[pop4]

Review the Sigma 85mm | Read Reviews | Sigma 85mm In-Depth Review | Buy Lens

Here's to start off the lens sample photo archive for the Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM lens:

---

Last edited by pop4; 08-24-2011 at 04:53 AM.

[pop4]

[pop4]

Surely I can't be the only one with the Sigma 85mm F1.4 lens?

[XMACHINA]

[Emacs]

Too sharp for the women portrait IMO. The women skin is not perfect at least, it's not a good idea to leave it without retouching. The 77Ltd treats such inperfections much better IMO.

[XMACHINA]

Too sharp for the women portrait IMO. The women skin is not perfect at least, it's not a good idea to leave it without retouching. The 77Ltd treats such inperfections much better IMO.

I agree with you; I don't know how people leave the house with skin all not perfect like that. It's damned inconsiderate is what it is! I also agree with your implication that the 77mm resolves less detail: that, among other reasons, is why I didn't buy one.

Not retouching a photo is an excellent idea if said photo is being used as a sample which shows the optical characteristics of the lens used to take it. Providing samples, at least I believed, was the purpose of this thread. I would add that not retouching a photo is also a good idea if one isn't interested in creating the illusion that one's subject has "perfect" skin.

I mean, there are any number of photos of people--people with imperfect skin--which are posted here on PentaxForums that haven't been retouched. No, really! Don't take my word for it, just look. You might find at least one non-retouched photo of a person shot by someone else in this very thread--shot with a copy of the very same lens. There has to be some reason why your retouching admonition was reserved for me. I suppose it's possible that you're methodically working your way through the threads and I just happen to be next in line for a warning.

But thank you for offering an honest critique, although one of dubious merit given the context in which it was offered.

Wait a minute.

Actually, the more I think about it, you really didn't critique anything I did: basically, you just told me that my lens is too sharp, my subject has bad skin, I was remiss in not retouching a photo I submitted as a sample, the 77mm (which, of course, you own) is a better lens. I hereby withdraw my thanks, and wonder anew as to what your intentions were here.

But I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful and not making an irrelevant, cheap-shot criticism bracketed by the obligatory, passive-aggressive IMOs.

-XM

[jpzk]

Good shots from Pop4 and XMachina.

They show very well what this lens is capable of.

I own a different 85/1.4 (i.e.: non-Pentax) and it is manual focus.
I must say that the Sigma seems to be quite performing when comparing it to mine.

As for the comments regarding this lens being "too sharp" for portraits, let's just say that the samples provided here show what the lens is actually "doing", not pretending that it is a "portrait lens".

Hence my point of view: great lens and good shots!! Impressed!

Cheers!

JP

Forgot: are any of those shots taken at f1.4? Sorry, I didn't check the EXIF data.

[XMACHINA]

Thanks, JP.

The photo of the cat was shot wide-open. The other two shots are at f/2.8.

-XM

Good shots from Pop4 and XMachina.

They show very well what this lens is capable of.

I own a different 85/1.4 (i.e.: non-Pentax) and it is manual focus.
I must say that the Sigma seems to be quite performing when comparing it to mine.

As for the comments regarding this lens being "too sharp" for portraits, let's just say that the samples provided here show what the lens is actually "doing", not pretending that it is a "portrait lens".

Hence my point of view: great lens and good shots!! Impressed!

Cheers!

JP

Forgot: are any of those shots taken at f1.4? Sorry, I didn't check the EXIF data.

[jpzk]

Thanks, JP.

The photo of the cat was shot wide-open. The other two shots are at f/2.8.

-XM

Looks good to me!

Any problems at all to get the focus bang on quickly? I mean, coming from a manual focus 85/1.4 myself, I find focusing at full aperture a bit tedious at times.

JP

[XMACHINA]

Looks good to me!

Any problems at all to get the focus bang on quickly? I mean, coming from a manual focus 85/1.4 myself, I find focusing at full aperture a bit tedious at times.

JP

No problems whatsoever in the light under which these were shot. It's slower when the light is dimmer.

-XM

[Emacs]

I also agree with your implication that the 77mm resolves less detail: that, among other reasons, is why I didn't buy one.

wrong, it has better resolution but lesser contrast: the ideal portrait approach
The only thing I wanted to say this sigma doesn't worth it as portrait lens. Just like CZ Planar T* 85 f1.4

[XMACHINA]

wrong, it has better resolution but lesser contrast: the ideal portrait approach

The amount of contrast probably has more to do with my post-processing of the RAW file than with the properties of the lens itself. The sharpness, on the other hand, can only be blamed on the lens; you'd really hate to have seen those pictures after having to reduce (to zero) the default sharpening applied by Lightroom during import. Come to think of it, you might have loved to have seen that as if would surely confirm your notion that the 77mm is the superior lens for portraiture.

The only thing I wanted to say this sigma doesn't worth it as portrait lens. Just like CZ Planar T* 85 f1.4

Maybe you're right. Is it your claim that the same portrait taken with the 77mm would not require retouching? That certainly seems to be your claim.

It's not as if I didn't consider the 77mm, or that I won't still get it, despite that it would be pretty much a redundancy in my lens collection.

By the way, I'm a strong advocate of the "show and prove" policy of photography-related message board participation. I know you're not one of those people who doesn't provide evidence in support of a claim you're making. I just know it. I'd consider it helpful to see a sample of a portrait taken with the 77mm (with the proper amount of contrast) for comparison purposes. Pop4 might consider it off-topic though.

-XM

[pop4]

The only thing I wanted to say this sigma doesn't worth it as portrait lens. Just like CZ Planar T* 85 f1.4

By the way, I'm a strong advocate of the "show and prove" policy of photography-related message board participation. I know you're not one of those people who doesn't provide evidence in support of a claim you're making. I just know it. I'd consider it helpful to see a sample of a portrait taken with the 77mm (with the proper amount of contrast) for comparison purposes.

Emacs' is well within his right, as a owner of the FA77/1.8, to form his own subjective opinion, and he's also free to post his own shots with the FA77 in the FA77 lens sample thread; this is the same as us when we provide our own opinions, as Sigma 85/1.4 owners, on this thread. Personally, the fact that the Sigma can do f/1.4 and not just f/1.8 (2/3 of a stop difference, not a big deal for some, matters to me), and that it has HSM, already makes it worth more as a lens than the FA77.

As for the comments regarding this lens being "too sharp" for portraits, let's just say that the samples provided here show what the lens is actually "doing", not pretending that it is a "portrait lens".

Personally, I'd rather a lens that produces images that are sharp, such that I can reduce it in post processing if needed, rather than a lens that doesn't have the sharpness required to start with, making it harder, if not impossible, to fix in post processing.

Forgot: are any of those shots taken at f1.4? Sorry, I didn't check the EXIF data.

Most of mine are stopped down a bit; at f/1.4, I find the DOF a bit too shallow, and just a tad bit not sharp enough for my liking.

Any problems at all to get the focus bang on quickly? I mean, coming from a manual focus 85/1.4 myself

When I first got the lens, main issue I found was that at f/1.4, the DOF is so shallow that often, I missed the exact point I wanted in focus (I don't have a split-prism focusing screen), but you do get better at using the lens.

[Emacs]

Personally, I'd rather a lens that produces images that are sharp, such that I can reduce it in post processing if needed, rather than a lens that doesn't have the sharpness required to start with, making it harder, if not impossible, to fix in post processing.

Don't confuse sharpness and details. With enough details you can easily achieve sharpness during PP. The opposite isn't true

[XMACHINA]

Don't confuse sharpness and details. With enough details you can easily achieve sharpness during PP. The opposite isn't true

OK,OK, fine. I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider myself to have been schooled as to the superiority of the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited, at least where it concerns portraiture.

Now, Sir (or Madame), would you be so kind as to provide at least one sample portrait that showcases the superlative optical qualities of the 77mm--preferably something which hasn't been too heavily post-processed. I checked the thread dedicated to the 77mm and didn't find you among its contributors. I'd be great if you could post something to that thread.

Thanks in advance.

-XM