[davidmanze]

 Hi guys,

               For what seems like not so long ago, everybody was bowled over by the Zeiss Otus range while gagging and coughing slightly when you spotted the price tag, and that was for manual focus.

  Then the Milvus hit the scene, more affordably priced, but still MF.

 

  Well the new Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art lens has just knocked them both down a level off of the top step of the podium and throws in an accurate AF into the bargain.  I'm finding it at between 1,099 (grey?) to 1,299 euros here on line, that's 500-600 euros less than the Milvus.

 

   As stated in Lenstip's review that must hit Zeiss hard,  no longer the best and in so short a space of time.

 

           Who would have "thunk" it? 

 

 

Here,  

 

http://www.lenstip.com/491.1-Lens_review...eview.html

[Brightcolours]

But the Sigma's rendering sucks! Oh wait, that was the outgoing 85mm f1.4. This new one renders... nicely. Darn!

[obican]

Not sure about the "accurate AF" part.

[Brightcolours]

It can be accurate on modern Canon while not be that accurate on modern Nikon? Not saying that is the case, just pointing out the possibility.

[obican]

Whenever I see a graph like this, I die a little.

 

[davidmanze]

  True it's on the Canon, only two percent missed shots is pretty much dreamworld material, I don't see any reason why it's not going to behave well on a decent Nikon, after all, Tony Northrup's AF comparison put the D500  above the 7DII  (don't spill your coffee BC), but then the 1DX beat the D5, (redemption),  so we are even steven in that department.

 

  Surely it will tempt many away from both Canikon as well as Zeiss........ they're shrewd dudes at Sigma, if they teamed up with Elon Musk where would that take us?...

  

                                                                 ...........taking tack sharp images on Mars no doubt!

[Rover]

Whenever I see a graph like this, I die a little.

 

I wonder where does the 85 EX fit in? It had a score of 30 at f/1.4 but on a Nikon test body; around 39,5 at f/2, 43 at f/2.8 and 45 at f/4 (the peak performance in the center).

[davidmanze]

   They will have to drop the price big time on the EX, at the moment the difference isn't that much,  surely at it's present level the EX is dead in the water.

[Brightcolours]

The Nikon test camera has a 24mp sensor, the Canon a 21mp sensor. The math is not that complicated  B) but I'm not going to do that for you  :ph34r:  :lol:

Suffice to say that on the Nikon the numbers would be a very little bit higher than on the Canon, and that then the 30 lpmm is the lowest score of them all by far.

[Rover]

The Nikon test camera has a 24mp sensor, the Canon a 21mp sensor. The math is not that complicated  B) but I'm not going to do that for you  :ph34r:  :lol:

Suffice to say that on the Nikon the numbers would be a very little bit higher than on the Canon, and that then the 30 lpmm is the lowest score of them all by far.

Yeah, they even provide the exact correction number - you know, I can read (and even do simple math). I was speaking of it "fitting in" more in the overall quality scale, because there are other factors as well...