness. Never have been disapointed with my Sigma primes as far as any aspect of IQ. most of all the total lack of CA. Great performers as long as that little switch on the lens barrel is set to M instead of AF. Sigmas in general have good contrast and color saturation and I have retroed my self to use manual focus as in the days when I started in photography. Thanks for spending and taking the time from your schedule to share with us. Will take a closer look at this Siggy in the future because of these tests..Bruce
brucem48 wrote:
Sigma looks to have better sharpness. Never have been disapointed with my Sigma primes as far as any aspect of IQ. most of all the total lack of CA. Great performers as long as that little switch on the lens barrel is set to M instead of AF. Sigmas in general have good contrast and color saturation and I have retroed my self to use manual focus as in the days when I started in photography. Thanks for spending and taking the time from your schedule to share with us. Will take a closer look at this Siggy in the future because of these tests..Bruce...Show more →
Maybe the QC has gone down the drain{pipe} with time at Sigma's but my 14 has been a delight to use. No AF issues. Guess the norma / telephoto lenses tend to have more problems in this regard...
Their 85 does look pretty good, big thumbs up to Sigma.
stargazer78 wrote:
Since these are not 100% crops, not much can be discerned with regards to sharpness.
One thing is clear though: the Sigma 85mm field of view is quite a bit wider than the Canon 85mm field of view. I believe the Sigma 50mm suffered from the same flaw. It's probably an indication that the Sigma 85mm suffers from more severe focus breathing than the Canon 85L does.
Sigma 50 has been shown to be 48mm, so I guess 85 is probably closer to 80mm.
