New Sigma 85mm f/1.4 vs Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4
Sigma recently introduced a new 85mm f/1.4 HSM lens for Sony. The question now is: How does the Sigma compare with the $450 more expensive Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4? You can find the very first comparison at Dpreview forum here and here. So what do you think?
You can preorder the Sigma lens at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay
Check the price and availability of the Sony/Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, J&R, eBay
Maley
3 years ago |Just look the lenstip.com review for the sigma. It is better than the Zeiss and every other 85 f/1.4.
Sky_walker
3 years ago |Review of Zeiss on Lenstip is made using old 10MPx camera (A100 to be precise), so comparison out there is worthless, sadly, especially in matter of resolution.
00aeiou00
3 years ago |I have the 50mm sigma, and I can say its really top notch. For the cost, sigma´s are worth it!
Carl
3 years ago |Is it better than the Minolta 85mm Limited is the real question.
john
3 years ago |The Minolta 85mm Limited Edition was so limited that there is no review at Dyxum.com so….
Bruno Marinho Monteiro
3 years ago |In my opinion the Sigma is slightly better than the zeiss. The quality difference is almost imperceptible and Sigma has a greater cost benefit.
Daniel
3 years ago |The Sigma has just become available in Sony mount. There is no real comparison between them anywhere yet.
lenstip.com tested the Zeiss on the a100, while the 85 sigma is tested on sensors that bring along a much higher resolution(D3x).
The a100′s focusing capabilities are outdated, even the a200 brought a serious improvement(1.7x faster and also more accurate).
You should see the how they compare on a Sony FF.
Sigma has its advantages…HSM: faster, more quiet autofocus. But as I saw from some reviews has issues with quality control(doesn’t get the focus right sometimes you have to use microadjustment in order to get it right), CA quite visible at max aperture, that’s a common problem with all the 85s, and some say that it has in fact a 82mm real focal length.
The Sony is better built for once, even if it extends during focusing(the Sigma does not, it uses internal) and I would bet that the T* coating of the Zeiss ensures better contrast.
I have the 85 Zeiss and I can say it is sharp wide open on the entire frame on the a850. It focuses fast enough for the kind of work it is intended to(mostly portraits), no where near superfast(far from the 24-70 zeiss with ssm) and it does so with a certain degree of noise. But it is accurate, it rarely misses focus. Lenstip sais 37% missfocus cases and slow focusing. I think that’s the a100 limitation.
The story is quite different on a FF or on a newer APSC body.
I’d give more credit to the reviews posted by photozone.de on the 85 and 135 Zeiss lenses.
I cannot pass a judgement about the Sigma capabilities, it would be great to get my hands on one to see how well it does. The only thing is that having other Zeiss lenses it would be better to stick with the Sony 85, due to similar color reproduction&contrast between lenses.
The sigma does cost less also with the added benefit of HSM…it does make a good deal. Zeiss seems to be very reliable and loses little value over time(see ebay).
I almost forgot…I should mention that the Zeiss has something like a 3D effect in my photos, lovely:)
Sky_walker
3 years ago |It’s not about AF as much as it’s about lack of MLU in A100, though yea, the focusing errors can be explained this way, but it very much depends on light conditions too.
Also Sigma actually is already available for Sony bayonet. Since last week if memory serves me well.
Daniel
3 years ago |Yes, I think it was last week or so, I forgot about the lack of MLU…good point!! Loved your former comment(other topic) about 2013
)
Myst
3 years ago |a100 does have MLU
sony only dropped it for the a200/300/350/230/330/380/290/390 and the 450/500/550 models
Sigma is sharper in the centers and less sharp in the corners.
Sigma has better CA control than the zeiss
Sigma also has a yellowish color which for a lot of portrait and wedding photographers is a deal breaker especially those used with excellent color reproduction.
Sky_walker
3 years ago |Hm… wait… so why did the tester wrote that A100 doesn’t have it? Oh… ok, I get it – I misread a bit. Guy says “It only has dummy” (MLU) “There is a two-second self-timer,in this role, which is realised by mirror lock-up. The problem is that those two seconds could be appropriate to test, for instance Sony 2.8/50, but with a focal length of 85 mm it could already have an influence on the presence of minimum and unrestrained vibrations.“
Sky_walker
3 years ago |nah, it was said on forum that photos have different focus points so the images are worthless, sadly.
Guy also compares only the very center of image what doesn’t say much about lens sharpness, especially as Zeiss is known for sharpness all around, not just in few center inches.
But yea, it’s generally known that Sigma is bit sharper in the center though the difference is very slight. All the other aspects of image are other matter though, sometimes one is better, sometimes another, depends on what you look at.
alex
3 years ago |when you shoot in RAW, the yellowish color is not an issue anymore..i agree, that zeiss produces more ´3d´- like pictures, the same as leica-lenses do, but hey, these are ´high-level´ lens-designs, @ a much higher price, so if they wouldn´t do this in comparison to 3rd party-lenses, like sigma, i would be very dissapointed, LOL!
Myst
3 years ago |Nope it’s always an issue even in post processing it’s a nuisance to get rid of it. And for portraits that is a big deal. I never really liked the sony version of the zeiss either, a bit too cold for some situations. The way the minolta rendered color is way more appealing to a lot of photographers.
Fernando
3 years ago |What about the compatibility issue of sigma lenses with the new Sony SLTs. Does anybody know about these new lenses?
Sky_walker
3 years ago |Sigma said that all lenses released after the A55/33 will be SLT-compatible.
Daemonius
3 years ago |I think that comparing portrait lens (or lets say bit of walkaround very short telephoto) by shooting BOOKS! is idiotic. Those lens are made to have nice bokeh, good color transition. So unless that idiot shows two comparable portrait, Im not interested. CA is no issue, unless you shoot model against bright sky (and anyway, you will shoot that at F2 max so it wont matter). Plus Zeiss has kinda special contrast, while Sigma has not-so-special ugly color.
freeze
3 years ago |Look at the black leather on the purse, the zeiss has much more detail whereas it’s hard to tell if it’s the grain of the leather or just a noisy image.
freeze
3 years ago |*whereas with the sigma*
Daniel
3 years ago |The guys question is the Zeiss or the Sigma?
It depends, on FF i would go for the Zeiss, knowing what it can do.
But if you have the Zeiss, would you let it go and risk it for the Sigma. Would anyone sell the Zeiss and buy the Sigma? Is Sigma that good…!? I really don’t know..
The test is not that relevant…as I said before, the Sigma shows less magnification, it’s a tiny bit wider, it shows, that I saw.
A portrait lens is not really supposed to provide critical sharpness wide open..but the Zeiss is pretty sharp on FF.What it does and this is very important, it alows you to place your subject, what’s in focus, anywhere in the frame without losing sharpness. Even the extreme corners are ok(not razor sharp, but good),but you won’t put it there:))
I know for sure that I love the Zeiss. The 135 f 1.8 is even better!! The best!!
ty
3 years ago |I have seen comparisons between the Sigma 85/1.4 vs Canon 85/1.2II. Guess what, the Sigma performs very favorably against Canon’s L lens, which is double the price of the Sigma. Ok, a f1.2 is f1.2 but the Sigma can produce bokeh that is very similar to the Canon’s. The color/contrast/saturation are very close if not better.
The only complain people had against Sigma is its AF.
A number of comparison can be found in fredmiranda’s site.
The most important advantage of a Sigma 85 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 for a NEX user (finally NEX) is the ability to focus on a NEX. Canon 85 1.2 needs to be driven by a Canon camera to focus.
holale
3 years ago |I think I’m with Daniel here. I was a ex-Canon shooter and switched to Sony just because of Zeiss lens. I had Canon 85mm f1.2 and now using Zeiss 85mm.
I can tell you sharpness are equally for both lens but an edge very slightly go toward Zeiss. Now, the most important and amazing thing is the 3D depth , neutral but rich color rendition the Zeiss produces. It is absolutely gorgeous and beats the Conon hands down in this aspect.
In my opinion, Sigma lens tend to have a yellowish haze over its pictures. Perhaps with the use of new technology in lens design, they managed to get great sharpness but I can tell you their lens won’t provide that 3D look and color rendition like a Zeiss does. This is what make Zeiss so special and it’s the signature character os their lens. This is something you have to try for yourself to see the differences.