This is the video I was waiting for. Compare the lens to the previously best available competitor. Everyone else is comparing it to the GM1 exclusively when it's been established for years that the Sigma was superior to the GM1. As always, Manny still showing what the people wanna see!
Just the quality alone of Manny videos are super sharp and the content you providing the information is beyond what I see others are producing this video is gold the value here is just unmatch
I think Sonys marketing is very strategic. They pushed a 1.4 first because of the amount of units they will sell, including to those who would have rather bought a 1.2. I think once the sale rush has slowed down, that’s when they’ll push out a 1.2 because the users who already purchase a 1.4 will just sell it and repurchase the 1.2 giving them twice the sale data
@@tonygerassi1502 You’re overthinking it, people that desire either aren’t at large buying the other, certainly not to an extent it can actually be felt by Sony, so it simply isn’t worth for them to even make up such strategy. Most who do will stick with what they purchased as people aren’t likely rushing out for a 0.5 stop difference to any large degree if they just purchased the other, the gain is simply put is way to small for it.
Here in the Netherlands the Sigma is sometimes on sale for €900, normal price €1100. While this Sony costs €2100. It's insane that they're charging so much for this lens.
My guess is f1.2 would add considerable weight and it seems like Sony is aiming for more travel friendly. While Canon has made the follow up to the R5 lighter and the RF 35mm matches the FE 35mm in weight, Canon lenses have thus far been generally heavier whenever compared to Sony counterparts. While this isn't a 1.2, the Sony 85mm GM II is 1.42 lbs. Canon's RF 85mm f/1.2 is 2.6 lbs. Is the extra 1/3 stop of light worth what would likely be another (at least) $1100 and considerably more weight? This is under 2 grand, which in todays market, is actually surprising. In studio, we use Canon, but out and about, we always use Sony.
I had Sigma for almost 3 years, a few month after it was released and I paid under $750 for it, maybe a F1.2 might tempt me to get another 85mm. At $1800 for a 85mm F1.2 is most likely coming out from Sigma rather than Sony.
One thing I never hear mentioned in the reviews comparing Sony lenses to 3rd party is durability and weather sealing. How is the Sigma 85 1.4 in that regard compared to the Sony 85 1.4gm2? I bought the 85 1.4gm2 over the Sigma as I plan on using it with an A9iii (rented for when needed) but I was wondering if the weather sealing/durability is better on the Sony as well.
As always a balanced take, and beautiful pictures. I disagree with you, I believe size is more important to most Sony users than for Canon and Nikon ones that came late to the Mirrorless and were a little bit skeptical or unimpressed by Sony's original super compact bodies.
Yes so many male reviewers don’t care about size and weight, I guess because it has less of an impact on them. As a petite female I shoot Sony simply because it’s smaller and lighter, it kills my soul every time they make the grip bigger 😂
Thanks for the detailed review. What troubles me a bit is that I feel the bokeh seems a bit busy, congested. Whereas the Sigma is noticeably creamier and smooth. Was that your impression too?
I own the Canon 85mm L f1.2, and I love it. However, if there was an 85mm L f1.4 I would choose that. I'm hoping to switch back to Sony next year (for various reasons, I used to use Sony then swapped to Canon a few years ago), really happy to see this released. Its not high on my purchase list but only because I already have the Canon 1.2 (my Canon gear will go to my girlfriend, with the caveat I can use the 85 when I want to). I don't think the difference is big between 1.2 and 1.4, and no-one besides photographers is really going to notice the difference. The size and weight is a bigger bonus than that .2 I think. Which is the same reason I plan on buying the Sony 50mm f1.4 rather than the 1.2 and I guess is proof that what Sony said is quite true. I do think they should have an 85 1.2 option though, just for those that really want it and to get people off their back :D
@3:20 you point out that the sigma cant shoot the 120fps as a negative thing as if its sigma's fault, Just like when every reviewer discussed the a93 they all somehow forgot to mention that sony is blocking third party lenses from shooting 120fps via software and its not that the lens cant keep up. Its okay you can talk negative about sony I swear everything will be alright. Again same thing with focus breathing, Sony does focus breathing compensation for sony lenses but doesnt work with 3rd party as they are blocked via software.
I have the 85 1.8. So I think I'll wait for the 1.2. In the meantime I'll continue to drag the brick around (Sigma 105 1.4) when I want bokeh. Thanks for the review.
Well balanced and informative video instead of the usual Sony gush fest you tend to get with every release. I am holding out for a 1.2! May be some time though.
Yours is clearly the best review on this I've seen so far. Bravo. I got my Sigma for $800 brand new, so this this would be a $1,000 extra for basically better autofocus. I don't shoot sports, I'm primarily studio, and some corporate and weddings, etc, but mostly studio, and for that I'm shooting the with the 105 1.4 anyway. If it was 1.2 I'd buy it immediately, but not sure I can justify the cost of this one....
bro i was with you guys and had a Sony also, i had the 35 50 GM and 85 sigma art, the sigma 85 was my favorite honestly... but really at this point arguing these things is a joke. Theres nothing like the Canon 85 1.2 L lens. i get it we need youtube channels for sony gear, but lets just be honest man. Canon in certain areas is just miles ahead
I Swear,No Lie Manny,I got in to Photography and I Purchased the A7Riii For my First Camera 8 years ago Because you,My First Lens I got Was the GM 85mm When you did the Video with Anthony Alvarez Because you againYea I should of got a 50mm for the first lens.I love that Lens.Thank God I have never had the Problem you had with yours.But Here we go Now 85mm ii...Well it was about time they came with it.
I have the new Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II Lens, it is excellent, very sharp, sharper than the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM ! I can highly recommend the Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II. If you want a more light weight 85mm, I can recommend to get a used Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 *.
Just picked this up. The size, weight and AF are much improved. I prefer f1.4 as the f1.2 would have been MUCH larger. Check out the Nikon 85 f1.2… It’s like a human skull.
Thanks for the review...so we have a 78-80mm on the new MK II when counting the pixels vs the Sigma...in Dustin Abotts review even more like a 75mm...defintely not a 85mm. The one thing I encourage you on would be the bokeh comparison like you did it with the 105/1,4, the 85 GM I etc. IN real Portrait shooting not studio, but real world....As a Bokeh Specialst you knwow what will come out: The most creamest to the least creamiest: 1. 85 GM I 2. 105/1.4 3. Sigma 85/1.4 4. 78mm (aka 85) GM II So, we do pay a price for the sharpness. I love the sharpness, the clarity and the colour saturation and contrast of the new Sony lenses. You are more "there", less haze, 3-D pop, name it. I dont like the slight less contrast /colour sat/Haze in copmparison to GM etc of the Sigma lenses ( and I own the 85 GM I, The 105, The 135 GM). But I think it would be worth it to give people an outlook towards what they can expect from the MK II for portrait work and bokeh. Not sure if it is really king of the hill for this work.
Like you, I was hoping for a 1.2 and it would have been an automatic purchase. I have Sony’s awesome 50mm 1.2 and it would be a great complement to it. My Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN is already pretty awesome at 1.4, so the Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II is not under consideration at all. Disappointing though.
Limitations of the E-mount makes it difficult to make a decent F 1.2 lens consider the fact that Sony had a massive head start ahead of the competition. Just look how long it took them to produce the 50mm F 1.2.
The only thing I don’t love about the sigma is the minimum focus distance. Other than that, I probably will still go with sigma still! Even though I primarily do video. That lens is just legendary and will probably be until they make a 1.2
tbh I don't need a f1,2 just because other brands have them. In near focus you have to stop down so at least the complete face is in focus and farther away there is no significant difference between f1,2 to f1,4 But I do would have loved it if Sony would have made it happen that the 85 f1,4 would line up with the 24, 35 and 50 not just filtersize but weight and balance. That would have been the videographers holy quintet
I have been waiting for this to add to my 35 and 50 GM lenses on my R7v. But in Australia the sigma is $1200, the GMii $3000. I would use it for street and portrait photography. I don't take video. Anyone out there think I am making a mistake going for the Sigma to replace my current Sony 85 1.8?
Wow disappointing I have version one and ive been holding out for the 1.2 . Hopefully they will make a 1.2 ..... we'll see it year 2029 lol . Great video as always keep up the great work brother.
The Sigma is literally half the price in the UK. I'm not a professional, so I just can't even begin to justify the new GM II. Now if it was an f1.2 and offered something 'more' than the Sigma maybe I'd think about it. Sony's reasoning for making it an f1.4 over f1.2, using the 50mm GM as the reference is silly, IMO. The 85 is a true portrait lens, the 50 isn't. Professional photographers absolutely will go for the f1.2 every time over the f1.4 and they need to release one to keep that market.
If the F1.2 was released I’d buy 2 of them … one for use and the other as a mint collection.. I don’t care if it’s twice as heavy or as large.. I want the heavier larger diameter glass for photography work…if it needs to be bigger than canon then great…I’ll use a mono pod..The buttery images are worth it as a photographer.. Everyone that bought the sigma 85mm 1.4 will just keep the sigma.. why not … Especially if you already have the 50mm F1.2..the 85mm F1.4 GM II was a mistake.. they should have released the 85mm F1.2 first like the 50mm f1.2 to compete with sigma.. Sad but good that we are getting some action from Sony..Waiting for the F1.2 monster which will be Sony’s best prime lens ever… and they know it… lol
I have to disagree with the sigma 85 dgdn not being good for sports or action style photography. One of the first things I did when I invested into sigma’s 85 for Sony E mount, was take it to one of the most difficult fast action environments known to man outside of professional sports, a theme park haunt in Los Angeles and it worked beautifully. Autofocus motors worked beautifully well, especially when you learn how it operates and work with it instead of against it. So the way I see it is we’re just a very spoiled generation of photographers that are raised with constantly improving technology. So much that we are quick to blame our gear first for our failed shots, than to blame our lack of preparation in learning our gear and compensating for it with our photography skills. We no longer spend significant time with our lenses and cameras, instead treating them like iPhones where we consider them obsolete after a year of use. What was pro level a year ago is now slow and clunky. The sigma 85 for anyone they got it, bro, your lens is fantastic. It was fantastic when you bought it, it’s still fantastic today.
Very cool! .my older 85 1.4GM just gave out on me..this is a much needed upgrade!... Yes 8 years wait is crazy..I dont mind the 1.4...but to nit pick Sony had 8 years to come out with a 1.2!!!..come on!! certainly no excuses for it..im sorry but fine tuning bokeh and slightly sharper and obviously quicker AF..yes thats all good but why couldn't you put that towards the 1.2!!..lol Yes they can put the analytics and sales and price point behind it to answer the question of why they chose 1.4... but for some of us a 1.2 would be nice and for them to just release a 1.4 II..is kinda disappointing...yes I will pick one up..but if Sigma releases a new 85 1.2..then I might have to certainly rethink about selling this 1.4 II..lol I hope that they will still consider a 1.2 in the future..like the 50mm 1.2/1.4...releases..at least give people an option to choose..lol
I have the 50 1.2…it’s a better lens than the 1.4. That’s like saying they should only release A7iv’s and not A7RV’s because the A7IV sells better. The higher end you get the smaller your customer base will be. L Sony
I had a chance to use the 50 1.2 and the 50 1.4. I decided to purchase the 50 1.4 not because of the waiting size but because of the cost. You can almost not tell the difference between both when it comes to the quality of the images that come out.
I purchased the '85 1.4 version 1 several years ago. I have used it for paid work and for a variety of different other assignments. I currently do not see a good enough reason to sell it.
There is no way I could tell the difference between f1.4 and f1.2 at 85mm... even side by side I'd have to really stop and look closely. There is no reason to spend more money and get a much bigger lens for f1.2 imho. In fact, I remember Manny making a video years ago shooting with a Sony using the 85 1.4 and then Canon using the 85 1.2 and it was really, really hard to tell the difference (in his opinion too). Even at 50mm, I compared the Sigma Art 50 1.4 on my Canon R6 II and the RF 50 1.2 and there was very, very little difference in IQ. For bokeh the difference was only barely noticeable when viewed side by side and even then only we photographers would spot that tiny difference. But I saved $2000 getting the Sigma 1.4 lens.
Sony knows that the ones who are moving the market are filmmakers and they, for the most part, prioritize size and lightness and don't need 1.2 as much. =(
Years passed on hopes for a 1.2 went poof..... My Sigma 85 1.4 gets the job done.... So I'll hold on to my pipe dream of a Sony 105 1.4GM or Sigma 105 1.4 DG DN. First world problems.
The biggest issue I have with the original 85mm is the disgusting amount of CA when shooting wide open backlit photos. Its the worst performing lens for CA that I've used. My Canon ef nifty fifty was better, the Canon ef 85mm f/1.8 was better at $350, and my TT Artisans $160 27mm f/2.8 is better. I know you said flair was controled, but how about the CA and vignetting?
Market research that many people simply don’t get, 1.2 has always been for the fewer it’s a lens that is more a niche and because it’s heavier, bigger and often noticeable more expensive it doesn’t offer the same sales, it’s not exactly rocket science. Also 1.2 aren’t sharper often in fact these are less sharp when built to same standard so it’s not a free game to gain that 0.5 stop advantage that is mainly felt in full body shooting it’s lot unless you are the type that always shoot fully open, most professional doesn’t and many others don’t either so you pay a lot for something you only use on occasion and those it just makes lot less sense. Sony is there to make money and clearly they release the 1.4 because it’s more market potential
I shoot exclusively at 1.2 with the 35 and 1.4 with the 105, both on location and in studio. Those lenses are razor sharp wide open at those apertures.
@@JoshStreetDesign I personally find that too restrictive, borderline boring. While it’s fine as part of shooting if it’s the only tool in the toolbox it gets repetitive in its expression and execution. But each to their own
4:58-5:08 Although the Sony features better flare control, the imperfections of the Sigma lens give it a more natural, realistic feel, making the image more pleasing to look at. In contrast, the Sony looks somewhat unnatural and almost artificial. Or at least in my opinion.
Yep…..mount girth too small(Sony is Asian after all). What’s really disappointing is, it has video aperture ring, but still shows massive video focus breathing, which is exactly what video shooters despise most…..”focus breathing”.
Newer is always better, but I wish the lens wouldn't be tested in a control environment with studio lighting. A 20 year old camera with a 85mm with 12 mp would produce the same results. The video format is becoming redundant.
how are you please help me I am a wedding photographer but until now I used to shoot with canon 5D mark 4 DSLRs camera but now I want to get into mirrorless camera and if it's hard for me to choose then choose me to buy canon or sony
I have the Sony 85mm 1.8 lens I got for 250 open box a year ago. Is this a new reason to upgrade to the GM ii or get the 70-200 gm ii for more versatility?
I’d love to see some comparison shots with the RF 85 1.2! PS: those studio shots are amazing. You’ve really perfected your studio skills over the past couple years.
Been using the Sigma 85 f1.4 since it came out. Your video when you compared the Sony gm to the sigma sold me on the sigma and I have been very happy with it. But I never use it a f1.4 for my clients. My tastes have changed from blowing out the backgrounds making the locations looking like water colored painting to a much more defined background with a tasteful amount of blur. But I still prefer a f1.4 over an f1.8 due to the lenses are sharper and when I do want to shoot wide open I can.
This is the video I was waiting for. Compare the lens to the previously best available competitor. Everyone else is comparing it to the GM1 exclusively when it's been established for years that the Sigma was superior to the GM1.
As always, Manny still showing what the people wanna see!
YO...that shot at 2:48 is NICE!!! Great light.
Still i am on singma side...compre to price point sigma is best bang for the buck
the most honest review to date, thank you
Just the quality alone of Manny videos are super sharp and the content you providing the information is beyond what I see others are producing this video is gold the value here is just unmatch
I think Sonys marketing is very strategic. They pushed a 1.4 first because of the amount of units they will sell, including to those who would have rather bought a 1.2.
I think once the sale rush has slowed down, that’s when they’ll push out a 1.2 because the users who already purchase a 1.4 will just sell it and repurchase the 1.2 giving them twice the sale data
That's what they did with the 50!
@@KEHA14 not really, The 1.2 came out before the 1.4 and the other 1.4 had been 5 years in existence before the 1.2 came out.
@@tonygerassi1502 You’re overthinking it, people that desire either aren’t at large buying the other, certainly not to an extent it can actually be felt by Sony, so it simply isn’t worth for them to even make up such strategy. Most who do will stick with what they purchased as people aren’t likely rushing out for a 0.5 stop difference to any large degree if they just purchased the other, the gain is simply put is way to small for it.
Bingo
A agree with Sony in the sense that I enjoy the smaller/lighter 50mm f1.4 to the 1.2
I’m happy your dropping more content , I learned so much from you 🙏🏽
Here in the Netherlands the Sigma is sometimes on sale for €900, normal price €1100. While this Sony costs €2100. It's insane that they're charging so much for this lens.
Is the grinding noise during AF gone with the 85 GM II?
Yes
My guess is f1.2 would add considerable weight and it seems like Sony is aiming for more travel friendly. While Canon has made the follow up to the R5 lighter and the RF 35mm matches the FE 35mm in weight, Canon lenses have thus far been generally heavier whenever compared to Sony counterparts. While this isn't a 1.2, the Sony 85mm GM II is 1.42 lbs. Canon's RF 85mm f/1.2 is 2.6 lbs. Is the extra 1/3 stop of light worth what would likely be another (at least) $1100 and considerably more weight? This is under 2 grand, which in todays market, is actually surprising. In studio, we use Canon, but out and about, we always use Sony.
I carry the 105 1.4 and the 35 1.2 WITH speedlights on top all day at weddings and I don't complain. I wanted a 1.2!!!!!
I agree with you but it's 2/3 of a stop not 1/3. I will get this lens but im in no rush as I have the sigma
I understood that I must just keep my Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN :)
It seems that the Sigma has noticeably creamier bokeh, whereas this new GM ii seems busier. In all reviews I have seen it seems the same way.
If I could only keep one lens, it would be the 85 mm Sigma.
I had Sigma for almost 3 years, a few month after it was released and I paid under $750 for it, maybe a F1.2 might tempt me to get another 85mm. At $1800 for a 85mm F1.2 is most likely coming out from Sigma rather than Sony.
one can only hope
Those baseball shots are amazing bro.
One thing I never hear mentioned in the reviews comparing Sony lenses to 3rd party is durability and weather sealing. How is the Sigma 85 1.4 in that regard compared to the Sony 85 1.4gm2? I bought the 85 1.4gm2 over the Sigma as I plan on using it with an A9iii (rented for when needed) but I was wondering if the weather sealing/durability is better on the Sony as well.
SIGMA 1.4 The best ever
As always a balanced take, and beautiful pictures. I disagree with you, I believe size is more important to most Sony users than for Canon and Nikon ones that came late to the Mirrorless and were a little bit skeptical or unimpressed by Sony's original super compact bodies.
Yet Sony strangely Sony made the 300/2.8 but never came out with the smaller 300/4.0.
Yes so many male reviewers don’t care about size and weight, I guess because it has less of an impact on them. As a petite female I shoot Sony simply because it’s smaller and lighter, it kills my soul every time they make the grip bigger 😂
If im taking street photos do you think the sigma is good?
Thanks for the detailed review. What troubles me a bit is that I feel the bokeh seems a bit busy, congested. Whereas the Sigma is noticeably creamier and smooth. Was that your impression too?
Hi Manny, can you recommend Sony camera setting for shooting sport?
I own the Canon 85mm L f1.2, and I love it. However, if there was an 85mm L f1.4 I would choose that. I'm hoping to switch back to Sony next year (for various reasons, I used to use Sony then swapped to Canon a few years ago), really happy to see this released. Its not high on my purchase list but only because I already have the Canon 1.2 (my Canon gear will go to my girlfriend, with the caveat I can use the 85 when I want to).
I don't think the difference is big between 1.2 and 1.4, and no-one besides photographers is really going to notice the difference. The size and weight is a bigger bonus than that .2 I think. Which is the same reason I plan on buying the Sony 50mm f1.4 rather than the 1.2 and I guess is proof that what Sony said is quite true. I do think they should have an 85 1.2 option though, just for those that really want it and to get people off their back :D
Just use the EF 85/1.4 with an adapter on Canon mirrorless.
@@bngr_bngr why would I do that?
Well it's great to have choices! How many 85mm f1.4 for Sony now? Like 6 or 7 lenses?
I think the 85mm f1.2 will come in about 2 years.
@3:20 you point out that the sigma cant shoot the 120fps as a negative thing as if its sigma's fault, Just like when every reviewer discussed the a93 they all somehow forgot to mention that sony is blocking third party lenses from shooting 120fps via software and its not that the lens cant keep up. Its okay you can talk negative about sony I swear everything will be alright.
Again same thing with focus breathing, Sony does focus breathing compensation for sony lenses but doesnt work with 3rd party as they are blocked via software.
My sigma 85 does everything I need, not changing.
I have the 85 1.8. So I think I'll wait for the 1.2. In the meantime I'll continue to drag the brick around (Sigma 105 1.4) when I want bokeh. Thanks for the review.
Thanks for being real and not schilling. I’m good w my Sigma 85. I’m not doing pro work though.
Sigma 85 was the professionals lens of choice untill yesterday , i am assuming you could do professional work with it
I've shot weddings and everything with the Sigma and don't see any need to upgrade to the Sony for what I do
You can do “pro” work with any brand.
@@pmandolese how many guys are using a 85 prime for sports? Probably zero.
Well balanced and informative video instead of the usual Sony gush fest you tend to get with every release. I am holding out for a 1.2! May be some time though.
My favourite lens though f/1.2 would have make more sense!
Yours is clearly the best review on this I've seen so far. Bravo. I got my Sigma for $800 brand new, so this this would be a $1,000 extra for basically better autofocus. I don't shoot sports, I'm primarily studio, and some corporate and weddings, etc, but mostly studio, and for that I'm shooting the with the 105 1.4 anyway. If it was 1.2 I'd buy it immediately, but not sure I can justify the cost of this one....
nice review. On my side, the FE 85mm F/1.8 remains a very good lens on a7r5, a74 and it is very cheap and light.
Hey Manny the XLR Adaptor link is the same as the MIC link :) I wanted to check that out. Great video as always, thank you.
Regarding the 85 f1.2, do you have the 50 f1.2? almost everyone is using the 50 F1.4, even though the 50 f1.2 is a god lens....
Love you, brotha!
Great info Manny! Thanks!
bro i was with you guys and had a Sony also, i had the 35 50 GM and 85 sigma art, the sigma 85 was my favorite honestly... but really at this point arguing these things is a joke. Theres nothing like the Canon 85 1.2 L lens. i get it we need youtube channels for sony gear, but lets just be honest man. Canon in certain areas is just miles ahead
I Swear,No Lie Manny,I got in to Photography and I Purchased the A7Riii For my First Camera 8 years ago Because you,My First Lens I got Was the GM 85mm When you did the Video with Anthony Alvarez Because you againYea I should of got a 50mm for the first lens.I love that Lens.Thank God I have never had the Problem you had with yours.But Here we go Now 85mm ii...Well it was about time they came with it.
I have the new Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II Lens, it is excellent, very sharp, sharper than the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM ! I can highly recommend the Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II. If you want a more light weight 85mm, I can recommend to get a used Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 *.
one question, do every sony user loose their hot shoe mount cover????
I never have it on any of my Sony cameras and have never had a problem
Just picked this up. The size, weight and AF are much improved. I prefer f1.4 as the f1.2 would have been MUCH larger. Check out the Nikon 85 f1.2… It’s like a human skull.
I believe, that if you do studio portraits, the Sony 85 f/1.8 is enough
Thanks for the review...so we have a 78-80mm on the new MK II when counting the pixels vs the Sigma...in Dustin Abotts review even more like a 75mm...defintely not a 85mm.
The one thing I encourage you on would be the bokeh comparison like you did it with the 105/1,4, the 85 GM I etc. IN real Portrait shooting not studio, but real world....As a Bokeh Specialst you knwow what will come out:
The most creamest to the least creamiest:
1. 85 GM I
2. 105/1.4
3. Sigma 85/1.4
4. 78mm (aka 85) GM II
So, we do pay a price for the sharpness.
I love the sharpness, the clarity and the colour saturation and contrast of the new Sony lenses. You are more "there", less haze, 3-D pop, name it. I dont like the slight less contrast /colour sat/Haze in copmparison to GM etc of the Sigma lenses ( and I own the 85 GM I, The 105, The 135 GM).
But I think it would be worth it to give people an outlook towards what they can expect from the MK II for portrait work and bokeh. Not sure if it is really king of the hill for this work.
The Sigma obviouslly has better image quality based on your video comparison right from the start all the way to the end. Impossible still to replace.
Great Video!!
Good sony, that makes 50mm the only great lens at f1.2 ❤❤❤
Like you, I was hoping for a 1.2 and it would have been an automatic purchase. I have Sony’s awesome 50mm 1.2 and it would be a great complement to it. My Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN is already pretty awesome at 1.4, so the Sony 85mm 1.4 GM II is not under consideration at all.
Disappointing though.
right there with you. Especially since i have the 105 1.4
Limitations of the E-mount makes it difficult to make a decent F 1.2 lens consider the fact that Sony had a massive head start ahead of the competition.
Just look how long it took them to produce the 50mm F 1.2.
I need the 24-70 F2!
Seems that the 85mm still is Sigma's business
The only thing I don’t love about the sigma is the minimum focus distance.
Other than that, I probably will still go with sigma still!
Even though I primarily do video.
That lens is just legendary and will probably be until they make a 1.2
Sigma has greater minimum focus magnification than either of the two GM lenses.
If sale is the primary reason for releasing the 1.4 vs 1.2, then Sony should've already updated the 1.8, which is also long overdue.
I love my Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85
I will keep my Sigma, for sure.
I’m hoping sigma builds this lens for Fujifilm at some point it seems great
Physics dictates that we'll never get an 85 1.2 as the throat on the E Mount won't allow it. Its just something we're going to have to live with.
it works adapted with the canon ef lens, I don't buy that.
tbh I don't need a f1,2 just because other brands have them. In near focus you have to stop down so at least the complete face is in focus and farther away there is no significant difference between f1,2 to f1,4
But I do would have loved it if Sony would have made it happen that the 85 f1,4 would line up with the 24, 35 and 50 not just filtersize but weight and balance.
That would have been the videographers holy quintet
I have been waiting for this to add to my 35 and 50 GM lenses on my R7v. But in Australia the sigma is $1200, the GMii $3000.
I would use it for street and portrait photography. I don't take video.
Anyone out there think I am making a mistake going for the Sigma to replace my current Sony 85 1.8?
As much as i want a Sony 85 lense I'll just stick with my 50 gm 1.2 & 135 gm 1.8
Wow disappointing I have version one and ive been holding out for the 1.2 . Hopefully they will make a 1.2 ..... we'll see it year 2029 lol . Great video as always keep up the great work brother.
The Sigma is literally half the price in the UK. I'm not a professional, so I just can't even begin to justify the new GM II. Now if it was an f1.2 and offered something 'more' than the Sigma maybe I'd think about it.
Sony's reasoning for making it an f1.4 over f1.2, using the 50mm GM as the reference is silly, IMO. The 85 is a true portrait lens, the 50 isn't. Professional photographers absolutely will go for the f1.2 every time over the f1.4 and they need to release one to keep that market.
Looks like what we really need is a Sigma 85mm version 2.
maybe theyll make a 1.2
If the F1.2 was released I’d buy 2 of them … one for use and the other as a mint collection.. I don’t care if it’s twice as heavy or as large.. I want the heavier larger diameter glass for photography work…if it needs to be bigger than canon then great…I’ll use a mono pod..The buttery images are worth it as a photographer.. Everyone that bought the sigma 85mm 1.4 will just keep the sigma.. why not … Especially if you already have the 50mm F1.2..the 85mm F1.4 GM II was a mistake.. they should have released the 85mm F1.2 first like the 50mm f1.2 to compete with sigma.. Sad but good that we are getting some action from Sony..Waiting for the F1.2 monster which will be Sony’s best prime lens ever… and they know it… lol
I have to disagree with the sigma 85 dgdn not being good for sports or action style photography. One of the first things I did when I invested into sigma’s 85 for Sony E mount, was take it to one of the most difficult fast action environments known to man outside of professional sports, a theme park haunt in Los Angeles and it worked beautifully. Autofocus motors worked beautifully well, especially when you learn how it operates and work with it instead of against it. So the way I see it is we’re just a very spoiled generation of photographers that are raised with constantly improving technology. So much that we are quick to blame our gear first for our failed shots, than to blame our lack of preparation in learning our gear and compensating for it with our photography skills. We no longer spend significant time with our lenses and cameras, instead treating them like iPhones where we consider them obsolete after a year of use. What was pro level a year ago is now slow and clunky. The sigma 85 for anyone they got it, bro, your lens is fantastic. It was fantastic when you bought it, it’s still fantastic today.
Faster then last time
Very cool! .my older 85 1.4GM just gave out on me..this is a much needed upgrade!... Yes 8 years wait is crazy..I dont mind the 1.4...but to nit pick Sony had 8 years to come out with a 1.2!!!..come on!! certainly no excuses for it..im sorry but fine tuning bokeh and slightly sharper and obviously quicker AF..yes thats all good but why couldn't you put that towards the 1.2!!..lol Yes they can put the analytics and sales and price point behind it to answer the question of why they chose 1.4... but for some of us a 1.2 would be nice and for them to just release a 1.4 II..is kinda disappointing...yes I will pick one up..but if Sigma releases a new 85 1.2..then I might have to certainly rethink about selling this 1.4 II..lol I hope that they will still consider a 1.2 in the future..like the 50mm 1.2/1.4...releases..at least give people an option to choose..lol
I have the 50 1.2…it’s a better lens than the 1.4. That’s like saying they should only release A7iv’s and not A7RV’s because the A7IV sells better. The higher end you get the smaller your customer base will be. L Sony
I had a chance to use the 50 1.2 and the 50 1.4. I decided to purchase the 50 1.4 not because of the waiting size but because of the cost. You can almost not tell the difference between both when it comes to the quality of the images that come out.
I purchased the '85 1.4 version 1 several years ago. I have used it for paid work and for a variety of different other assignments. I currently do not see a good enough reason to sell it.
The 1.4 is sharper than the 1.2 so it really depends on what your after
€2100?? gotta be an april fool, or a piss take or a canon rf lens money grab
1.2 for da bokeh.
They just need to make a camera which doesn’t feel so boring to shoot
I love my Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN and feel no need to change.
You make some of the greatest vids on this planet for real.I love your 🐶 pup.
There is no way I could tell the difference between f1.4 and f1.2 at 85mm... even side by side I'd have to really stop and look closely. There is no reason to spend more money and get a much bigger lens for f1.2 imho. In fact, I remember Manny making a video years ago shooting with a Sony using the 85 1.4 and then Canon using the 85 1.2 and it was really, really hard to tell the difference (in his opinion too).
Even at 50mm, I compared the Sigma Art 50 1.4 on my Canon R6 II and the RF 50 1.2 and there was very, very little difference in IQ. For bokeh the difference was only barely noticeable when viewed side by side and even then only we photographers would spot that tiny difference. But I saved $2000 getting the Sigma 1.4 lens.
Lenses and camera are so good that some of these updates don’t make much sense. Compared to some of the 3rd party lenses out there.
Sony knows that the ones who are moving the market are filmmakers and they, for the most part, prioritize size and lightness and don't need 1.2 as much. =(
Years passed on hopes for a 1.2 went poof..... My Sigma 85 1.4 gets the job done.... So I'll hold on to my pipe dream of a Sony 105 1.4GM or Sigma 105 1.4 DG DN. First world problems.
The biggest issue I have with the original 85mm is the disgusting amount of CA when shooting wide open backlit photos. Its the worst performing lens for CA that I've used. My Canon ef nifty fifty was better, the Canon ef 85mm f/1.8 was better at $350, and my TT Artisans $160 27mm f/2.8 is better. I know you said flair was controled, but how about the CA and vignetting?
You should check your copy, maybe the elements have moved. Mine has more CA than 1.2 GM, but not that much.
Looks like I’ll just have to keep using the canon 85 1.2 🤷🏾♂️
I think SONY probably gonna release the 1.2 version later after they make enough money on 1.4.
Market research that many people simply don’t get, 1.2 has always been for the fewer it’s a lens that is more a niche and because it’s heavier, bigger and often noticeable more expensive it doesn’t offer the same sales, it’s not exactly rocket science. Also 1.2 aren’t sharper often in fact these are less sharp when built to same standard so it’s not a free game to gain that 0.5 stop advantage that is mainly felt in full body shooting it’s lot unless you are the type that always shoot fully open, most professional doesn’t and many others don’t either so you pay a lot for something you only use on occasion and those it just makes lot less sense.
Sony is there to make money and clearly they release the 1.4 because it’s more market potential
I shoot exclusively at 1.2 with the 35 and 1.4 with the 105, both on location and in studio. Those lenses are razor sharp wide open at those apertures.
@@JoshStreetDesign I personally find that too restrictive, borderline boring. While it’s fine as part of shooting if it’s the only tool in the toolbox it gets repetitive in its expression and execution. But each to their own
@@mikni4069 It's what my clients pay me for, it's the look they want. It's all that matters to me at the end of the day is that paycheck.
First of all, why does your spot look like a camera store, lol... Ok... I'm gonna keep watching... cause I really want this lens, lol.
Anyone interested in a quality 85 1.4 has already purchased the sigma version. Like you said, Sony should have released a 1.2.
Thanks Manny, I'm loving my Sigma 1.4
4:58-5:08
Although the Sony features better flare control, the imperfections of the Sigma lens give it a more natural, realistic feel, making the image more pleasing to look at. In contrast, the Sony looks somewhat unnatural and almost artificial. Or at least in my opinion.
No one buys 85mm lens for sports and action. For what it's worth the sigma still wins .
You see all the photographers at the Olympic gymnastics competition shooting with an 85mm?
Unless you really need the speed, the price is a non-starter. Better value to be had elsewhere.
So, is not an f1.2 as Canon and Nikon has.
Yep…..mount girth too small(Sony is Asian after all). What’s really disappointing is, it has video aperture ring, but still shows massive video focus breathing, which is exactly what video shooters despise most…..”focus breathing”.
@@vivalasvegas702 Yes, and the diameter mount has direct impact on IS. This is the most important reason to migrate from Sony to Canon.
Will you be reviewing the sigma 28-105 2.8?
Newer is always better, but I wish the lens wouldn't be tested in a control environment with studio lighting. A 20 year old camera with a 85mm with 12 mp would produce the same results. The video format is becoming redundant.
Am I the only one noticing how harsh its bokeh is outside the middle of the frame?
Manny your dog steal the show lol 😂 😂
how are you please help me I am a wedding photographer but until now I used to shoot with canon 5D mark 4 DSLRs camera but now I want to get into mirrorless camera and if it's hard for me to choose then choose me to buy canon or sony
I wanted to talk to you personally, I wrote to you on Instagram, but it doesn't accept text, so I wrote to you on a comment, I'm so sorry.
I have the Sony 85mm 1.8 lens I got for 250 open box a year ago. Is this a new reason to upgrade to the GM ii or get the 70-200 gm ii for more versatility?
The perspective I really wanted to see as I have the Sigma 85 1.4
... or we just rely on Sigma to release a Sigma 85mm F1.2 DG DN
I’d love to see some comparison shots with the RF 85 1.2!
PS: those studio shots are amazing. You’ve really perfected your studio skills over the past couple years.
Been using the Sigma 85 f1.4 since it came out. Your video when you compared the Sony gm to the sigma sold me on the sigma and I have been very happy with it. But I never use it a f1.4 for my clients. My tastes have changed from blowing out the backgrounds making the locations looking like water colored painting to a much more defined background with a tasteful amount of blur. But I still prefer a f1.4 over an f1.8 due to the lenses are sharper and when I do want to shoot wide open I can.
and its always nice when sony tell customers to buy a new version of a lens they made badly.
[Laughs in Sigma]
Would like to see a review between Sony 50mm 1.4 with this lens
1.8 85mm enough for Portraits
first