Sigma Lens 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

[gregc]

Hi

I'm thinking about getting a Sigma Lens 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for my Nikon, mainly because the 85mm f/1.4G is a little expensive. However, as part of my research I came across a few blogs that indicate that there are problems with the AutoFocus.

Does anyone know that this is still the case? Could someone make a suggest as to an alternative lens. I'm interested in Portrait and Product photography.

Thanks.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi

I'm thinking about getting a Sigma Lens 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for my Nikon, mainly because the 85mm f/1.4G is a little expensive. However, as part of my research I came across a few blogs that indicate that there are problems with the AutoFocus.

Does anyone know that this is still the case? Could someone make a suggest as to an alternative lens. I'm interested in Portrait and Product photography.

Thanks.

Greetngs Greg, if it were me I'd take a serious look at the Nikkor 85 mm AF-S 1.8 instead. It is an outstanding lens and frankly I think a much better value for the money. I mean how often do you think you'd really be shooting wide open at 1.4?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens 2201 B&H Photo Video

I own an 85 1.8 myself, and it's probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever worked with - it's one I could recommend as being a "must have" for most people.

 

[goodguy]

Hi

I'm thinking about getting a Sigma Lens 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM for my Nikon, mainly because the 85mm f/1.4G is a little expensive. However, as part of my research I came across a few blogs that indicate that there are problems with the AutoFocus.

Does anyone know that this is still the case? Could someone make a suggest as to an alternative lens. I'm interested in Portrait and Product photography.

Thanks.

Greetngs Greg, if it were me I'd take a serious look at the Nikkor 85 mm AF-S 1.8 instead. It is an outstanding lens and frankly I think a much better value for the money. I mean how often do you think you'd really be shooting wide open at 1.4?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens 2201 B&H Photo Video

I own an 85 1.8 myself, and it's probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever worked with - it's one I could recommend as being a "must have" for most people.

Just adding my vote for considering the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, yes you are getting a bit less light but this lens is so outstanding that I would say for 95% of the time it will be all that you will need and more.
And it is much cheaper!

 

[Derrel]

Other options: 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. Better, much smoother, prettier out of focus backgrounds with this lens than the other good option, the 85/1.8 AF-S G, which is VERY SHARP, but is rather clinical in its overall rendering.

Look at the Digital REV YouTube video comparing the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM against the older 85mm f/1.4 AF-D that I suggest.



Look at the first shot of the Sigma on the blue tit bird sculture: just LOOK at that awful blue-ish color fringing from the Sigma on the bird at the 4:09 mark....yeeech!

 

[CmazzJK]

Other options: 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. Better, much smoother, prettier out of focus backgrounds with this lens than the other good option, the 85/1.8 AF-S G, which is VERY SHARP, but is rather clinical in its overall rendering.

Look at the Digital REV YouTube video comparing the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM against the older 85mm f/1.4 AF-D that I suggest.



Look at the first shot of the Sigma on the blue tit bird sculture: just LOOK at that awful blue-ish color fringing from the Sigma on the bird at the 4:09 mark....yeeech!

I don't think I am looking at the right, errr.....

 

[Gavjenks]

The sigma and nikkor look pretty much identical in bokeh and (lack of) fringing to me in the above video, in all of the shots except the girl holding the bird out at arm's length, which is bizarrely really different looking all of the sudden.

Not feeling like a $300 difference to me. Feels more like a "spend 10 minutes learning the narrow set of circumstances where it might happen to be slightly different and then avoid them and save $300 you can use to buy a whole other lens"


Also check out the Rokinon 85 1.4 manual focus, if you're willing to tolerate that. Not good if you need to make a living off of this stuff, but for fun, it's pretty nice. Easy to focus by eye to 2.8 and then for 1.4 I just use LCD to good success. Slower, that's all. But also 1/3 the price, and my copy is plenty sharp and well built.

 

[Derrel]

The sigma and nikkor look pretty much identical in bokeh and (lack of) fringing to me in the above video, in all of the shots except the girl holding the bird out at arm's length, which is bizarrely really different looking all of the sudden.

Not feeling like a $300 difference to me. Feels more like a "spend 10 minutes learning the narrow set of circumstances where it might happen to be slightly different and then avoid them and save $300 you can use to buy a whole other lens"


Also check out the Rokinon 85 1.4 manual focus, if you're willing to tolerate that. Not good if you need to make a living off of this stuff, but for fun, it's pretty nice. Easy to focus by eye to 2.8 and then for 1.4 I just use LCD to good success. Slower, that's all. But also 1/3 the price, and my copy is plenty sharp and well built.

The 85/1.4 AF-D was long known as "the Cream Machine" by the type of internet-era bokeh fanatics who love to obsess over such things and give lenses pet names. I've owned the lens since the early 2000's, before "full-frame digital" was a reality, and the megapixel counts were very low, like 2.7 MP to 4.2 MP. On those crop-body cameras, the 85/1.4 AF-D never really was able to show what it had. Same with the 6-megapixel cameras. I remember the very first day I got the D2x, and used the 85/1.4 AF-D on it. I can STILL recall the first session I shot with it, and seeing how the lens performed on a camera that actually had enough resolution to realllllly make use of the optics. That was in the spring of 2005.

What you'll see in actual use and ownership of the 1.4 AF-D is much more than Kai's half-assed "comparison" shows. The Sigma has awful, swirling bokeh when used on natural foliage and trees type s of backgrounds at wide f/stops...it's a poor bokeh lens, **IF** you have an appreciation for bokeh and can actually identify the type of bokeh a lens produces. The Nikkor's produces a more neutral, Nikon-family glass color than the SIgma's characteristic "yellow Sigma look", which is pretty serious if you're a Nikon user.And that cannot be post-processed out. It's not just a white balance issue, it's much more than that. I can assure you one thing": the older 85/1.4 AF-D Nikkor is worth much more than $300 compared to a yellow-glass Sigma...but only **if** you have a well-developed sense of how gorgeous bokeh looks, compared against average bokeh.

The thing is--Kai's shots in an urban setting are a poor testing ground for bokeh in "typical" portrait settings. Long-distance, urban high rise buildings, and metal pipe railings...not the typical "portrait" nor typical "nature" type. Unless one shoots a lot in those settings. I just linked to Kai's video because I happened to watch it yesterday, and noticed how much CA the Sigma has. We have a few members here that have bought the 85/1.4 from Sigma, and on typical "backyard" or "park-like setting" portraits, the Siggy produces what I think is sub-par, busy background bokeh.

Sorry, but as an actual decade-long owner, you're incredsibly far off in your hypothetical dismissal above, the "10 minutes learning the narrow set of circumstances"...you are so far wrong, it's not even funny...the lens is legendary in what it does, and why it was designed as it was. The corners are fairly soft, with a sharp central image area, all the way down to f/5.6,and the OOF background rendering is SUPERB on people. It is however, not nearly as bitingly sharp across the entire image field as the 85/1.8 AF-S G, which is one of the HIGHEST-resolving lenses available from any manufacturer, at under $4,000. Clinically, bitingly sharp, versus "a beautiful imagers", versus yellowish, and average.

 

[Derrel]

A few observations about lenses, based on 30+ years in the Nikon system and eight years with Canon: the best portrait lens and the best lens for products is not the same lens.

ALL lens brands have a typical "family" rendition. THis has been true in LF, MF, and 35mm format lenses. Sigma is both warm, and also yellowish on Nikon, at every white balance setting, and every frame. Tokina is cool, like Nikkors. Sigmas look better on Canon digital than on Nikon digital.

Bokeh rendering differences can be either subtle, or of huge and obvious difference. Bokeh can also be situationally/subject-matter oriented, and even really good bokeh lenses, like the Nikkor 70-200 VR-I, can under the right situations, look "awful".

The ONLY WAY to really get to know a lens is to shoot it for at least a full year. Why? Lighting is the biggest reason; in the winter in much of north America, it is very difficult to see how well a lens resists direct, bright sun, and it's difficult to see how it handles low-contrast, flat light during most of the bright-weather months. "SOME lenses" can produce very crisp and high-contrast images when shot in low-light, flat-lighted conditions, like open shade. The 85mm f/1.4 and the 135mm f/2 and 105mm f/2 DC Nikkors are good examples of lenses that produce HIGH contrast in low-light and flat-lighting conditions.

The typical on-line lens 'evaluation' is very often based on the following type and kind of scenario:

"HEY! here is my new lens test! XXmm f/2.8 Anybrand! I JUST bought this lens yesterday, and took it to one place, and shot it for 22 minutes, along, and I just have to say that the new XXmm f/2.8 Anybrand! is a splendid performer!~ It's awesome! Me likey! You'd likey too! It happens to be the very FIRST XXmm lens that I have ever shot, but take my word for it--the XXmm f/2.8 Anybrand! is a superb performer. Take it from me, in 22 minutes of use, the XXmm f/2.8 Anybrand! proved it's freakin' without peer! It is just as good as lenses costing three to ten times as much money! I should know, because well, I bought it, and have no other experience to go buy, so, trust me!"

The web is FILLED with "lens comparisons" and "lens tests" like the scenario above. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Go HERE instead, and see lenses that have actually been shot a LOT, on different cameras, for long stretches of time:

The recommended gear list ? Ming Thein | Photographer

and for the 85/1.8 AF-S G that I recommend to most people, go here: Lens review: The Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G ? Ming Thein | Photographer