In the long distance shots it seems very clear to me that which of them was sharper depended almost entirely on the light. Each lens was sharper than the other in the areas where the light happened to be brighter.
Light does play a factor, to be sure, though I do think the Milvus delivers the better results consistently in my use.
5 лет назад+1
As a person who shoots on film and does darkroom work, the superior sharpness and micro contrast of the Zeiss works well with film grain to show exceptional micro details in black and white prints.
Agreed. The youtube format seems to encourage the quick takes with a whole lot of focus on opinion. It's nice to see someone going into details and shooting actual comparisons to base conclusions on.
I would like to thank you for such detailed reviews of yours which brought me my purchase Tamron 100-400 for my EOSR and now it seems I am probably gonna get 135mm sigma after watching these review series... I think it is a great succes considering people take decisions based on your reviews even after 3 years passed.... Thanks again and keep up go work, Kind Regards,
Extraordinary: the combination of real world images from landscape to events and the lab style shootings gives a very complete view of the lens. If we add the actual review is difficult to ask for anything more. You are also a very kind photographer and it's unusual to have a very good reviewer that is also a great photographer. This lens is on my list of the lens to buy next year. Only God knows if I will be able to get it, but the only thing I can see that will prevent me from buying will be an extraordinary 70-200 from Sigma. Of course, I will remember to use the links.
Woah! It's great to know that your sons are my fellow musicians. Am a percussionist. I used to play with symphonic bands and orchestras. Btw, I enjoy watching your reviews. This is my habit now after work. Starting to understand a lot of things about lenses/photography.
I think the Sigma is slightly more contrasty in the closeups the highlight are blown out you have t equalize the contrast in both lenses to fairly make a better comparación. In the infinity feting it like as if the Sigma is no properly calibrated an is looking to a shorter distance, again the lenses should be mounted side by side in identical cameras and dieted at the same time.
Thanks for your wonderful reviews. Although this review was done some time ago, it is still relevant for me. I have been a Zeiss fan for years, however, living in Brisbane, Australia, I have struggled with the pop and contrast in our harsh sub tropical light. When the weather is bright overcast, the Zeiss is really nice. I shoot more video these days, and although it sounds strange, I’ve found the recent Sigma Art emount to be better for filming. They don’t have too much sizzle like the Zeiss. Interesting hey.
It's a good review, are these pictures taken by sigma and zeiss exactly at the same point in time? Shooting outdoor and having sun as the source of light can be tricky. When you talked about micro contrast the light has definitely changed and that would have resulted in little blown highlights on sigma.
While that is certainly true, you have to remember that I have taken many hundreds of photos with both lenses. My observations are based on more than just this particular series of shots.
Great review as ever Dustin, photographers are truly spoilt these days with superior optics now available. Apart from the micro contrast you can see in the shots of the barn that the Zeiss Milvus has a nicer colour balance and feel than the Sigma, but it's only small, shame the smaller 85mm Sigma isn't as consistent as it's bigger 135mm brother, especially with the CA.
The color separation(under different conditions) I would think would be better with the Zeiss. All of my Zeiss lenses basically nail the colors perfectly. But for the cost I think the Sigma lenses are hard to beat.
I'd say the Sigma close up photo was over exposed, and many of the details were blown out. Other than that, great review! I think your lens reviews are probably the best available. You put a lot of work into these. Here I am, years later, still appreciating your work. This Sigma lens is still relevant, at least to me, because it offers excellent performance at a reasonable price. The RF L glass is just too much.
I am happy to see you got better luck with the second copy ! Now you can understand my test results. FYI , on the Nikon D810 36MP on the copies I tested my conclusion was the sigma was shaper from normal portraits distance. Yet as you said the Zeiss color and micro contrast is tiny better. I also found CA was better controlled by the sigma. Yet for me the AF is the thing that made me buy the sigma. My eye sight is not perfect and with DSLR nailing manual foucs is very hard. Same story In the 85mm i couldn't get enough keepers so I sold the milvus and use the sigma. In the case of the 85mm I prefer the Zeiss clearly. I wish that canon or Nikon will give us easy manual foucs view finder assistants in the future bodies. It might not happen soon since it is against there business interest. Thanks again Yair
Your final point is exactly right. Canon/Nikon make very, very few manual focus lenses (typically only T/S lenses), so they are not invested in building platforms great for manual focus lenses.
CA was better controlled by the Sigma? The Milvus is an apochromatic lense, that means there is no CA at all. This comment has to be some kind of joke?
Great review as usual. I wonder how many of us can tell the difference in tests, but in real world shooting could not really appreciate that difference. Given the cost differences and the convenience of having AF, I think most of us would easily choose the Sigma. I am sure they will resolve some of the copy variation. Thanks again.
That's very true and why I try to cover lenses in a real world environment. Most modern lenses can produce good results if used properly in the real world, though there are certainly some lenses that are more special.
For night sky the sigma is just great with its pinpoint stars and low vignette. Good value. They haven't seen the need to update it with a mirrorless dg dn model yet. Perhaps samyang beat them to it anyway!
Was the Sigma lens fine tuned using the Sigma dock? The Sigma has the option to fine tune depending the focal distance I know as Tamron G2 user, this makes a huge difference on close and wide focus distances. Often comparisons were done without the fine tuning which makes the lens in some situations lay behind. This also explains why lenses may difference much more. The lenses are not fine tunes out of the box and the tolerances are not compensated. This makes the original Canon , Nikon and Sony lenses often winners, because the in lens fine tuning is done in the factory already.
Hi Dustin - I love your reviews. They're very thorough and I appreciate the work you put into them and the experience and knowledge you bring very much. If I could make one request, it would be great when taking sample images if you could also include pictures with skin tone for those of us doing portraits and fashion. Cheers!
I do try to get some portraits with most lenses, but, as you can imagine, that does involve a whole other layer of time investment that I don't always have to give.
The Sigma looks better globally I think in part because it looks to me more contrasty. In comparison to the Zeiss, it's almost like the Sigma had its clarity slider moved up a few notches 😃 Without a doubt, zoomed in on screen, the Zeiss' micro contrast is clear to see, it's definately better than the Sigma in that attribute. I suspect shooting in black and white would show the Zeiss' micro contrast advantage even more. Both lenses are optically outstanding, no doubt about that! ☺
That's true. In many cases the Zeiss image looks better and better as it is more closely examined, and that's not always true of the Sigma. But it is splitting hairs; they are both exceptional, and the Sigma is more accessible to most shooters.
The reason for the Sigma Art copy variation can be found in the Lensrental teardown : no shims or screws for post-production optical adjustments. Their copy variation graphs show Sigma's to be on the highish side. www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-teardown/
@@DustinAbbottTWI : Requires absolute precision in manufacture though. The Sigma repair department seem to have little option but to try and substitute out new parts ruclips.net/video/T0dFJFDFB4Y/видео.html
It does, yes (though the lens doesn't report as the Zeiss Milvus, just 135mm f/2). That's my favorite platform to use it on, actually, because of those reasons and all the MF aids.
Thanks Dustin for your time and dedication to inform us. Today top of the line lenses from different manufacturers are so good in practice! What I would like to point out is that resolution is not all, there is ohh factor were lenses produce and image that is very pleasing to the eye such as legendary Nikon 200 f 2 and others. What are the factors that contribute to the beautiful image the produce while still being able to perform very well in the resolution area I don’t know. May be you do, I’m curious about it. All the best😉
It always comes down to the quality of the glass and the optical formula. Some lenses are special, and it goes beyond what can be charted. The Milvus 2/135 is just such a lens. Images out of it just look fabulous...period.
Dustin, I think you have got back or front focus with sigma lens in first close distance test. And in infinity test you have got different lightning on the scene, cloudy vs. direct sunshine, direct sunshine of course have more contrast.
Thanks for the feedback. As for your first point - I used 10x Live View Manual Focus, so this is as carefully focused as you can get. As for your second point, the test was shot within a few minutes of each other, so while I cannot control the lighting (obviously), it was not radically different. There's no question the Zeiss has superior microcontrast in real world shooting. This copy of the Sigma, however, is obviously much, much better than the first I reviewed.
ekscat be aware sigma has a QC and QA which is not at Zeiss level. I have sigma 20,35,50,85 and 135 ART. I had to test many ( more than 3 at least) to get samples that were up to my demands on the D810. Performance are much more consistent with Zeiss, never had a bad copy!!! You get what you pay for I guess. I agree that if you have a very good copy of sigma it is crazy.
let me share my first hand experience with 135 Art and 85 Art lenses: 85 Art is optimised for a closer (studio portrait?) range and is at it's sharpest at around 4 meter distance to subject. 135 Art is it it's absolute weakest at minimum focus diastance. It is reasonably (not the best) sharper at around 4 meters and then become really, I mean razor, sharp at 7 meters to infinity. optimised for the environmental , outdoor, shot wide open portraiture? it seems to coincide with what Dustin have found as well. if you think about, 135 mm just a tad to long to shoot in studio and you will likely be shooting stopped down in studio anyway.
Alexander Moloksher My copy of the 85 ART is super sharp at large distances. I agree that AF is problematic at a distance, sadly. But using LV and manual focus on the D810 I got stunning details on far distance on a clear day. Close range focus after calibration is good, my hit rate is around 85%.
yair tammam sorry , you misunderstood my point. AF of Sigma 85 Art is rock solid and consistent. It is just lens was optically optimised for shooting at studio range of distances to your subject. It does produce the sharpest images within that range. From experience, unless properly calibrated at infinity ( around 25 meters and further for 85mm Sigma lens), your lens will produce sub optimal images at infinity. Here is a 7-image stitched panorama taken with Sigma 135 Art lens and shot across the bay, over 2 km distance to buildings. The amount of details captured by the lens is literally mind boggling : goo.gl/photos/o6ied7YKtk59HpXS7
Another great review! I enjoy your no-drama reviews. Currently in the market for a 135mm, still not sure which one to get for my Nikon D810, been thinking about the Samyang 135mm too, also a great lens.
It (Samyang) is a very good value proposition. I didn't enjoy using it as much because of the ergonomics, but its optics are incredible value for money. The Milvus is my favorite of the bunch (the one I bought), but the Sigma is a very good lens.
Yes... It's a bit of a palaver . I have the Otus 85mm and love it so the Milvus has been on my mind too but I'd also been thinking about the Sigma thanks to the AF system. The Samyang was quite "cheap" but several reviews claimed it was a great lens so I figured I'd try one and if I didn't like it, sell it or give it away and get a Milvus. What's a man to do?
Well, if you've already got the Otus, then I'm not going to lose too much sleep for you :) If you love the Otus, go for the Milvus. It the best match for the "look" and ergonomics that you are familiar with. It's the most "Otus-like" of the Milvus line (though the new 1.4/35mm is also special).
Another Great review Dustin. Your Brevity makes your reviews a stand-out. One query: You mentioned that this copy of Sigma was sharper than the one you used in the previous Sigma vs Milvus 135 comparison. How can one identity whether his/her copy of Sigma 135 ART is a Good/Sharp one. (Presuming one doesn't have the Milvus to benchmark and find out, as you've shown here)
There's really only one test that I recommend. Take a few shots at infinity (where you have a flat plane of focus), and then review the images and make sure that the sharpness is fairly even on both sides. If one side is notably softer than the other you might have a decentered lens. Other than that, just enjoy your lens!
Wow, in this it was even more clear to me that the Milvus is just superior. I really love the real world examples you use and not some test charts. One thing though. You say that in the real world you would not be able to tell the difference in microcontrast. Have you thought about prints? There the difference will probably be quite obvious.
I don't think that I said you wouldn't be able to tell the difference ( I can), but that the lenses are close. The Milvus is a very, very special lens optically, but the Sigma is more practical for many people.
It was just meant as constructive criticism and not as ranting. I think the Sigma would be a great lense if it wasn't for the variety in optical quality and especially the autofocus. (This is your second lense?!) Anyway I really appreciate you doing these tests, since I just do not have the time to test gear myself.
Hi Dustin! Great video, as always! I see you are testing the Peak Design Everyday Back Pack. I love this bag and have both sizes. Can't wait to see your review of the bag. And also hope to hear your thoughts on the 6D II later this Summer. Are you planning to get a copy for a review? Greetings!
Tops! Your sons play clarinet and a saxophone! I prefer the oboe (I love the Baroque era music!), but find it no less commendable of your children to be [proper-] musically involved. Respect! Were the recitals documented using the Sigma - or the Milvus (I got a little mixed up in the middel of video). Impressive lenses, especially the Milvus! If Milvus is that sharp, I imagine how sharp the Otus 85mm F1.4 must be! Have you tested the Samyang XP 85 F1.2? I wonder how it compares to the Otus / Milvus / Batis / Loxia & Touit.
I'm on the road, and I don't exactly remember for sure on all shots - I know I did use the Sigma some in that situation. The Samyang 1.2/85 is a little less absolutely sharp, but has the nicest rendering of the bunch. Gorgeous bokeh.
Dustin, could you please compare the 135 f2 Samyang/rokinon to the Zeis, I want to purchase the Zeis but if the Samyang is as good or close I could buy a whole other lens with it for the price of the zeis which would be great.
I can tell you the samyang is my favourite lens at the moment. Great contrast, awesome colors, nice out of focus rendering and really really good sharpness. for less than 1/3 of the price pretty much a no brainer
Depends on the lens, I have the 14mm and that one isn't all that great but OK for a fisheye. the 135 how ever is better than the nikon 35mm f2 and 180mm f2.8 when it comes to color rendition. Those 2 blow the rest of my lenses out of the water (when it comes to color)
The Samyang is an excellent lens in many ways. It's build is obviously not at the level of the Zeiss, and it is harder to focus in part for that reason. The focus ring isn't as smooth (can have a few minor sticking points) and it has no electronics, so no focus assist. Optically is fairly close, though it won't have the extra degree of color accuracy and microcontrast that Zeiss is so famous for. The difference is not significant, however.
Thanks so much for your reply I really appreciate it, the build quality and ergonomics are not a concern for me ,optics are my primary concern and that is great to hear although mircocontrast is important to me, not sure I can justify spending 2 to 3 times the price if that's the only perceivable difference, which is incredible considering the price ( I heard from a zeiss worker that the 135 is build to virtually the same standard, and similarly constructed internally as the otus series and the price difference is primarily because the 135 was created just before the otus line-up was decided on), still a tough decision without seeing for myself the differences but considering I will mainly use for studio and portrait work I think the Samyang and another lens ( probably the 85mm 1.2 sp rokinon ) would produce better overall work for the money. Thanks for replying Dustin not many people out there you can rely on that take the time to reply to their viewers like you do and it definitely doesn't go unnoticed :)
hi Dustin, how do you usually focus the Milvus ? i have been struggling a bit with my 135 APO on the 5d IV. seems that the focus confirmation is off at times.
My preferred method is with an actual focus screen for MF lenses (an EG-S in my 6D). With the 5D Mark IV, I find that if I go beyond or before the point of focus and come back to it slowly with the shutter half depressed and fully depress it as soon as the focus point lights up, I get fairly good results.
Hi Dustin , What are the audio equipment you used while recording this video? since i see leaves moving in the background and the audio is recorded externally if i am correct ? If you could also provided me few list of best audio recorder indoor and outdoors ?
Great job! I wonder statistically what are the chances of getting a 'good copy' of a sigma lens! :) (This is my only concern with third party companies)...
Oh, that's a tough one. The Milvus has the better build and is weather sealed. It is sharper at wide apertures and has better contrast. The Samyang has beautiful rendering, though, and is plenty sharp...and it's half as much money.
When comparing lenses there are always compromises. When they don't meter the same, you either show one result under/overexposed or just allow them to meter correctly (as I've done here).
Yeesh. Those Sigma images near MFD do not look sharp. The Milvus on the other hand looks...wow! Sharpness and microcontrast in spades. Seems to even out with the medium distance. No matter what, with this razor thin DoF, I'd rather have the AF. Too bad no native E-mount. I have the MC-11 and it just isn't near native focusing.
@@DustinAbbottTWI So do I, huge fan of Zeiss (I have a bunch of them in Nikon mount), but I also own 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 art lenses and I have to say that given the difficulty of focusing a MF lens with a DSLR (even with a custom screen) all the advantages disappear if you can't focus a lens successfully (moving portrait/fashion object), especially to a calibrated Sigma lens (USB dock is a must; I had previously given up on unreliable AF and miscalibrated Nikon lenses and/or bodies). Sigma is an astonishing feat.
you have front focus on sigma. open your eyes. you must adjust your objective< then make this video. photozone.de and i have much sharpere images. woodgrapher))) sorry for my english. im from Russia.
In the long distance shots it seems very clear to me that which of them was sharper depended almost entirely on the light. Each lens was sharper than the other in the areas where the light happened to be brighter.
Light does play a factor, to be sure, though I do think the Milvus delivers the better results consistently in my use.
As a person who shoots on film and does darkroom work, the superior sharpness and micro contrast of the Zeiss works well with film grain to show exceptional micro details in black and white prints.
It's true.
Another bulls-eye review.
Can't wait for the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Milvus vs. the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM comparison.
I'm working on that today. It will release next week.
But after 2 weeks. :(
I like the colors and micro-contrast of the Zeiss better. The Milvus 35/1.4 is shaping up to be a legendary lens.
The Zeiss is a special lens.
Great review! When it comes to comparisons/reviews you set the standard.
Thank you
Agreed. The youtube format seems to encourage the quick takes with a whole lot of focus on opinion. It's nice to see someone going into details and shooting actual comparisons to base conclusions on.
I would like to thank you for such detailed reviews of yours which brought me my purchase Tamron 100-400 for my EOSR and now it seems I am probably gonna get 135mm sigma after watching these review series... I think it is a great succes considering people take decisions based on your reviews even after 3 years passed....
Thanks again and keep up go work,
Kind Regards,
Glad to help!
Great review! It's the same story when comparing the Milvus 85 vs. Sigma 85 Art!
Extraordinary: the combination of real world images from landscape to events and the lab style shootings gives a very complete view of the lens. If we add the actual review is difficult to ask for anything more. You are also a very kind photographer and it's unusual to have a very good reviewer that is also a great photographer. This lens is on my list of the lens to buy next year. Only God knows if I will be able to get it, but the only thing I can see that will prevent me from buying will be an extraordinary 70-200 from Sigma. Of course, I will remember to use the links.
That's kind. Thank you, Jaime.
Woah! It's great to know that your sons are my fellow musicians. Am a percussionist. I used to play with symphonic bands and orchestras. Btw, I enjoy watching your reviews. This is my habit now after work. Starting to understand a lot of things about lenses/photography.
I'm glad I'm helping you out!
excellent ,thank you for your time .You can be trusted to give an honest revue,Thank you.
You're welcome.
I think the Sigma is slightly more contrasty in the closeups the highlight are blown out you have t equalize the contrast in both lenses to fairly make a better comparación. In the infinity feting it like as if the Sigma is no properly calibrated an is looking to a shorter distance, again the lenses should be mounted side by side in identical cameras and dieted at the same time.
Thanks for your wonderful reviews. Although this review was done some time ago, it is still relevant for me. I have been a Zeiss fan for years, however, living in Brisbane, Australia, I have struggled with the pop and contrast in our harsh sub tropical light. When the weather is bright overcast, the Zeiss is really nice. I shoot more video these days, and although it sounds strange, I’ve found the recent Sigma Art emount to be better for filming. They don’t have too much sizzle like the Zeiss. Interesting hey.
That is interesting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI God Bless.
It's a good review, are these pictures taken by sigma and zeiss exactly at the same point in time? Shooting outdoor and having sun as the source of light can be tricky. When you talked about micro contrast the light has definitely changed and that would have resulted in little blown highlights on sigma.
While that is certainly true, you have to remember that I have taken many hundreds of photos with both lenses. My observations are based on more than just this particular series of shots.
Great review as ever Dustin, photographers are truly spoilt these days with superior optics now available. Apart from the micro contrast you can see in the shots of the barn that the Zeiss Milvus has a nicer colour balance and feel than the Sigma, but it's only small, shame the smaller 85mm Sigma isn't as consistent as it's bigger 135mm brother, especially with the CA.
It's true, and too bad, as the 85mm focal length is the more versatile one.
The color separation(under different conditions) I would think would be better with the Zeiss. All of my Zeiss lenses basically nail the colors perfectly. But for the cost I think the Sigma lenses are hard to beat.
Absolutely. That's definitely something that Zeiss does exceptionally well. Their optical glass is very, very good.
I'd say the Sigma close up photo was over exposed, and many of the details were blown out. Other than that, great review! I think your lens reviews are probably the best available. You put a lot of work into these. Here I am, years later, still appreciating your work. This Sigma lens is still relevant, at least to me, because it offers excellent performance at a reasonable price. The RF L glass is just too much.
RF glass has definitely been priced very, very high.
I am happy to see you got better luck with the second copy !
Now you can understand my test results.
FYI , on the Nikon D810 36MP on the copies I tested my conclusion was the sigma was shaper from normal portraits distance.
Yet as you said the Zeiss color and micro contrast is tiny better.
I also found CA was better controlled by the sigma.
Yet for me the AF is the thing that made me buy the sigma. My eye sight is not perfect and with DSLR nailing manual foucs is very hard.
Same story In the 85mm i couldn't get enough keepers so I sold the milvus and use the sigma.
In the case of the 85mm I prefer the Zeiss clearly.
I wish that canon or Nikon will give us easy manual foucs view finder assistants in the future bodies. It might not happen soon since it is against there business interest.
Thanks again
Yair
Your final point is exactly right. Canon/Nikon make very, very few manual focus lenses (typically only T/S lenses), so they are not invested in building platforms great for manual focus lenses.
Sadly the worlds best lens are MF :(
CA was better controlled by the Sigma? The Milvus is an apochromatic lense, that means there is no CA at all. This comment has to be some kind of joke?
every time i want to buy a new lens i come to your channel ! thank you for making these videoes
That’s what I want to hear!
Great review as usual. I wonder how many of us can tell the difference in tests, but in real world shooting could not really appreciate that difference. Given the cost differences and the convenience of having AF, I think most of us would easily choose the Sigma. I am sure they will resolve some of the copy variation. Thanks again.
That's very true and why I try to cover lenses in a real world environment. Most modern lenses can produce good results if used properly in the real world, though there are certainly some lenses that are more special.
For night sky the sigma is just great with its pinpoint stars and low vignette. Good value. They haven't seen the need to update it with a mirrorless dg dn model yet. Perhaps samyang beat them to it anyway!
I'm actually surprised they haven't yet.
Great one! Next one, Sigma vs Zeiss Batis 135 f/2.8...
Unfortunately I have neither a Sony a7R2 or the Batis.
Was the Sigma lens fine tuned using the Sigma dock?
The Sigma has the option to fine tune depending the focal distance
I know as Tamron G2 user, this makes a huge difference on close and wide focus distances.
Often comparisons were done without the fine tuning which makes the lens in some situations lay behind.
This also explains why lenses may difference much more. The lenses are not fine tunes out of the box and the tolerances are not compensated.
This makes the original Canon , Nikon and Sony lenses often winners, because the in lens fine tuning is done in the factory already.
The answer is yes, though it is irrelevant for most of these tests, as they are done in Live View focus (which does not require calibration).
Awesome review. Just watched it again for the second time now that Sigma is releasing an Emount version.
other than the size, the Sigma ART will be a very interesting lens on FE.
Great review! Both these two lenses looked wonderful. Looking forward to see the milvus 35/1.4 review! I suppose that would another awesome lens.
It really is exceptional.
Hi Dustin - I love your reviews. They're very thorough and I appreciate the work you put into them and the experience and knowledge you bring very much. If I could make one request, it would be great when taking sample images if you could also include pictures with skin tone for those of us doing portraits and fashion. Cheers!
I do try to get some portraits with most lenses, but, as you can imagine, that does involve a whole other layer of time investment that I don't always have to give.
The Sigma looks better globally I think in part because it looks to me more contrasty. In comparison to the Zeiss, it's almost like the Sigma had its clarity slider moved up a few notches 😃 Without a doubt, zoomed in on screen, the Zeiss' micro contrast is clear to see, it's definately better than the Sigma in that attribute. I suspect shooting in black and white would show the Zeiss' micro contrast advantage even more. Both lenses are optically outstanding, no doubt about that! ☺
That's true. In many cases the Zeiss image looks better and better as it is more closely examined, and that's not always true of the Sigma. But it is splitting hairs; they are both exceptional, and the Sigma is more accessible to most shooters.
Yup, and nikon D850 have clarity setting in camera, but i dont know A7riii have clarity setting in camera or not.
The reason for the Sigma Art copy variation can be found in the Lensrental teardown : no shims or screws for post-production optical adjustments.
Their copy variation graphs show Sigma's to be on the highish side. www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-teardown/
Yes - I've seen that before, but I do think they are improving.
@@DustinAbbottTWI : Requires absolute precision in manufacture though.
The Sigma repair department seem to have little option but to try and substitute out new parts ruclips.net/video/T0dFJFDFB4Y/видео.html
First Image at infinity Zeiss was stopped down to 2.0, great review by the way
The Zeiss has a maximum aperture of f/2, so it can't be opened wider than that.
Dustin, have you adapted the milvus on your A7RIII? Does it pass exif, steady shot, etc.?
It does, yes (though the lens doesn't report as the Zeiss Milvus, just 135mm f/2). That's my favorite platform to use it on, actually, because of those reasons and all the MF aids.
Very nice review, but don't forget to check for ticks after sitting in that field.
LOL. I keep my pants on :)
Awesome review.....im waiting for your review on sigma 24-70 art....hope its coming soon...
The 24-70 ART has been a little delayed, so I haven't received it yet. Should be soon, though.
Thanks Dustin for your time and dedication to inform us.
Today top of the line lenses from different manufacturers are so good in practice!
What I would like to point out is that resolution is not all, there is ohh factor were lenses produce and image that is very pleasing to the eye such as legendary Nikon 200 f 2 and others. What are the factors that contribute to the beautiful image the produce while still being able to perform very well in the resolution area I don’t know. May be you do, I’m curious about it.
All the best😉
It always comes down to the quality of the glass and the optical formula. Some lenses are special, and it goes beyond what can be charted. The Milvus 2/135 is just such a lens. Images out of it just look fabulous...period.
Dustin, I think you have got back or front focus with sigma lens in first close distance test. And in infinity test you have got different lightning on the scene, cloudy vs. direct sunshine, direct sunshine of course have more contrast.
Thanks for the feedback. As for your first point - I used 10x Live View Manual Focus, so this is as carefully focused as you can get. As for your second point, the test was shot within a few minutes of each other, so while I cannot control the lighting (obviously), it was not radically different. There's no question the Zeiss has superior microcontrast in real world shooting. This copy of the Sigma, however, is obviously much, much better than the first I reviewed.
ekscat be aware sigma has a QC and QA which is not at Zeiss level.
I have sigma 20,35,50,85 and 135 ART.
I had to test many ( more than 3 at least) to get samples that were up to my demands on the D810.
Performance are much more consistent with Zeiss, never had a bad copy!!!
You get what you pay for I guess.
I agree that if you have a very good copy of sigma it is crazy.
let me share my first hand experience with 135 Art and 85 Art lenses:
85 Art is optimised for a closer (studio portrait?) range and is at it's sharpest at around 4 meter distance to subject.
135 Art is it it's absolute weakest at minimum focus diastance. It is reasonably (not the best) sharper at around 4 meters and then become really, I mean razor, sharp at 7 meters to infinity. optimised for the environmental , outdoor, shot wide open portraiture? it seems to coincide with what Dustin have found as well.
if you think about, 135 mm just a tad to long to shoot in studio and you will likely be shooting stopped down in studio anyway.
Alexander Moloksher My copy of the 85 ART is super sharp at large distances.
I agree that AF is problematic at a distance, sadly.
But using LV and manual focus on the D810 I got stunning details on far distance on a clear day.
Close range focus after calibration is good, my hit rate is around 85%.
yair tammam sorry , you misunderstood my point. AF of Sigma 85 Art is rock solid and consistent. It is just lens was optically optimised for shooting at studio range of distances to your subject. It does produce the sharpest images within that range. From experience, unless properly calibrated at infinity ( around 25 meters and further for 85mm Sigma lens), your lens will produce sub optimal images at infinity.
Here is a 7-image stitched panorama taken with Sigma 135 Art lens and shot across the bay, over 2 km distance to buildings. The amount of details captured by the lens is literally mind boggling :
goo.gl/photos/o6ied7YKtk59HpXS7
Great review!
+Bao Nguyen Thanks
Another great review!
I enjoy your no-drama reviews. Currently in the market for a 135mm, still not sure which one to get for my Nikon D810, been thinking about the Samyang 135mm too, also a great lens.
It (Samyang) is a very good value proposition. I didn't enjoy using it as much because of the ergonomics, but its optics are incredible value for money. The Milvus is my favorite of the bunch (the one I bought), but the Sigma is a very good lens.
Yes... It's a bit of a palaver .
I have the Otus 85mm and love it so the Milvus has been on my mind too but I'd also been thinking about the Sigma thanks to the AF system. The Samyang was quite "cheap" but several reviews claimed it was a great lens so I figured I'd try one and if I didn't like it, sell it or give it away and get a Milvus.
What's a man to do?
Well, if you've already got the Otus, then I'm not going to lose too much sleep for you :) If you love the Otus, go for the Milvus. It the best match for the "look" and ergonomics that you are familiar with. It's the most "Otus-like" of the Milvus line (though the new 1.4/35mm is also special).
Another Great review Dustin.
Your Brevity makes your reviews a stand-out.
One query: You mentioned that this copy of Sigma was sharper than the one you used in the previous Sigma vs Milvus 135 comparison.
How can one identity whether his/her copy of Sigma 135 ART is a Good/Sharp one. (Presuming one doesn't have the Milvus to benchmark and find out, as you've shown here)
There's really only one test that I recommend. Take a few shots at infinity (where you have a flat plane of focus), and then review the images and make sure that the sharpness is fairly even on both sides. If one side is notably softer than the other you might have a decentered lens. Other than that, just enjoy your lens!
Wow, in this it was even more clear to me that the Milvus is just superior. I really love the real world examples you use and not some test charts.
One thing though. You say that in the real world you would not be able to tell the difference in microcontrast.
Have you thought about prints? There the difference will probably be quite obvious.
I don't think that I said you wouldn't be able to tell the difference ( I can), but that the lenses are close. The Milvus is a very, very special lens optically, but the Sigma is more practical for many people.
It was just meant as constructive criticism and not as ranting. I think the Sigma would be a great lense if it wasn't for the variety in optical quality and especially the autofocus. (This is your second lense?!)
Anyway I really appreciate you doing these tests, since I just do not have the time to test gear myself.
Great Review, thanks a lot for the good work. Am going with the sigma now goodbye Canon:)
It's a great lens.
Just wondering....where was that Garmisch Whistler sign on the wood pole?
Oh wow - it's been so long since I've done this review that I can't remember.
@@DustinAbbottTWI LOL I lived in Garmisch 7 years that's the kind of signs they have around there also.
Between the milvus 100mm f2 and the milvus 135mm f2. Which one you would say it’s sharper at the closes range wide open? Thanks.
Both are near perfectly sharp at minimum focus, but if your priority is close focus work the MP100 is the better choice.
2:58 does the sigma have a better t-stop because the shutter speed is faster but the other settings are the same, or is it simply the light changing
I suspect the changing light. They are both rated at T2, actually.
Hi Dustin! Great video, as always! I see you are testing the Peak Design Everyday Back Pack. I love this bag and have both sizes. Can't wait to see your review of the bag. And also hope to hear your thoughts on the 6D II later this Summer. Are you planning to get a copy for a review? Greetings!
Yes, I will be releasing my review of the PD Everyday backpack on Thursday. And yes, the 6D II review order is already placed.
How closely matched are the Sigma 105mm art vs the ziess 100mm milvus? Are the results similar?
The Milvus has more CA, and remember that F1.4 lets in twice as much light as F2. The tradeoff is that the Sigma is basically twice as big, too.
Another Pro review. Great job.
+Hamza Khawaja Thank you
Tops! Your sons play clarinet and a saxophone! I prefer the oboe (I love the Baroque era music!), but find it no less commendable of your children to be [proper-] musically involved. Respect!
Were the recitals documented using the Sigma - or the Milvus (I got a little mixed up in the middel of video). Impressive lenses, especially the Milvus! If Milvus is that sharp, I imagine how sharp the Otus 85mm F1.4 must be!
Have you tested the Samyang XP 85 F1.2? I wonder how it compares to the Otus / Milvus / Batis / Loxia & Touit.
I'm on the road, and I don't exactly remember for sure on all shots - I know I did use the Sigma some in that situation. The Samyang 1.2/85 is a little less absolutely sharp, but has the nicest rendering of the bunch. Gorgeous bokeh.
awesome comparison, tnx
+max factor Thank you
that was a sigma MC 11 adopter....... why not the Sony LEA4?
Was the Sigma Fine Tuned with FoCal and USB Dock?
Yes
Dustin, could you please compare the 135 f2 Samyang/rokinon to the Zeis, I want to purchase the Zeis but if the Samyang is as good or close I could buy a whole other lens with it for the price of the zeis which would be great.
I can tell you the samyang is my favourite lens at the moment.
Great contrast, awesome colors, nice out of focus rendering and really really good sharpness.
for less than 1/3 of the price pretty much a no brainer
Daniel Jacob I had the Samyang for a year , it is very good yet it is not close to the Zeiss.
Yet the value for the money is crazy good.
Depends on the lens, I have the 14mm and that one isn't all that great but OK for a fisheye.
the 135 how ever is better than the nikon 35mm f2 and 180mm f2.8 when it comes to color rendition.
Those 2 blow the rest of my lenses out of the water (when it comes to color)
The Samyang is an excellent lens in many ways. It's build is obviously not at the level of the Zeiss, and it is harder to focus in part for that reason. The focus ring isn't as smooth (can have a few minor sticking points) and it has no electronics, so no focus assist. Optically is fairly close, though it won't have the extra degree of color accuracy and microcontrast that Zeiss is so famous for. The difference is not significant, however.
Thanks so much for your reply I really appreciate it, the build quality and ergonomics are not a concern for me ,optics are my primary concern and that is great to hear although mircocontrast is important to me, not sure I can justify spending 2 to 3 times the price if that's the only perceivable difference, which is incredible considering the price ( I heard from a zeiss worker that the 135 is build to virtually the same standard, and similarly constructed internally as the otus series and the price difference is primarily because the 135 was created just before the otus line-up was decided on), still a tough decision without seeing for myself the differences but considering I will mainly use for studio and portrait work I think the Samyang and another lens ( probably the 85mm 1.2 sp rokinon ) would produce better overall work for the money. Thanks for replying Dustin not many people out there you can rely on that take the time to reply to their viewers like you do and it definitely doesn't go unnoticed :)
hi Dustin, how do you usually focus the Milvus ? i have been struggling a bit with my 135 APO on the 5d IV. seems that the focus confirmation is off at times.
My preferred method is with an actual focus screen for MF lenses (an EG-S in my 6D). With the 5D Mark IV, I find that if I go beyond or before the point of focus and come back to it slowly with the shutter half depressed and fully depress it as soon as the focus point lights up, I get fairly good results.
thanks i am going to give it a try.
Hi Dustin , What are the audio equipment you used while recording this video? since i see leaves moving in the background and the audio is recorded externally if i am correct ? If you could also provided me few list of best audio recorder indoor and outdoors ?
+Subir Thapa I use a Rode Smart Lav+ lavaliere mic that records to my phone and I then sync audio in post. It is quick and easy.
Any trick in post you use to fix distracting noise outdoors ?
The Lav eliminates a lot of that by being so close.
Great job! I wonder statistically what are the chances of getting a 'good copy' of a sigma lens! :)
(This is my only concern with third party companies)...
LensRentals tested a batch of 10 and they were all pretty good.
#DustinAbbot what do u say about samyang xp85mm vs Milvus 85mm?
Oh, that's a tough one. The Milvus has the better build and is weather sealed. It is sharper at wide apertures and has better contrast. The Samyang has beautiful rendering, though, and is plenty sharp...and it's half as much money.
It would have been good if shot them at same shutter speeds.. Just a suggestion
When comparing lenses there are always compromises. When they don't meter the same, you either show one result under/overexposed or just allow them to meter correctly (as I've done here).
@@DustinAbbottTWI ohk..... Thanks for teaching me something today😀
Yeesh. Those Sigma images near MFD do not look sharp. The Milvus on the other hand looks...wow! Sharpness and microcontrast in spades. Seems to even out with the medium distance. No matter what, with this razor thin DoF, I'd rather have the AF. Too bad no native E-mount. I have the MC-11 and it just isn't near native focusing.
I have briefly used it on an a6500 with the MC-11, and it does fairly well, but definitely not at the level of a native lens.
That was then, this is now, Sigma now has FE native lenses
One will have its AF let you down or pack up completely., one will hold much much more of its original price over 3 years... No contest go Zeiss 😎😎😎
That's the one I own.
The zeiss-bias is strong with Dustin.
I certainly appreciate the IQ from the Zeiss, yes, though I often recommend the Sigma instead to those who aren't comfortable with manual focus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI So do I, huge fan of Zeiss (I have a bunch of them in Nikon mount), but I also own 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 art lenses and I have to say that given the difficulty of focusing a MF lens with a DSLR (even with a custom screen) all the advantages disappear if you can't focus a lens successfully (moving portrait/fashion object), especially to a calibrated Sigma lens (USB dock is a must; I had previously given up on unreliable AF and miscalibrated Nikon lenses and/or bodies). Sigma is an astonishing feat.
Milvus 135 is all the way better
It's a lovely lens, for sure.
you have front focus on sigma. open your eyes. you must adjust your objective< then make this video. photozone.de and i have much sharpere images. woodgrapher))) sorry for my english. im from Russia.
Canada day? With that accent you sound like you're from the south.
I was born in California, raised in Arizona, but have lived in the Canada for the past 21 years.
Great review!!!
Thanks!
I have a question: do you think the Tamron SP primes are as sharp as the Sigma Art primes? Have you ever compared?
I have compared a number of them. The answer is complicated. You can see my comparison of the Sigma 85 and Tamron on my channel.