You don't buy an 85mm f1.8 for shooting a lot of depth of field. f1.4 seems a clear advantage especially if it doesn't come with added cost, weight, or slower focus or other optical weakness.

I just can't see anybody who's shopping for fast 85mm primes not caring about the difference between f1.4 and f1.8.

Doesn't come with added cost? Isn't it way more expensive?

yeah the sony 1.8 is a bargain, and what 1/2 the price of the new ART lens (Which looks stellar and will be the best on the market) - they're aimed at different people.

Looking forward to the 105 and 135 re-designs, the 105mm in particular can be made a lot smaller - like nikons

if you will stop listening to the Talking Heads on the Tube like "Abbot" you will discover not everything Sony makes is good...

I like their picture tubes.

I like the Samyang and it does perform exceptionally for what it is. Tough to say where the Sigma will compare. My hunch is image quality right in the ballpark if not a tick better and weather sealing and build quality superior. Though the Samyang does have some magic at 1.4 and is really cheap. Probably never get the Sigma.

Except it's well... an EF lens, and except that combined with the RF adapter it's longer and almost as heavy as the RF 85 1.2... well yes I've already heard of the EF 85 1.4.
This sigma is way more appealing to me.

@Viggo Not an RF lens

It is...tempting I mean

It does indeed seem to have major pincushion distortion. There's always a trade-off. I'll guess we'll have to wait for curved sensors or some other future technology to get fast, compact lenses without any significant compromises, but until then, we'll "fix it in post."

I would hold off on the compromising sharpness thoughts... This lens is sharp at f/1.4 edge to edge. It's insanely sharp according to the video I saw.

@theprehistorian KY stated that he was initially against computational corrections, but they gained experience with them for commissions. He changed his mind about them when he realised how effective they were for specific things like distortion, and that this would liberate greater optical design in other aspects of the lens - i.e. which otherwise would have been compromised in the effforts to correct them optically. No doubt they won't take this approach every time, but expect it more often for mirrourless designs.

Probably like a George Cloony, just too good looking!

You can always blur the image later...

@mholdef

//They seemed to have solved this with this lens, so looking forward to some native glass for Nikon Z.//

I doubt you'll see any Sigma DN lenses for Z mount - it doesn't have the adoption aside form the fact that it's closed.

@mholdef

Well, you're transposing the market model that existed under DSLRs, but that was a different time and a simpler technology.

S-mount is much larger than e-mount. It's a completely different design philosophy. Sigma would need to be making lenses for S-mount first and they would frankly be too big to match a Sony body comfortably. Sony users wouldn't buy them. Nikon would need to open the protocol too as mirrorless lenses rely on body integration in a way that DSLR ones don't.

Actually, Sigma have stated several times that it is the wide angle lenses which can be far more compact with snub-mount designs

Comparing f1.2 with f1.4... Ok. Why not f1.4 against f1.8 for $299?

RF 85/1.2 -does not care or need your opinion.

"That extra 1/3 stop though"

- Canon Boomer

@mr_win where would u need any of that gear for ur insta snaps zoomer ?

What about the Sony 85/1,4? Sigma, being a third party mfgr., should be compared to other third party makers. Plus there is the problem of if/when Sigma release it on the RF mount, essentially removing the argument further from relation.

Third party lenses almost always are cheaper than first party options.

@vscd

//Comparing f1.2 with f1.4... Ok. Why not f1.4 against f1.8 for $299?//

The EF 85/1.8?

• Not a native lens
• 1full stop slower
• Not even remotely optically comparable
• No aperture ring
• Not weather-sealed

@Viggo

//Not if you’ve used the RF85//

The 85/1.2RF is probably the best 85 on the market, optically, although it may be behind the L-mount APO-Summicron 90, which costs even more and of course is at least a stop slower give or take.

But this new Sigma lens has 3 low dispersion glasses and is unlikely to be far behind the Canon.

The point is you aren't going to see any benefit from shooting the R5 + 85RF over the A7rIV + Sigma in terms of image quality - or probably speed or ease of use and you save £2.5K and a third of the weight.

You'd have to be pretty dedicated to shooting Canon to not want that.

@shigzeo

//What about the Sony 85/1,4? Sigma, being a third party mfgr., should be compared to other third party makers.//

Why? The Sigma is a native e-mount lens.

//Plus there is the problem of if/when Sigma release it on the RF mount, essentially removing the argument further from relation.//

I'm making the argument now and the point is the Sigma isn't available for RF mount.

If you want to buy a high resolution milc and a portrait lens for say commercial work, you have to pay a lot more money for the Canon badge with no gain in performance.

Canon could have made the 85RF an f1.4, dropped half the weight and cost and it would have made the system more commercially viable in my opinion. At the moment, to an outsider, at least, it looks like they are taxing their users heavily for features they probably don't want, like 1/3 f-stop and 8K.

Canon users like to slam Sony users over 'pointless specs' but in some regards Canon seems to be bringing the pointless specs these days.

@Viggo

//And for me to sell my RF85 to buy a Sigma//

The proposition is for people without either camera or lens, obviously.

//And it will not beat the RF85//

I would hope the RF85 is better than the new Sigma as it is almost three times the price.

//The best glass cost and weighs, name of the game.//

Canon knows it's users and obviously calculated that many will cough up £1.5K extra for a third of a stop and the bragging rights.

//I’ve had preeeetty much every L ever made.//

'L' designation is a 1980s marketing strategy that Canon even applied retrospectively to some of it's lenses. It encompasses a range of quality and specifications. Boasting about having had most of them is probably not the stamp of connoisseurship you imagine...

I took pictures for more then 20 years with Canon 1.2/85 mm L and L II -
both had trouble with focus, both had horrible CA

both should be cleared now in the R version - but Canon is by far to late, and the Sony GM has such a fantastic look, or even the fabulous Nikkor 1.4/105 - I don't need Canon anymore.

Anyone dm who describes a lens as “it’s very good for the price” just lost me... is it or isn’t it? That’s the question, to not realize a lens who’s better is more expensive is ignorant at best.

I didn’t mean to brag about owning all of them, it was meant as a “I have experience using them and I know what they’re about”. And of course there’s a difference between the 17-40 and the RF85. At the time of release most of them were top of the line in there specified segment. I assume you know that though.

Again, you’re not paying 1,5 k for 1/3 stop more light and bragging rights, but if you don’t understand why you pay more, give it a try or stop the assumptions.

@Viggo

//you’re not paying 1,5 k for 1/3 stop more light and bragging rights//

That is exactly what you are paying for. Canon could have made the lens an f1.4, shaved at least a grand of the price and probably made it even better optically as wide aperture lenses necessarily have more aberrations and reduced contrast/flare resistance.

@RubberDials
//////////one stop slower ///////////

\\\\\\\\\\\\No.f2 is one stop slower \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\!!!!

Add the Z7 + 85mm f1.8 S and you have even cheaper, lighter and IMHO yet better optically.

And frankly speaking you have already more than enough DoF control at f1.8 for 99% of portraits applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

@Viggo, not sure if you've seen Dustin's review, and that the 85 GM and 85 art are very comparable in background blur. 1/3 stop is hardly even noticeable, and negligible. That's right, NEGLIGIBLE. The RF 85 weighing near DOUBLE the 85 Art...... that's a big difference. Optics will be a wash considering Christopher Frost has tested it to be one of the sharpest ever tested...... On top of the smooth bokeh. You act like people havent used sharp lenses wide open, and that the RF 85 is some sort of anomaly. It's not.

Rubber:

Are sigma now a first party mfgr because they make lenses for canon and Nikon dSLR mounts. Are Samyang and cosina now first party makers because they make native lenses?

Third party lenses are lenses made not by the manufacturer of the camera but alternatives to the maker. And usually they are cheaper.

This isn’t a canon or Sony thing. Compare sigma designs across the board to their first party competition. In almost all cases they are cheaper. The Sony 85/1,4 is less expensive.

Of course a canon 85/1,4 would be less expensive than a canon 85/1,2 but so would a sigma 85/1,2 be more expensive than a sigma 85/1,4.

Unless you are going to skewer the sony 85/1,4 for being more expensive than the sigma I don’t get the comparison which indicts canon or any other first party maker. Sigma is almost always less expensive. It is a a third party maker. That’s the story.

Compare first party lenses of the same speed. If one is more expensive and not better, it deserves derision. Otherwise, it is almost a category error.

Rubber:

I introduced that because you chose to compare the RF 85/1,2 not only with a lens of a different speed, but a third-party maker.

A better, or more apt comparison would have been the Sony GM 85mm 1,4 lens, not only because they are part of the same system, but because the Sony suffers in all the areas the Canon does against the cheaper Sigma.

I like Sigma, and support their work (I own two sigma lenses) but they are a third party maker that themselves don't define a system.

@shigzeo

You're basically saying that I need to introduce the 85GM in place of the Sigma because I'm winning my point too easily.

You really are a strange one. We can choose between the GM and the Sigma - that's the point I'm making.

The A7rIV costs nearly a thousand pounds less than the R5 - that's the point I'm making.

The Canon combination weighs 30% more - that's the point I'm making.

As for a different speed - you cannot tell the difference between f1.4 and f1.2 in photos. Canon made a stupidly expensive halo lens to empty the wallets of certain kind of gearhead lens collectors when they could have made it f1.4 and much lighter and more useful. That's the point I'm making.

Barney makes the same selfsame point about exotic lenses below and has 68 likes at time of writing.

The Sony has no 20fps, a point, the Sony has worse dynamic range, another one, the Sony has no 8k,point, the Sony... You get it... Maybe.

Why shouldn't I use a higher resolution cam? That makes no sense, if I shoot 8k (I don't) I need the resolution anyway and for pictures it's also better. Then the A9 is as fast as the Canon but has no high Resolution while the A7R4 has the resolution but is slow. You won't get any cam with 45MP *and* 20 fps. Do you need it? Depends. But it's only possible with the Canon. And yes, the DR is slightly better than even the Sony. Hard times? Nag on the price, the only thing you can do. But the price will fall....

Rubberdials;

They did make a lighter cheaper f1.4, and you are welcome to compare that to the RF85 L 🤷🏼‍♂️

@rubberdials
Seriously, your quoting is a pain. The R5 sensor is better at base iso, even in your link. And others have no 8k because their CPUs were not fast enough. You create your own worlds every time... It's somehow useless to discuss with you. You may not like Canon, but keeping the facts the new cam is very capable.

@Rubberdial
The *R5* has 11.85 vs 11.65 from the Sony A7R4. It's vice versa and yes I'm serious. You mixed them up, maybe. In fact, on mysource it's the most capable FF cam below the mdeiumformat sensors.

Link to fast cpus? What else should have been the problem? Faster readout? That other companies don't "need" 8k? Ok. Then take 4k@120fps. Don't they need this, too? Mkay.

I wasn't aware of the Leica of being able to shoot 20fps, but I guess the Canon will hold the continous shooting up, longer. Has to be tested...

Edit: Link to dynamic range table: https://tinyurl.com/y33b7rdg

I think the size, weight, price, and specs are spot on. I don't want lenses that delve into the extremes of high size, weight, price and specs just for the sake of attention. Those are vanity products. They aren't practical for most of us real-world shooters who are going to actually buy/use/carry these pieces of equipment.

Isn't the 1.4 already heavy and big enough for you ?

Sigma learnt from the Olympus mistakes. Few people will actually buy f/1.2 lenses though they sound fantastic.

Olympus mistake.. yes , there is a difference between "I would buy one..." and actualy getting the wallet out to buy one. The same for a lot of the "I would buy one" comments on this site.

To be honest f/1.4 is a crazy aperture for an 85mm lens, unless you really want pretty much everything out of focus; I don't much like seeing a razor sharp iris peering at me out of an ocean of blur! Really, f/2 is going some for a portrait; I probably wouldn't go any brighter than f/4.

Theprehistorian: as usual that has to do with distance to subject, I shoot full body at 1.2 all the time with the entire person in focus.

I'm probably going to buy this 85mm f1.4 which is money for Sigma that they wouldn't have gotten if they released a $1,800 1,500g 85mm f1.2.

For a people photographer there is nothing boring about a beautifully executed and made 85mm f/1.4 lens. It's a wonderfully useful lens. Paying hundreds to go beyond f/1.4 is very much specialist or even bragging territory.

The Fuji is a great lens, but at F3 equivalent aperture at 75mm rather than 85mm at F1.4, it doesn’t offer the same thing.

No it does not compare. Comparing the output from that FL Is a joke.

F3 versus 1.4.. you might have to settle for both eye and nose tip being in focus. Oh dear.

The Fuji 56/1.2 would be a better closer comparison. APS-C f2 is too slow. But APS-C f1.2 is still not as much DOF control as f/1.4 on FF.

A better comparison would be the upcoming Fuji 50mm f/1.

How much is that Fuji supposed to cost? Is there any info on that already?

While we're here.. I've got low light portraits shot fairly close using Fujinon 35mm f2, with a couple of my friends standing together, husband and wife cheek to cheek; she is literally a couple inches in front of him and he's distractingly out of focus. The camera AF did a bangup job of capturing her eye pretty much in the dark, too.

Sometimes I wonder how much bokeh is really needed in the real world.

Chaps - in terms of perspective the difference between 85mm and =75mm isn't huge. Of course an 85/1.4 will have shallower DOF, if that's what you want. I shoot the 50/2 WR a lot and really like it, it's a nice light, sharp lens with very fast and quiet AF.

No doubt the new Sigma will be one of the best 85s ever made if not the best; I have the 85/1.4 Art F mount and it sets the bar very high indeed. Although if I remember rightly it took two or three attempts to find a good copy, and there's some quite pronounced field curvature.

@Mr. Bolton
"And.. wait, I thought the bokeh equivalent was one stop different, not two.. 1.4 in FF is f2.0 on APS-C"

It's vice versa. 50 f1.4 on aps-c is 75mm f2 on FF.

We can only speculate what the profit breakdown is, but from Sony's actions they're very open to third party manufacturers making lenses. They own a small (12% or so, I think) share in Tamron and they're one of the only camera manufacturers that will share the lens mount specs and communication protocols with their partner third party manufacturers, including Sigma.

@xander18, I think as a " new comer" this is a great way to gain traction, you want all the support for your platform, and Sony did exactly that, team up with Zeiss, even a lot of Sony/Zeiss lens are not that great at all but having a Zeiss logo on the lens does help to sell, but as a more mature company already got their royal customer out there, i can understand why Canon and Nikon don't do the " open source" thing and let other guys to produce lens for them, in the old days, these" 3rd party" companies didn't really have the capabilities to do produce great lens anyway, except a few like Zeiss, and Voigtlander...i mean how many serious Canon and Nikon shooter will even consider buying a Sigma lens in the 80 or 90s? I wouldn't put one on even you give me a free one, .but time is different now and Canon and Nikon still stuck with their old strategy, that's going to cost them.

@Dan_168, yeah I totally agree. I went with Sony mainly cause the lenses are and will continue to be more affordable than Canon or Nikon's mirrorless systems because they had a 5 year head start on their native lenses and they brought in third parties. Huge head start. Even if you don't like their gear you gotta admit that Sony has made some pretty decent strategic decisions.

My point was Sony FF really is attractive to customers. Massive ecosystem of several types of bodies and 1st and 3rd party lens options. But what I wanted to say is thay I am not all that sure that it's the best business decision. OK, it is quick, it is easy, but I believe it may cost Sony a lot of profit in the long run. It's only my speculation based on what I read from some Canon annual report some time ago - that premium lenses bring the most profit for them. The lens attachment rate is a big thing for manufacturers, I believe.

Sony did with cameras what Microsoft did with the Xbox. Neither company invented their platform (mirrorless was being done in 2009 by Panasonic and Olympus and 2012 by Fuji) but when you have a forty billion dollar war chest.. you can start throwing a lot of money at the problem and thereby gain market share quickly. Remember what huge companies both Sony and MS are-each of them planned for their new market penetrators to require most of a decade to become profitable. Compare that with, say, Nikon.. who never had that big of a war chest.

Although I almost feel bad for Sony, because the ILC market is far more brutal than the game console market.

@Dan_168

//even a lot of Sony/Zeiss lens are not that great at all but having a Zeiss logo on the lens does help to sell,//

Only the FE35/1.4ZA isn't 'great' - the others are optically excellent.

@RubberDials, eh I have the 35mm f2.8 Zeiss and it's also a bit underwhelming. If it had some of the pop and character of the 55mm f1.8 I would forgive the slower aperture but it doesn't live up.

@xander18, exactly !!! I had that lens too, mainly bought that for my girl friend's oversea trip, after that trip, it mostly stays in the closet and finally sold, not a bad lens but far from what I will call great and " Zeiss quality", but with that logo, it sells really well, for me, that lens is actually really expensive for the quality we are getting.

40mm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <3

If they do this kind of diet for the 40/1.4, I'll have to buy a body just for that lens and I really don't want to spend right now...

I have the 40/1.4 L mount. It's probably the best lens I've ever used, absolutely incredible.

35 1.4 is a good lens, I got a lot of great photos with it. That 35 1.2 is a behemoth.... terrible ergonomic match for Sony FE bodies. A new 35 1.4 would be a good thing though. Maybe a 35 1.8 instead to really lighten it up.

@Mared no problems for Samyang, who have an 85 1.4 for RF mount. EF mount was closed too..........................................

@Michiel953

LookintotheMirror was trying to point out that most DSLR and film era lenses are not comparable in optical performance so the size and weight is largely irrelevant.

Here's the MTFs you asked for. As you can see the Canon EF 50/1.4 is very poor wide open (it's the same optical construction to the FD) and the Sony 50/1.4 is very excellent - as you would expect for a lens produced ≈25 years later.

Your Nikon 85 is a good performer but not a patch on modern designs from Sony, Canon and Sigma.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-nikon-prime-lenses/https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/just-mtf-charts-canon-prime-lenses/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-sony-fe-mount-prime-lenses/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

@Michiel953

If you're happy with your setup, why change? Many film era lenses that are poor by modern standards are eminently suitable for portraiture, which only needs a sharp performance in the 10-15 lp/mm range.

Modern lenses have much better contrast and flare control but in a controlled lighting scenario that's not an issue either.

I'd say carry on enjoying your gear.

@dahongdou which other mirrorless lens has an aperture lock switch?