[Klaus]

On par with the Canon 85L but a little bit too much coma at large apertures. Still a highly interesting lens.

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff[/url]

[Yakim]

I know it might sound silly but of all 85mm lenses tested on PZ the one that is ranked highest on my list is the 85/1.8. Small, light, cheap, has excellent (i.e. fast and accurate and reliable) AF and sharpest at f/1.8. Even if I had an unlimited budget to buy a 85mm lens (on any mount), the 85/1.8 would still be my pick.



Then again, if Sony were to update their 85/1.4 ZA with IF and SSM..... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[sth]

[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301699775' post='7312']

I know it might sound silly but of all 85mm lenses tested on PZ the one that is ranked highest on my list is the 85/1.8. Small, light, cheap, has excellent (i.e. fast and accurate and reliable) AF and sharpest at f/1.8. Even if I had an unlimited budget to buy a 85mm lens (on any mount), the 85/1.8 would still be my pick. [/quote]

It would be interesting to know if the Sigma has less purple fringing at f/1.8 since the Canon is quite extreme in that regard (the only real fault of this lens, IMHO).

[Bare]

[quote name='sth' timestamp='1301747717' post='7322']

It would be interesting to know if the Sigma has less purple fringing at f/1.8 since the Canon is quite extreme in that regard (the only real fault of this lens, IMHO).

[/quote]



Sigma has less PF than Canon 85 1.8, you can see it [url="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11118103&postcount=251"]here[/url].

[Yakim]

Great link. Thanks.

[Rover]

This lens is very high on my "wanted" list. A bit odd that it seemed to fare worse in the APS-C tests than FF ones (?).

[Guest]

My guess is reaching the limitation of resolution of the lens. I.e, newer aps-c like the 7d have smaller pixels and therefore require higher resolution from the lens to maximize the sensor. Having said that I did not actually check how it 'fared' worse and presumed (perhaps incorrectly) it was a resolution issue.



[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1325692993' post='14288']

This lens is very high on my "wanted" list. A bit odd that it seemed to fare worse in the APS-C tests than FF ones (?).

[/quote]

[wim]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1325698288' post='14293']

My guess is reaching the limitation of resolution of the lens. I.e, newer aps-c like the 7d have smaller pixels and therefore require higher resolution from the lens to maximize the sensor. Having said that I did not actually check how it 'fared' worse and presumed (perhaps incorrectly) it was a resolution issue.

[/quote]

Actuallly, no. But aberrations become much clearer due to finer grained pixelpeeping possibilities.

Lenses still outresolve sensors, if you want to call it that anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Before sensors start "outresolving" lenses, we need 280+ MP sensors.



However, what you do see, and this is also true for the FF test, is that this lens shows fairly strong coma wide open and close to wide open. This is where the Canon 85L and 85L II are quite strong, as they have a special element for correction of coma, according to Canon anyway. This is the backmost, static element in the 85L's optical design.



Kind regards, Wim