Liked. I’ve recently implemented the “wifes opinion test” which is: whenever shooting her or her friends i ask “which one do you like yourself better in, the canon or the sigma?” and there seems to always be a landslide for canon. Love this video and think you’re one of the best technical reviewers as you always include real world applications along with chart type stuff. One thing I’ve learned over the last year of watching canon vs sigma across RUclips is to get a sigma if you’re shooting charts and a canon if you like dreamy artistic shots that make people look their best haha 😉. (These are all my personal opinions of course , other commenters reading this: your mileage may vary. Happy holidays)
Thank you Dustin Abbott. This is one of the best lens reviews that I have ever watched on RUclips. I especially like your 2D vs 3D test and explanation about DXOMARK. This review covered several different scenarios for testing portrait lenses. Superb Job! I am not a Canon shooter but your reviews are so good that I continue to watch your channel. I am not sure why you only have 32K subscribers because IMO you have the some of the best reviews bar none. Thanks again best regards.
Hi Dustin, I apologize... what I was trying to say is that you should easily have 200K + subscribers considering the quality and content in your video reviews. In any event glad to hear that your subscribers doubled in a years time you definitely deserve it. Mele Kalikimaka ;-)
Would love either one of them for my 6D mark II, merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Dustin and to your family as well, wishing you all the best for 2018.
Hmm, i was saving up for the art as a personal no brainer between the F 1.2 and art, but i think i will actually go for the canon 1.4 because of the added benefitt of the IS and better accuracy on the outer focuspoints. Thanks!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Same questions as above Dustin: what's the better system for low light and action? Does Canon do better than Sigma? or they're about the same?
Thanks for a thorough and professional comparison, Dustin. I know I've already gushed about how much I love the Canon, but I just wanted to add I prefer the results of the Canon on the portraits of your daughter. I think the rendering and skin texture is ideal for portraits.
Many Thanks, Dustin. It is really a very nice review. A critical question: Are you considering replacing your Tamron 85mm f.18 VC with the new Canon 85mm f.1.4 IS?
Great video, if it wasn’t for the heavy vignette, the Tamron seems to be the best balance (taking into account autofocus) and it has the best price, by far. As you say nowadays is very complicated or not at all selecting a lens : either is difficult because they are close and excel at different areas , or it’s simple : you just peek by heart: they are all so good
Fantastic video Dustin. Your tests and methodology were great and really covered the important elements of these portrait lenses. My thoughts are that the performance is so very close as to leave the choice down to the cost of IS. Having owned the 35 and 50 Art lenses I think I'd pay a little more for AF confidence in Canon and I can't even imagine what it'd be like to shoot straight auto-ISO and get critically sharp images.
Thanks for the nice review! The result is kind of predictable, and I agree with you that IS could make a difference in hand-held situations. BTW, which camera and lens did you use for shooting the video in the beginning talking? The image looks sharp and beautiful!
Another excellent impartial review Dustin, as you say all the lenses you have tested in this 85mm comparison have their strengths and it is now down to the individual to make their own decision which is best for them
Fantastic! this will be a really good head to head to watch! and gives the 'New Years resolution' a whole new meaning! lol, have a wonderful festive break!
Merry Christmas to you and your family Dustin! I loved how you chose the Gospel for the text photos. A "purchasing pickle" I currently have is whether to get the Canon as a lens for all environments, or acquiring the Tamron for walking around and the Samyang for controlled situations. Both options would be roughly the same price. Do you like the wide-open rendering of the Samyang/Rokinon any more than the Canon?
I like your latter option, actually. The Tamron is a great all-round lens, and the Samyang has amazing rendering (and yes, I think it is more special than the Canon).
Thank you Dustin for the entire 85 mm lens review series. You’ve covered almost each and every aspect. Considering all the factors so far, Sigma is the winner it seems. Wish you Merry Christmas.
Brilliant review - glad to have discovered you! I had the Canon 85mm f/1.4 and went for it because of the IS. However I’ve since traded it in for the Sigma which in the UK is almost half the price at the moment, and have therefore saved a few hundred pounds. I rarely required the IS. The better contrast and sharpness at wide apertures is what makes it for me. The Sigma is a great portrait lens, but I like to use it for a range of purposes. And if I want a softer effect on the skin for an older person, I’ll generally add in some well diffused flash / continuous lighting anyway.
Paul Fensome having worked with it for a while now the focussing is more hit and miss than with the canon. It’s fast to focus but despite some tweaking with the dock it does tend to front or back focus a little. I think though that all fast focal lengths as long as this (and more) will always result in more fails when you’re shooting wide open. I now tend to shoot at f3.2 or f4 to get around it. And it’s still a lovely lens when stopped down.
@@colliescameraaction8944 Any update on Art vs L ? I see too that Sigma is optically better but I feel like getting the Canon for IS and weather sealing. Did you ever shoot with canon 100mm macro IS? Would that be redundant with 85mm on full frame? I found a 100mm IS L and probably going for it.
I have the old Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM, I am very happy with that lens. IS on a portrait lens is in my eyes less important. Do not go under 1/100 of a second and you get sharp results. If you want to go much slower, then your subject will be moving. So if I had to choose between the 85mm art and the Canon, it would be the Sigma. Although also better IQ as the Canon, the Sigma is a big beast. A little to big? The price off the Sigma is not cheap. Not a huge difference. And yes, there is something to say for the Canon. Canon is of course still a Canon...:) It will be hard to choose for a lot of people. Nice comparison Dustin!
Considering portraits, shooting 1/100 may not be fast enough on a high res camera like the 5DS (or mounted on Fuji GFX 50-100 MP). Since the Canon cameras do not have IBIS, I think IS is all the more important.
Nice Review, Dustin. I presently own the first Gen. Sigma 85mm 1.4, and I really like the images from it. Do you think I would realize enough improvement by upgrading to one of these 85's?
Great video, Dustin! I'm looking to buy an 85mm and am considering these two alongside the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. One question. For the same lighting and settings, the Canon L lens takes all the shots at 1-stop faster shutter speeds than the Sigma Art lens. Is that due to better quality glass of the L series (if that's the case) or something else? Also, how much would be the combined impact of being able to shoot at a faster shutter speed along with IS and the L lens being lighter than the Sigma Art lens? Is it going to be difficult shooting handheld with the Sigma?
Hey Dustin after watching your video i decided to go with the Sigma, but I am not happy with it. It’s super sharp when it works but most of my pictures comes out blurry on autofocus. Do you have any suggestions?
It sounds like you may need to calibrate focus, at the least with your camera, and preferably with the USB dock. I've got a calibration playlist to help you accomplish that.
Hi Dustin I am going to buy an 85mm and Im deciding between these two. I don't mind so much about the difference in image quality, they're both good. I would go with Sigma but what stop me is the front-back focusing problem, and the fact you have to settle them on the dock. What do you thinkabout this matter? thanks
Another great video by Dustin, he always gives that deep technical aspect thing with real life use. FlyGuy has a point and I also use the wife Opinion Test on which photos look best of her and her friends, and non surprisely it not the most technically perfect images with best glass and best DR, exposure etc ! There lies the issue as though the sigma is the sharpest lens perhaps it the warm softer tones of the Canon that pervile....
Thank you for the comparison! Mostly I prefer sigma art when I was a lens for multiple things but I am preferring the soft skin texture and tones of the canon for portraits! You have helped me choose! Thank you!
Color me confused: @1:56 you mention shooting Canon 85 lens at "faster" shutter speed because it has more light transmission, however in the portraits @16:00 you have the Sigma now on the left with the "faster" shutter speed. The Canon portraits also look a bit overexposed and hence loosing texture detail and contrast in the skin. Can you explain please?
Both things are connected. The Canon has better light transmission with equal settings, and in this case the light was slightly variable and the lenses didn't meter the same. The Canon slightly overexposed.
If I am looking to purchase one of these lenses for use on a canon IBIS enabled body (ie. R6) would the benefit of IS be negligible? As the body already has IS and focusing accuracy be negligible as it is a mirrorless body?
Definitely a body with IBIS helps close the gap between the two. Focus accuracy will be improved on both lenses, though I did find that the Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART in Sony FE form wasn’t quite as accurate as competing lenses.
Great review Dustin. The most important point to me is the real world value of IS on high resolution bodies. Which in the end of the day is pointing towards Sony with IBIS. Wondering when Canon / Nikon will give us access to this technology. Thanks again
I think 85mm F1.4IS has the best Transmission out of all F1.2 F1.4 85mm bar the Otus. Canon really jam packed lots of technology into this amazing lens while maintaining 77mm filter thread and least light loss.
hi have a question for you is it possible to use Fuji's 2x(black) converter with this lens? and more so is it possible to use the 1.4 (white converter)together with the 2x (black converter)converter at the same time thus giving 3.4 x magnification to the FUJIFILM XF200 F2 R LM OIS WR LENS
Great review Dustin . I must say I was surprised to see warmer better skin tones on the Sigma . Both lenses are amazing . If I was a wedding shooter I would go with the Canon . For studio I would go with the Sigma. Thanks for the stellar work you do .
Hi Dustin Taking in account that EF 85mm f/1.4 is considerably more expensive than its Sigma sibling, and that in my country Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART and Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM have the same price tag, wich one of those two lenses would you recommend, mostly for portraits? Thanks in advance Best regards
I would probably go with the Sigma, mostly because the focal length is more flexible. I actually like the look of images from a 135 more, but it can be too long a focal length in some settings.
I have only one question? To witch one will take a BEATING? Better than the other? REALLY? I am serious! I run a studio that goes it many different directions and have a bit of moving parts.
Can you do canon 85 1.4 vs canon 85 1.2 Mark II video? Thanks. Btw. Actually I like canon more because of softness and skin tone it renders in portrait. Great video. Keep doing it.
Ty for the video. I think you must compare images at the same shutter speeds.. İn girl portraits... canon shutter speeds slower and its normally brighter..:))
Fantastic video of two excellent pieces of glass!!! Thanks for the review. We really needed a proper head to head. Which one for me? Probably get the Canon. But Sigma has really closed the gap for third party lenses.
Once again good video.I am glad I bought The Sigma.On my 77D it has made it ideal for wildlife portraits at higher shutter speeds.As it becomes a 135mm f1.4.I also have a Samsung NX 1 with a click aperture Canon lens adapter Portraits are blown out of the water.ps I notice on your desk in your videos you have an eco-tank.For my Christmas present, I have upgraded to the new eco-tank 7750 A3 printer.Have a look printing Christmas cards has never been cheaper.My old eco-tank I had over two years. Although it was not a photo printer I was getting good prints.Once again have Happy Christmas and I look forward to your reviews in 2018
Многие думают, что меняя линзы на камере, будет меняться только фокусное расстояние и светосила. Но это не совсем так. Будет меняться полностью картинка, её характер, цвета, резкость и много ещё чего. Поэтому существует понятие связки камера-оптика. Если хотите, могу подсказать те связки, которые я лично пробовал и знаю. Это 1Dx с 85/1,4 и 1DxMII с 35/1,4II. Мне именно эти связки просто показались очень интересными по картинке.
You mentioned the Tamron in the review but I don't remember you coming back to talk about it. What are your thoughts about it vs these two? I remember you really liking it and wanting to add it to your kit when you reviewed it.
Dustin Abbott are you speaking of another video? I rewatched and in the beginning you mentioned circling back to the Tamron but it’s not mentioned again.
I will take Canon any day. I have Canon 85mm 1.8 and lack of IS really comes into effect at 85mm really hard to hand hold lens in the church at low shutter speeds. I get blurry or noisy but sharp images..
I think the in focus areas look better from the Sigma (sharper, more contrasty, a bit less ca) but the out of focus areas look better from the Canon (smoother bokeh, I think partially because the Sigma is a little bit shy of 85mm). Globally, without going into a 1:1 view, I slightly prefer the Canon look. Apart from that Canon offers better af and is, so the Canon wins it for me. But the Sigma is a really good lens too...
The Canon corners appeared to perform much better this go-around, in relation to how bad they looked in the Tamron video - very odd. This video more reflects my findings when I compared the two lenses before I sold my Sigma. The Art is clearly the resolution powerhouse on paper and in a lab, but I had a very difficult time finding a clear advantage in the real world. I took the two lenses out on a few walks with me and shot similar situations and as close to identical shots as I could - handheld. When the files we're brought to my computer, I couldn't say the Sigma held that advantage. For one, we've discussed and you've documented the autofocus inconsistencies. But primarily, the heft of the Sigma really impacts it's ability to get sharp images unless you are extremely careful or have the luxury of higher shutter speed on your side. When the planets align just right, you are rewarded with impeccable image quality. But, with the Canon, I can get better results 90% of the time, and the advantages held by the Sigma are only really seen at a pixel level. I also find myself preferring the bokeh from the Canon as well. So, for me, the choice was incredibly simple: take a small step back in potential resolving power and optical performance for a tremendously more useful lens. My year of owning and using the Sigma professionally was nothing short of a photographer's nightmare. I absolutely didn't trust it. I chimped nearly every single shot because I could take 4 or 5 and all of them would be perfect....or sometimes maybe one or two were. In the environment I work it I couldn't keep using it. So far the Canon has been stupendous. It kicked ass at a wedding this month and really created some stellar portraits since I've taken ownership - no chimping necessary!!!
That's what I noticed too. Confusing since @1:58 Dustin mention shooting the Canon at a "faster" shutter speed because it has better light transmission (i.e. transmission T-stop is faster, however DXOMARK still does not have the Canon 85mm f1.4 IS in their lens database)
Thanks for the detailed comparison. For just a few hundred dollars more I think the Canon wins for me. The IS plus it's a Canon L series so it should retain it's resale value.
As a portrait lens Canon is better to my eyes. For example at 19.07 in Canon her eyelashes look as sharp as sigma (and cleaner) but OOF part is smoother (her cheek). One caveat though, here Canon had lower shutter speed. So, precise comparison is difficult as brightness is not the same. Page test was very interesting. Let's stop at 10.50. 'governor' was focused with both lenses. It appears that behind the plane of focus Canon starts to blur sooner than Sigma and blurred area is smoother in Canon (we don't want high contrast in blurred areas). In front of the plane of focus Canon seems to do better too. 'also went up' appears uniformly smooth in Canon, Sigma appears busy with camera shake like effect. The caveat is that the plane of focus (angle) could have been different. So, these assumptions may not be accurate. And there is the bokeh balls or highlights. Canon is smoother. Canon is actually marginally smoother than Otus. Canon wanted to strike a balance between maximum sharpness and maximum smoothness. In this regard I like Canon's output more than any other lens for this FL. Wish it had slightly less CA though.
The Sigma is a little short of 85mm, and it hurts it in comparisons like with the test. The two lenses did not meter the same, but the difference amounts to 1/3 stop, and I've previous demonstrated that this does not impact contrast in any fundamental way. I agree that the bokeh quality is smoother from the Canon.
I’m currently a proud owner of the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4. I understand that the price between the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS and the Milvus 85mm f1.4 is somewhat narrow. So I would like to seek your personal opinion if you would sell a Milvus 85mm to buy the canon 85mm f1.4 to gain the auto-focus, the IS and the weight advantage as a trade-off with the IQ over the Milvus? Thank you very much in advance! (a fan from Bangkok Thailand)
I have been stuck with this dilemma for a couple of weeks already. The Milvus is a real stunner in terms of the IQ with creamy smooth boke and I’m very sure that the canon 85 would lack the micro contrast of that of the Milvus but the Canon is an obvious winner in terms of practicality. My heart leans towards keeping the Milvus using the 5D IV. My guess is, with your shooting style, you would also keep a Milvus 85mm over a Canon 85mm? By the way, I bought the Milvus after watching your review last year :)
Agreed, but I would put my skin remark in the "taste" category which well, taste is taste. Adding micro contrast or softening an image is easy in both ways so I wouldn't take "sharpness" as a buying criteria (on high end class which are all sharp enough nowadays). I would add something to your IS view, we should also start considering that with the increase of pixel count in sensors IS come into play at faster speeds as you mentionned for "hand held situation". For example I wouldn't shoot a 85mm on a 5DSR under 1/400 to be 100% sure to get sharp images. You may have a lens with ultra high resolving lens but its going to need to stick to the tripod or to higher ISO(which is counter productive) to avoid pixel blurr, so what seems to be an edge for the sigma is actually a drawback on non-stabilized sensor of 30MP and +. Thanks for the quality of your work its appreciated. Cheers
The IS factor is a big, big deal with something like the 5DsR. I would love to see Canon do something like Sony's IBIS in the next generation of the camera. It would really help maximize the potential of all those pixels.
Honestly, do you really think the transmission is that much higher on the Canon? I think your lighting situation may have contributed more to any perceived differences there.
In your portrait comparative of your daughter i noticed that the shutter speed of the sigma waa at 160 while the canon was at 125. Therefore the subject was a bit brighter on the canon. What gives?
For sure I see the overall darker look from the sigma which lends it self to having more contrast in many of the situations. To me, the grout looked better on the Sigma as shown, but the actual bricks looked better on the Canon showing more details to my eye, excluding the edges. I haven't fully decided if it's my own bias, so I will keep investigating, but even when the Canon was showing less contrast, it seems to have a "clearer" type look, for lack of a better word. To me It has more of a shine to it( the canon) which could be affected by it's brighter transmission alone however. Thanks
there should be something wrong. at the beginning, taking the picture of the wall and the book (text) canon's shutter speed is higher than sigma to match the exposure. canon's light transmission is higher than sigma, so that's the correct move. but with the portraits shutter speed of the sigma is higher than canon. exposures seems equal tough. what's the reason of that?
@@DustinAbbottTWI but the better transmission means taking more light in any case. no matter you take portrait or landscape. no matter where you focus. when the camera meter it the t-stop should be the same, so the balance of shutter speed and aperture should be same, shouldn't be?
I think your explanation of the 2D vs. 3D rendering of chromatic aberration really cuts to the chase of why DXO and other lens benchmarkers claim the Sigma 85 Art is an Otus killer. It really isn't - and you can clearly see why in your tests :)
when you consider the price of the Sigma 85 and 50mm Art lenses with Auto focus and 99% of the otus image quality it's pretty hard to justify the otus.
I don't think it's 99% the same. More like... 85%. You can get the Otus for about twice the price of the Sigma Art when you buy it second hand, and you have more options with the Otus. Watch Matt Grangers video on adapting it onto the Hasselblad X1D. With the reverse crop factor, it is effectively a 67mm f/1.1 on a medium format camera. That is a very unique feature :)
Canon 2/3 stop better T-stop Canon much better bokeh, especially in the page test and lack of onion in bright lights. IMO the page test, the Canon had much better contrast and the Sigma had a Magenta tint. Th portrait had Sigma with CA on the bokeh circles. IMO, I stopped caring after 2/3 stop less light transmission. I don't want a non-stabilized 1.4 lens that doesn't let in more light.
@john Dont argue With Dustin , all these guys which are popular On RUclips THEY are doying hidden marketing, they work for somebody. There is no doubt that canon overall is a better lens than sigma !!! As you can see even in his photos canon photos are brighter and has a more pleasant contrast. He is trying to say us that an underexposed photo made by sigma means better contrast , which is falls... Canon is doing very good lenses , Sony is using them with a huge pleasure .
DOHC Motors I'm not arguing but mostly agreeing. I think most lend manufacturers are pretty good. I really like new Tamron lenses over the Sigma equivalents.
Sigma's weather sealing on this lens is mostly just a gasket at the lens mount - it does not have internal seals. I wouldn't say that difference alone is worth $400, but I've broken down other factors in this review.
SIR HAVE YOU TESTED THE CANON LENS WITH THE LENS PROFILE ADDEDTO BODY OR WITHOUT. BECAUSE IF YOU ADD THE LENS PROFILE IT WILL COMPENSATE THE CHROMATIC ABBERATIONS. I THINK YOU HAVE CLICKED THESE SAMPLES WITHOUT ATTACHING THE LENS PROFILE ON A CANON BODY.IF YOU HAVE ADDED THE LENS PRTOFILE THE IMAGES BY CANON COULD BE BETTER. PLEASE ANSWER THIS .AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US.THANKS.WAITING FOR THE ANSWER.
My results are with RAW files, and in camera corrections do not affect RAW files; they will have to be corrected in post...and longitudinal CA is not incredibly easy to correct for.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the information.But this type of abberation shows in certain type of pictures not always and sharpness can be increased in photoshop to a level upto sigma lens. Canon is weather sealed light compact lens and image stablisation helps to click amany low light portraits at slow shutter speeds without increasing ISO to obtain maximum detail and smoothness in image which is not possible with sigma so I THINK CANON IS WINNER in this respectif you do not compare price.SIR your opinion as i have already canon 85 1.8 for my 5d mk4 but mostly my pictures in low light portrats suffer from hand shake or slight blur even at speed 1/100.SO I THINK IMAGE STABLISED VERSION WILL PROVE MUCH BENEFICIAL FOR MY KIND OF WORK and I usuallys shoot portraits at f2 or f2.8 so there is control over this chromatic abberation.ANDin the coming days more megapixel camera will demand more higher shutter speeds to get the perfect sharp picture so canon is more desirable lens.The chromatic abberation you were talking about is spherochromatism mostly found on any large aperture lenses.
if answer is complecated then why we watvh your videos . we watch u becouse u will cleared us but if u ur answer is vcmplecated thn how can we go for the right one.
Since every shot from the Canon is brighter even at a faster shutter speed, can we not conclude that the apertures are not equivalent throughout the entire range? Perhaps that is partially causing the Canon to lag in sharpness.
Dustin, in fact, I am convinced this entire video is a comparison of non-equivalent actual aperatures which likely explains all of the descrepancies between the two lenses. I'll bet if you match the DOF by using different aperture settings to achieve equivalent actual aperatures these lenses are going to be much more similar than they appear here.
You deserve so many more subscribers for the sheer amount of detail you put into your reviews and comparisons.
That's kind - here's hoping they come.
Happy holidays! Thanks for all of your reviews throughout the year. Hugs
Thanks - same to you!
Merry Christmas Dustin and thank you for all that you do.
Thank you!
Thanks for the video! This was the one I wanted to see. Very fascinating.
You're welcome.
Excellent. Merry Christmas to you and your family Dustin.
Thank you. Merry Christmas to you, too!
Dustin Abbott thank you!
Liked. I’ve recently implemented the “wifes opinion test” which is: whenever shooting her or her friends i ask “which one do you like yourself better in, the canon or the sigma?” and there seems to always be a landslide for canon. Love this video and think you’re one of the best technical reviewers as you always include real world applications along with chart type stuff. One thing I’ve learned over the last year of watching canon vs sigma across RUclips is to get a sigma if you’re shooting charts and a canon if you like dreamy artistic shots that make people look their best haha 😉. (These are all my personal opinions of course , other commenters reading this: your mileage may vary. Happy holidays)
It is true that Sigma's chart better than in real world applications, though many of them are very good in real world situations as well.
I have sigma lenses, they are cheaper, of incredibly high quality and all my clients love them
The wife test is the best opinion you can have as mind is very harsh indeed !
Thank you so much for your review DA.
You're welcome.
Thank you Dustin Abbott. This is one of the best lens reviews that I have ever watched on RUclips. I especially like your 2D vs 3D test and explanation about DXOMARK. This review covered several different scenarios for testing portrait lenses. Superb Job!
I am not a Canon shooter but your reviews are so good that I continue to watch your channel. I am not sure why you only have 32K subscribers because IMO you have the some of the best reviews bar none. Thanks again best regards.
Well, to be fair, I had half that many subscribers to start the year, so my channel is growing.
Hi Dustin, I apologize... what I was trying to say is that you should easily have 200K + subscribers considering the quality and content in your video reviews. In any event glad to hear that your subscribers doubled in a years time you definitely deserve it. Mele Kalikimaka ;-)
I understood what you were saying, and I appreciate it. I'm just trying to be thankful for the blessings I do have!
Would love either one of them for my 6D mark II, merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Dustin and to your family as well, wishing you all the best for 2018.
I suspect most people would :) Merry Christmas to you, too.
Hmm, i was saving up for the art as a personal no brainer between the F 1.2 and art, but i think i will actually go for the canon 1.4 because of the added benefitt of the IS and better accuracy on the outer focuspoints. Thanks!
People who own the lens have been really positive about it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI which would you recommend for dance photography or low light in using a cannon body?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Same questions as above Dustin: what's the better system for low light and action? Does Canon do better than Sigma? or they're about the same?
thanks for the great comparison review!
My pleasure.
Thanks for yet another splendid review. I also appreciated your choice of verse in the text comparison example. My very best wishes for christmas!
Thanks, Richard. Merrcy Christmas to you.
Thanks for another great comparison!
You’re welcome
Love these review!!!
Thank you!
Thanks for a thorough and professional comparison, Dustin. I know I've already gushed about how much I love the Canon, but I just wanted to add I prefer the results of the Canon on the portraits of your daughter. I think the rendering and skin texture is ideal for portraits.
And that's why I included that comparison. I thought it important for people to be able to see how skin was handled by both lenses.
thank you for your review, my canon 85mm L ii will be arrive today
Enjoy
Many Thanks, Dustin. It is really a very nice review.
A critical question: Are you considering replacing your Tamron 85mm f.18 VC with the new Canon 85mm f.1.4 IS?
I'm not. I'm not unhappy with the Tamron, and my big spend coming up is for the Sony a7R3
Great video, if it wasn’t for the heavy vignette, the Tamron seems to be the best balance (taking into account autofocus) and it has the best price, by far. As you say nowadays is very complicated or not at all selecting a lens : either is difficult because they are close and excel at different areas , or it’s simple : you just peek by heart: they are all so good
Pretty much. The Tamron is definitely a strong value, and outside of the vignette has no major weaknesses.
Fantastic video Dustin. Your tests and methodology were great and really covered the important elements of these portrait lenses. My thoughts are that the performance is so very close as to leave the choice down to the cost of IS. Having owned the 35 and 50 Art lenses I think I'd pay a little more for AF confidence in Canon and I can't even imagine what it'd be like to shoot straight auto-ISO and get critically sharp images.
It's definitely a big factor, Brent, and why I personally prioritize getting Image Stabilization where possible.
Thanks for the nice review! The result is kind of predictable, and I agree with you that IS could make a difference in hand-held situations. BTW, which camera and lens did you use for shooting the video in the beginning talking? The image looks sharp and beautiful!
I used the Sony a6500 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DN lens.
Thank you for this review!
My pleasure.
Another excellent impartial review Dustin, as you say all the lenses you have tested in this 85mm comparison have their strengths and it is now down to the individual to make their own decision which is best for them
I've gotten permission from the lens makers to do an episode where I put them all head to head.
Now that will be a review well worth watching! Ready on Christmas day is it! ;) lol
I've got the tests done, but I have to actually film/create/edit the episode, so maybe we'll shoot for a New Year's release!
Fantastic! this will be a really good head to head to watch! and gives the 'New Years resolution' a whole new meaning! lol, have a wonderful festive break!
God damn best - out of category - reviews on the Internet. Great reviews, Dustin :-)
Thanks for the feedback!
Dustin is a religious man. It may not be cool to use God's name in vain.
Merry Christmas to you and your family Dustin! I loved how you chose the Gospel for the text photos. A "purchasing pickle" I currently have is whether to get the Canon as a lens for all environments, or acquiring the Tamron for walking around and the Samyang for controlled situations. Both options would be roughly the same price. Do you like the wide-open rendering of the Samyang/Rokinon any more than the Canon?
I like your latter option, actually. The Tamron is a great all-round lens, and the Samyang has amazing rendering (and yes, I think it is more special than the Canon).
Thank you sooo much for that review! I've never thought nothing over Canon Brand, but this is just awesome!
You're welcome.
Thank you Dustin for the entire 85 mm lens review series. You’ve covered almost each and every aspect. Considering all the factors so far, Sigma is the winner it seems. Wish you Merry Christmas.
Same to you
Brilliant review - glad to have discovered you! I had the Canon 85mm f/1.4 and went for it because of the IS. However I’ve since traded it in for the Sigma which in the UK is almost half the price at the moment, and have therefore saved a few hundred pounds. I rarely required the IS. The better contrast and sharpness at wide apertures is what makes it for me. The Sigma is a great portrait lens, but I like to use it for a range of purposes. And if I want a softer effect on the skin for an older person, I’ll generally add in some well diffused flash / continuous lighting anyway.
Fair enough.
Paul Fensome having worked with it for a while now the focussing is more hit and miss than with the canon. It’s fast to focus but despite some tweaking with the dock it does tend to front or back focus a little. I think though that all fast focal lengths as long as this (and more) will always result in more fails when you’re shooting wide open. I now tend to shoot at f3.2 or f4 to get around it. And it’s still a lovely lens when stopped down.
Paul Fensome yeah the IS is very useful. I miss that.
@@colliescameraaction8944 Any update on Art vs L ? I see too that Sigma is optically better but I feel like getting the Canon for IS and weather sealing. Did you ever shoot with canon 100mm macro IS? Would that be redundant with 85mm on full frame? I found a 100mm IS L and probably going for it.
I have the old Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM, I am very happy with that lens. IS on a portrait lens is in my eyes less important. Do not go under 1/100 of a second and you get sharp results. If you want to go much slower, then your subject will be moving. So if I had to choose between the 85mm art and the Canon, it would be the Sigma. Although also better IQ as the Canon, the Sigma is a big beast. A little to big? The price off the Sigma is not cheap. Not a huge difference. And yes, there is something to say for the Canon. Canon is of course still a Canon...:) It will be hard to choose for a lot of people. Nice comparison Dustin!
Considering portraits, shooting 1/100 may not be fast enough on a high res camera like the 5DS (or mounted on Fuji GFX 50-100 MP). Since the Canon cameras do not have IBIS, I think IS is all the more important.
Nice Review, Dustin. I presently own the first Gen. Sigma 85mm 1.4, and I really like the images from it. Do you think I would realize enough improvement by upgrading to one of these 85's?
If you are happy with what you have, stick with it. Yes, there are areas these lenses are better, but I think the 85mm f/1.4 EX is an underrated lens.
Great video, Dustin! I'm looking to buy an 85mm and am considering these two alongside the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM.
One question. For the same lighting and settings, the Canon L lens takes all the shots at 1-stop faster shutter speeds than the Sigma Art lens. Is that due to better quality glass of the L series (if that's the case) or something else?
Also, how much would be the combined impact of being able to shoot at a faster shutter speed along with IS and the L lens being lighter than the Sigma Art lens? Is it going to be difficult shooting handheld with the Sigma?
The Sigma can get tiring for some after a while; it's a big lens. The Canon does have slightly better light transmission.
Hey Dustin after watching your video i decided to go with the Sigma, but I am not happy with it. It’s super sharp when it works but most of my pictures comes out blurry on autofocus. Do you have any suggestions?
It sounds like you may need to calibrate focus, at the least with your camera, and preferably with the USB dock. I've got a calibration playlist to help you accomplish that.
Hi Dustin I am going to buy an 85mm and Im deciding between these two. I don't mind so much about the difference in image quality, they're both good. I would go with Sigma but what stop me is the front-back focusing problem, and the fact you have to settle them on the dock. What do you thinkabout this matter? thanks
If you are concerned, I would go with the Canon. It's got AF nailed.
Great thank you very much
You're welcome
Another great video by Dustin, he always gives that deep technical aspect thing with real life use.
FlyGuy has a point and I also use the wife Opinion Test on which photos look best of her and her friends, and non surprisely it not the most technically perfect images with best glass and best DR, exposure etc !
There lies the issue as though the sigma is the sharpest lens perhaps it the warm softer tones of the Canon that pervile....
That's the rendering issue. Some lenses have that bit of special...others don't.
Didn’t he say the sigma looked warmer?!
Thank you for the comparison! Mostly I prefer sigma art when I was a lens for multiple things but I am preferring the soft skin texture and tones of the canon for portraits! You have helped me choose! Thank you!
It's definitely true that some lenses are "kinder" with skin tones than others.
Color me confused: @1:56 you mention shooting Canon 85 lens at "faster" shutter speed because it has more light transmission, however in the portraits @16:00 you have the Sigma now on the left with the "faster" shutter speed. The Canon portraits also look a bit overexposed and hence loosing texture detail and contrast in the skin. Can you explain please?
Both things are connected. The Canon has better light transmission with equal settings, and in this case the light was slightly variable and the lenses didn't meter the same. The Canon slightly overexposed.
Are the brickwork image comparisons done handheld or on a tripod?
Tripod, mirror lockup, etc...
If I am looking to purchase one of these lenses for use on a canon IBIS enabled body (ie. R6) would the benefit of IS be negligible? As the body already has IS and focusing accuracy be negligible as it is a mirrorless body?
Definitely a body with IBIS helps close the gap between the two. Focus accuracy will be improved on both lenses, though I did find that the Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART in Sony FE form wasn’t quite as accurate as competing lenses.
Great video, Dustin! Happy Holidays! :)
Thanks - same to you.
Dustin, for someone whom IS isn't important which one in your opinion delivers the best image?
The Sigma is sharper while the Canon has nicer bokeh. You have to choose your priority.
Great review Dustin.
The most important point to me is the real world value of IS on high resolution bodies.
Which in the end of the day is pointing towards Sony with IBIS.
Wondering when Canon / Nikon will give us access to this technology.
Thanks again
I agree. Sony's IBIS is very valuable.
Marry Christmas for you, your beautiful wife, your lovely kids and all the people in Canada in the snow.
Thank you!
I think 85mm F1.4IS has the best Transmission out of all F1.2 F1.4 85mm bar the Otus. Canon really jam packed lots of technology into this amazing lens while maintaining 77mm filter thread and least light loss.
Agreed, though I wish they would have done a better job controlling CA on it.
For video work, would you say the Canon would be more ideal due to it's IS?
Definitely, if you don't have some other kind of stabilizer in your workflow.
hi have a question for you is it possible to use Fuji's 2x(black) converter with this lens? and more so is it possible to use the 1.4 (white converter)together with the 2x (black converter)converter at the same time thus giving 3.4 x magnification to the FUJIFILM XF200 F2 R LM OIS WR LENS
Curious place to post this question, but teleconverters are not designed to be stacked.
Great review Dustin . I must say I was surprised to see warmer better skin tones on the Sigma . Both lenses are amazing . If I was a wedding shooter I would go with the Canon . For studio I would go with the Sigma. Thanks for the stellar work you do .
Sounds fair to me.
Dustin, could you please compare the canon 85mm 1.2 vs canon 85mm 1.4? thanks
I’m afraid my time is up with the lens. I’ll do my final review, and then I’m moving on to other things!
Canon 85mm 1.2 sucks it’s to slow and has to search
Hi Dustin
Taking in account that EF 85mm f/1.4 is considerably more expensive than its Sigma sibling, and that in my country Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART and Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM have the same price tag, wich one of those two lenses would you recommend, mostly for portraits?
Thanks in advance
Best regards
I would probably go with the Sigma, mostly because the focal length is more flexible. I actually like the look of images from a 135 more, but it can be too long a focal length in some settings.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks again!
How much of the contrast difference is explained by the better light transmission of the CANON and its chromatic abberation?
CA is a big, big part. Light transmission should not be a big factor. It's a positive, not a negative.
Thank you for your responses and keep up the great work!
Very useful!!!!!
Glad to hear it!
thank you Dustin
My pleasure.
I have only one question? To witch one will take a BEATING? Better than the other? REALLY? I am serious! I run a studio that goes it many different directions and have a bit of moving parts.
I suspect the Canon is the better made lens.
Can you do canon 85 1.4 vs canon 85 1.2 Mark II video? Thanks. Btw. Actually I like canon more because of softness and skin tone it renders in portrait. Great video. Keep doing it.
I'm afraid my time with the Canon is about up, and I'm shutting things down for Christmas.
Ty for the video. I think you must compare images at the same shutter speeds.. İn girl portraits... canon shutter speeds slower and its normally brighter..:))
Fantastic video of two excellent pieces of glass!!! Thanks for the review. We really needed a proper head to head. Which one for me? Probably get the Canon. But Sigma has really closed the gap for third party lenses.
Definitely has.
Once again good video.I am glad I bought The Sigma.On my 77D it has made it ideal for wildlife portraits at higher shutter speeds.As it becomes a 135mm f1.4.I also have a Samsung NX 1 with a click aperture Canon lens adapter Portraits are blown out of the water.ps I notice on your desk in your videos you have an eco-tank.For my Christmas present, I have upgraded to the new eco-tank 7750 A3 printer.Have a look printing Christmas cards has never been cheaper.My old eco-tank I had over two years.
Although it was not a photo printer I was getting good prints.Once again have Happy Christmas and I look forward to your reviews in 2018
The eco-tank printers are great for day to day stuff. I have a wide format printer for photography.
Thanks Dustin ❤
You're welcome.
Dustin Abbott definitely going to get sigma 85 art again
I think your daughter is tired of taking pictures for your reviews. 😂
LOL. I didn't want smiles - just wanted her as still as possible!
LOL!
How is their AF speed and how it compares to the Tamron 85 f/1.8? I'm thinking on my R5 for indoor sports and events.
The focus speed order would be Canon, Sigma, and Tamron, with Canon being easily the fastest.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Tnx
@@DustinAbbottTWI tnx
Многие думают, что меняя линзы на камере, будет меняться только фокусное расстояние и светосила. Но это не совсем так. Будет меняться полностью картинка, её характер, цвета, резкость и много ещё чего. Поэтому существует понятие связки камера-оптика. Если хотите, могу подсказать те связки, которые я лично пробовал и знаю. Это 1Dx с 85/1,4 и 1DxMII с 35/1,4II. Мне именно эти связки просто показались очень интересными по картинке.
Thanks for the video. I can’t believe how good these 3rd party lenses have gotten.
It's true, isn't it.
You mentioned the Tamron in the review but I don't remember you coming back to talk about it. What are your thoughts about it vs these two? I remember you really liking it and wanting to add it to your kit when you reviewed it.
I covered that thoroughly in the first "Image Quality" portion.
I guess I need to go back and watch it. Not sure how I missed it. Thanks
ruclips.net/video/iJqcXqOaOLE/видео.html
Dustin Abbott are you speaking of another video? I rewatched and in the beginning you mentioned circling back to the Tamron but it’s not mentioned again.
I shared the link in this discussion. It's another video
I will take Canon any day. I have Canon 85mm 1.8 and lack of IS really comes into effect at 85mm really hard to hand hold lens in the church at low shutter speeds. I get blurry or noisy but sharp images..
IS meets a very real need at this focal length.
I think the in focus areas look better from the Sigma (sharper, more contrasty, a bit less ca) but the out of focus areas look better from the Canon (smoother bokeh, I think partially because the Sigma is a little bit shy of 85mm). Globally, without going into a 1:1 view, I slightly prefer the Canon look. Apart from that Canon offers better af and is, so the Canon wins it for me. But the Sigma is a really good lens too...
That's a sound conclusion.
The Canon corners appeared to perform much better this go-around, in relation to how bad they looked in the Tamron video - very odd. This video more reflects my findings when I compared the two lenses before I sold my Sigma. The Art is clearly the resolution powerhouse on paper and in a lab, but I had a very difficult time finding a clear advantage in the real world. I took the two lenses out on a few walks with me and shot similar situations and as close to identical shots as I could - handheld. When the files we're brought to my computer, I couldn't say the Sigma held that advantage. For one, we've discussed and you've documented the autofocus inconsistencies. But primarily, the heft of the Sigma really impacts it's ability to get sharp images unless you are extremely careful or have the luxury of higher shutter speed on your side. When the planets align just right, you are rewarded with impeccable image quality. But, with the Canon, I can get better results 90% of the time, and the advantages held by the Sigma are only really seen at a pixel level. I also find myself preferring the bokeh from the Canon as well. So, for me, the choice was incredibly simple: take a small step back in potential resolving power and optical performance for a tremendously more useful lens.
My year of owning and using the Sigma professionally was nothing short of a photographer's nightmare. I absolutely didn't trust it. I chimped nearly every single shot because I could take 4 or 5 and all of them would be perfect....or sometimes maybe one or two were. In the environment I work it I couldn't keep using it. So far the Canon has been stupendous. It kicked ass at a wedding this month and really created some stellar portraits since I've taken ownership - no chimping necessary!!!
I'm glad it is working out for you. I'll show later a comparison with all four lenses shot at the same time and identical lighting conditions.
Thank you
You're welcome.
The more 85mm tests, reviews and comparisons I watch and read, the happier I am with my Otus 85mm, despite its lack of AF.
It remains the best.
19:32 The Canon was shot at 1/125 and Sigma 1/160. Canon looked slightly overexposed.
It’s a hard call when two lenses meter differently. No matter what you do it ends up favouring one lens or another.
That's what I noticed too. Confusing since @1:58 Dustin mention shooting the Canon at a "faster" shutter speed because it has better light transmission (i.e. transmission T-stop is faster, however DXOMARK still does not have the Canon 85mm f1.4 IS in their lens database)
Thanks for the detailed comparison. For just a few hundred dollars more I think the Canon wins for me. The IS plus it's a Canon L series so it should retain it's resale value.
Your latter point is a very valid one. I've had very good success with L series lenses holding their value.
I am confused now. You say several time during the video "Tamron". So are you reviewing Tamron or Canon.
I did cover the Tamron as a part of this same series...but it could have been that I misspoke at some point. This review was dozens of reviews ago...
Sticking with my Canon 85mm 1.2l ii -- for its unique rendering, etc. Those who know know what that lens can do!
It's been valued by top portrait photographers for a long time, and I doubt that is going to change. You can process for its weaknesses.
As a portrait lens Canon is better to my eyes. For example at 19.07 in Canon her eyelashes look as sharp as sigma (and cleaner) but OOF part is smoother (her cheek). One caveat though, here Canon had lower shutter speed. So, precise comparison is difficult as brightness is not the same. Page test was very interesting. Let's stop at 10.50. 'governor' was focused with both lenses. It appears that behind the plane of focus Canon starts to blur sooner than Sigma and blurred area is smoother in Canon (we don't want high contrast in blurred areas). In front of the plane of focus Canon seems to do better too. 'also went up' appears uniformly smooth in Canon, Sigma appears busy with camera shake like effect. The caveat is that the plane of focus (angle) could have been different. So, these assumptions may not be accurate. And there is the bokeh balls or highlights. Canon is smoother. Canon is actually marginally smoother than Otus. Canon wanted to strike a balance between maximum sharpness and maximum smoothness. In this regard I like Canon's output more than any other lens for this FL. Wish it had slightly less CA though.
The Sigma is a little short of 85mm, and it hurts it in comparisons like with the test. The two lenses did not meter the same, but the difference amounts to 1/3 stop, and I've previous demonstrated that this does not impact contrast in any fundamental way. I agree that the bokeh quality is smoother from the Canon.
I’m currently a proud owner of the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4. I understand that the price between the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS and the Milvus 85mm f1.4 is somewhat narrow. So I would like to seek your personal opinion if you would sell a Milvus 85mm to buy the canon 85mm f1.4 to gain the auto-focus, the IS and the weight advantage as a trade-off with the IQ over the Milvus? Thank you very much in advance! (a fan from Bangkok Thailand)
I don't know that I can answer that question for you. It really depends on your shooting style and the importance of AF and IS to your photography.
I have been stuck with this dilemma for a couple of weeks already. The Milvus is a real stunner in terms of the IQ with creamy smooth boke and I’m very sure that the canon 85 would lack the micro contrast of that of the Milvus but the Canon is an obvious winner in terms of practicality. My heart leans towards keeping the Milvus using the 5D IV. My guess is, with your shooting style, you would also keep a Milvus 85mm over a Canon 85mm? By the way, I bought the Milvus after watching your review last year :)
And that's why I'm torn.
Thank you Dustin! Please keep up the great reviews :)
What about the Milvus 85?
That's not going to make it into this comparison, as I didn't have one and asked for the Otus instead from Zeiss.
So, Canon is better for wedding photo.
TY Dustin!
I think that's true, mostly because of the IS.
I still prefer the cannon low light performance, really crazy slow shutter speed.
It's a low light beast.
Wow bro good job
Thank you so much 😀
Wow, Sigma definitely looks great! Thanks for a great review.
My pleasure.
IS, better focusing, softer contrast for smoother skin. Canon nailed it. Who wants crispy skin besides Clarity nerds?
Different shooters have different priorities
Agreed, but I would put my skin remark in the "taste" category which well, taste is taste.
Adding micro contrast or softening an image is easy in both ways so I wouldn't take "sharpness"
as a buying criteria (on high end class which are all sharp enough nowadays).
I would add something to your IS view, we should also start considering that with the increase of pixel count in sensors
IS come into play at faster speeds as you mentionned for "hand held situation". For example I wouldn't shoot a 85mm on a 5DSR under 1/400 to be 100% sure to get sharp images.
You may have a lens with ultra high resolving lens but its going to need to stick to the tripod or to higher ISO(which is counter productive) to avoid pixel blurr, so what seems to be an edge for the sigma is actually a drawback on non-stabilized sensor of 30MP and +.
Thanks for the quality of your work its appreciated.
Cheers
The IS factor is a big, big deal with something like the 5DsR. I would love to see Canon do something like Sony's IBIS in the next generation of the camera. It would really help maximize the potential of all those pixels.
I bought the Canon 85 mm f1.4 IS and now I feel cheated :-(. But the IS is something I need (not a very stable hand), so I hope I made a good choice
If you enjoy the lens, then don’t worry about what you don’t have.
Honestly, do you really think the transmission is that much higher on the Canon? I think your lighting situation may have contributed more to any perceived differences there.
I've seen it in multiple situations, not just the one shown in the comparison. I absolutely believe there is a difference.
Yes he is right third party lenses have issues and they eat light hence increasing our iso
I just bought the Sigma as it was on sale, I would have loved the IS of the Canon but not for an extra $600.
I get it - that's a big price difference.
In your portrait comparative of your daughter i noticed that the shutter speed of the sigma waa at 160 while the canon was at 125. Therefore the subject was a bit brighter on the canon. What gives?
Difference in metering. The Canon lens metered a little more accurately.
For sure I see the overall darker look from the sigma which lends it self to having more contrast in many of the situations. To me, the grout looked better on the Sigma as shown, but the actual bricks looked better on the Canon showing more details to my eye, excluding the edges. I haven't fully decided if it's my own bias, so I will keep investigating, but even when the Canon was showing less contrast, it seems to have a "clearer" type look, for lack of a better word. To me It has more of a shine to it( the canon) which could be affected by it's brighter transmission alone however. Thanks
The reason I actually present my findings instead of just giving my conclusions is for this very reason. You can interpret the data yourself.
That makes sense. I agree that is the best way to present things.
why dont you shot in same shutter speed?
The two lenses have a difference in light transmission. One is underexposed if you use the same values for both.
I’m in the market for a 85mm but I’m so afraid to buy the Sigma, I keep hearing of focus issues with Sigma, some say it’s downright awful.
I've heard similar stories, and have had issues with earlier Sigma lenses, though I had fairly good results with the two copies that I've reviewed.
Which lance is best bro canon vs sigma
Lance?
Not compare to cannon to sigma cannon L series 85 mm 1.4 is its best Lenses but more expensive
there should be something wrong. at the beginning, taking the picture of the wall and the book (text) canon's shutter speed is higher than sigma to match the exposure. canon's light transmission is higher than sigma, so that's the correct move. but with the portraits shutter speed of the sigma is higher than canon. exposures seems equal tough. what's the reason of that?
There are a few things that can influence shutter speed like metering, for one. I did find the Canon had a little better light transmission
@@DustinAbbottTWI but the better transmission means taking more light in any case. no matter you take portrait or landscape. no matter where you focus. when the camera meter it the t-stop should be the same, so the balance of shutter speed and aperture should be same, shouldn't be?
Liked the video before watched it.....
That's faith, I guess.
Dustin Abbott for sure! Your videos are always on point. 👌🏻
Yes. At the latest since the Samyang 135 review your comparisons/reviews on another level! I bought the Samyang and I love this lens.
I think your explanation of the 2D vs. 3D rendering of chromatic aberration really cuts to the chase of why DXO and other lens benchmarkers claim the Sigma 85 Art is an Otus killer. It really isn't - and you can clearly see why in your tests :)
when you consider the price of the Sigma 85 and 50mm Art lenses with Auto focus and 99% of the otus image quality it's pretty hard to justify the otus.
I don't think it's 99% the same. More like... 85%. You can get the Otus for about twice the price of the Sigma Art when you buy it second hand, and you have more options with the Otus. Watch Matt Grangers video on adapting it onto the Hasselblad X1D. With the reverse crop factor, it is effectively a 67mm f/1.1 on a medium format camera. That is a very unique feature :)
99%? You need to try the Otus lenses before making that conclusion - not true at all.
The Sigma does look sharper/more contrast wide open!
It is the sharper of the two
Canon 2/3 stop better T-stop
Canon much better bokeh, especially in the page test and lack of onion in bright lights.
IMO the page test, the Canon had much better contrast and the Sigma had a Magenta tint.
Th portrait had Sigma with CA on the bokeh circles.
IMO, I stopped caring after 2/3 stop less light transmission. I don't want a non-stabilized 1.4 lens that doesn't let in more light.
The light transmission is a real asset.
@john
Dont argue With Dustin , all these guys which are popular On RUclips THEY are doying hidden marketing, they work for somebody.
There is no doubt that canon overall is a better lens than sigma !!!
As you can see even in his photos canon photos are brighter and has a more pleasant contrast.
He is trying to say us that an underexposed photo made by sigma means better contrast , which is falls...
Canon is doing very good lenses , Sony is using them with a huge pleasure .
DOHC Motors I'm not arguing but mostly agreeing. I think most lend manufacturers are pretty good. I really like new Tamron lenses over the Sigma equivalents.
Sigma not weather sealing for "real work" use? $400 extra for Canon weather sealing?
Sigma's weather sealing on this lens is mostly just a gasket at the lens mount - it does not have internal seals. I wouldn't say that difference alone is worth $400, but I've broken down other factors in this review.
SIR HAVE YOU TESTED THE CANON LENS WITH THE LENS PROFILE ADDEDTO BODY OR WITHOUT. BECAUSE IF YOU ADD THE LENS PROFILE IT WILL COMPENSATE THE CHROMATIC ABBERATIONS. I THINK YOU HAVE CLICKED THESE SAMPLES WITHOUT ATTACHING THE LENS PROFILE ON A CANON BODY.IF YOU HAVE ADDED THE LENS PRTOFILE THE IMAGES BY CANON COULD BE BETTER. PLEASE ANSWER THIS .AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US.THANKS.WAITING FOR THE ANSWER.
My results are with RAW files, and in camera corrections do not affect RAW files; they will have to be corrected in post...and longitudinal CA is not incredibly easy to correct for.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the information.But this type of abberation shows in certain type of pictures not always and sharpness can be increased in photoshop to a level upto sigma lens. Canon is weather sealed light compact lens and image stablisation helps to click amany low light portraits at slow shutter speeds without increasing ISO to obtain maximum detail and smoothness in image which is not possible with sigma so I THINK CANON IS WINNER in this respectif you do not compare price.SIR your opinion as i have already canon 85 1.8 for my 5d mk4 but mostly my pictures in low light portrats suffer from hand shake or slight blur even at speed 1/100.SO I THINK IMAGE STABLISED VERSION WILL PROVE MUCH BENEFICIAL FOR MY KIND OF WORK and I usuallys shoot portraits at f2 or f2.8 so there is control over this chromatic abberation.ANDin the coming days more megapixel camera will demand more higher shutter speeds to get the perfect sharp picture so canon is more desirable lens.The chromatic abberation you were talking about is spherochromatism mostly found on any large aperture lenses.
if answer is complecated then why we watvh your videos . we watch u becouse u will cleared us but if u ur answer is vcmplecated thn how can we go for the right one.
Since every shot from the Canon is brighter even at a faster shutter speed, can we not conclude that the apertures are not equivalent throughout the entire range? Perhaps that is partially causing the Canon to lag in sharpness.
...this is further supported by the consistently more out of focus bokeh on the Canon.
...and furthermore by the shorter DOF on the Canon.
Dustin, in fact, I am convinced this entire video is a comparison of non-equivalent actual aperatures which likely explains all of the descrepancies between the two lenses. I'll bet if you match the DOF by using different aperture settings to achieve equivalent actual aperatures these lenses are going to be much more similar than they appear here.
....the matching bokeh blur radius is a full stop different!
...perhaps the actual focal lengths of the two lenses are different too?
Shtory??? what does that mean?
I'm not sure what you are referencing. I've done dozens of reviews since this one. You'll have to be more specific.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sorry just me being a dufus
canon seems brighter may be due to in-camera lens profile adjustment
Not true. All of that is turned off, and in camera profiles can't increase light transmission, only account for peripheral illumination.
I believe the canon portrait of your daughter it's brighter that's why you have the impression on lack of contrast and details in skin.
My comments and findings are based on hundreds of photos, though, and not just that particular comparison.