6:59 having a 1.2 option would be nice, but canon doesn’t give you a 1.4 option and that extra $1000 between a 1.4 GM and RF 1.2 is a big chunk of change to cough up for the extra 1/3rd of a stop. Not to mention the size and weight of the RF because it’s a 1.2
What you just said is probably main reason why I am not going to go for Canon when upgrading to ff.. Canon offers you either bad and dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 or super super expensive 85mm f1.2 and literally nothing in-between. I do not need or want 1.2, I just need sharp, reliable 1.4 and unfortunately out of 3 biggest camera brands only sony offers it at the moment. Nikon also does not have 1.4, only expensive 1.2 and "cheap" 85mm 1.8 (which is at least better than canons 50mm 1.8) Of course you can also adapt older lenses but I don't trust that I am gonna get 100% out of the lens using the adapter and older lenses aren't really optimized for mirrorless. That's more of an option for people who really want to go budget or already own good selection of lenses from previous generation of mounts.
@@FTRek The "super super" expensive RF 1.2 is only 600 USD more than the 1.4 GM II. 600 bucks for having 1.2 instead of 1.4 is nothing ridiculous, rather standard and relevant. For example the price difference between Sony GM 50m f/1.4 and f/1.2 is 700 USD (All prices from BHPhoto).
I started photography in 1990 with a Ricoh xr-10 and I have quite a collection of 35mm film cameras and lenses still. I have watched many of the people on TH-cam talk about the new digital cameras that have come out since film went digital. I have listened to many others who also talk about digital cameras and out of ALL OF THEM I HAVE FOUND THAT THESE 2 people are the most NON-BIAS OF ALL OF THEM. This is the best thing I can say about them and what they are doing for the digital camera world.
I carry lenses with me all day at weddings, and honestly, I love the choice to keep these things light weight and portable. I stopped using my 135 1.8 because it was too much extra weight to carry around.. Keeping my Sigma 85 for now.
I agree. I thought I'd pre-order this one, because the sigma doesn't mix too well with the 50 and 35 GM (renders colours much warmer and punchier) - then I saw that they are trying to charge 2100 EUR for the GM II. Nope, absolutely not.
The color of the older GM😢. In my opinion, the Sigma is still the winner because of size and cost. Yeah, I know about distortion and still think it’s super sharp corrected.
@@veritas932that's funny. I regularly carry around lenses about the same weight or heavier for the past 2 years. The weight is near negligible if you carry it in a shoulder sling or camera bag.
I recently got the Meike 85mm f1.4 and I was incredibly surprised with the results. It has nothing to envy to my 35mm GM regarding lens quality imo unless you're really pixel peeping, do you think you'd be willing to compare it?
Would love to see eye AF tracking comparison for photos with these lenses. Do they keep up with newer AF performance in camera bodies? Sigma often lags behind in this department.
I have the Sigma 85 1.4. Exceptional lens. The new Sony GM, in some ways, makes me appreciate my Sigma even more, given how a small the differences are between Sony's latest and greatest. Also, I got mine pre-loved at fraction of the price so able to invest the savings into other things.
I just retired so I thought I would give photography a try. I just bought the Sony A7RV, Sony 85mm GM 2 f/1.4 and the Sony 35mm GM f/1.4 Whenever I start a new hobby I hate upgrading later
actually, you should have started off with a zoom. I started off with primes and ended up with zooms for ease of use. All that changing of lens is inconvenient and zooming with feet is practically hogwash. When you shooting at Mt Fuji in the distance, zooming with feet isn't going to provide a vastly different perspective. When you're in a pub taking snapshots of your friends, there's only so much you can back up. When you're in a touristy place and everyone is in front and behind you taking pics, you can really zoom with your feet. Only option is to zoom with your lens. You can of course crop it in post, but all that post production is going to take effort when you're doing 50 pics a day. Just start off with a 24 70 GM II. If F2.8 can't hack it in low light, then increase the ISO and denoise in post. Those pics would be an exception rather than the norm.
Good luck in your new hobby. Veritas has some excellent suggestions, but they assume that you can always determine the proper composition immediately, while you are taking the image. There are many people who feel that they do well at this, but there are also people who feel that finding the proper composition takes more time than they have at the moment of capture out in the field. I would argue that both approaches are valid, for some people. I used to be part of the "get it right the first time" camp, until I also started painting. Now, I take a few high-quality images of a scene, with some compositions in mind. When I process these images I spend more time trying to find better compositions within my original compositions. I try to adopt the guideline that even good compositions almost always contain at least one better, more powerful, and cleaner composition. I may not have the skill or willingness to take the time to find that better one, but I find that it is useful to try. Eventually, I'll bet that you will take Veritas' advice and add a quality zoom or two to your kit. When you do, don't sacrifice the sharpness, lack of chromatic aberration, and fabulous dynamic range of your Sony primes.
I currently have the Sigma, every review said it was better than the GM. It's a great lens and like it a lot but it does pair...weird with my GMII zooms, I think there's a color difference. I've been planning on a 35 being my next lens, I was going to go Sigma to save money + match it to my 85. But now I'm rethinking to switch to Sony primes if there's a good 85.
My theory of 1.4 instead of 1.2: 1. I heard SONY E mount is too small to make 85 1.2. I don’t know if it is true. 2. SONY wants to avoid the 50mm GM 1.2 and 1.4 situation. They released the 50 1.2 first then most people bought it then a lot less people bought the 1.4 version when it came out much later. SONY wants to sell as much 85 1.4 GM II as possible to make as much money as they can, then release the faster and more attractive 1.2 version to force the real enthusiasts to buy them again. (Just my theory)
I very much doubt that E mount is "too small to make 85 1.2". The only folks claiming such seem to be exclusively Nikon fans without much understanding of the technical issues. I had hoped that this myth were put to rest after the very nice 50f1.2.
The fact is very simple. For me 85 1.2 would become ready for example next year. But 1.2 will have compromises. The strategy here is rigth. Firts launch an updated very sharp 85 1.4, lighter and more travel friendly than before at the same price. And later add 1.2 that would be at least 2800 usd, less people could buy it,much more heavier, much more bulkier wider and longer, and with 82mm filter size I Imagine a big big lens. So then having both on the store you would choose better. I think this is the reason
I have the sigma already but find it misses focus often enough to be annoying It also struggles to focus looking into the sun at times I've actually thought about selling it and just getting the Sony 1.8
I’ve got the Sigma 85 1.4, it’s on my camera almost always! It has noticeable pincushion distortion, but that’s easily corrected. For me, the results speak for themselves so I’d go for the cheaper option here!
"3 greatest", well I am VERY happy with my ZEISS Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T* which are more light weight, I also have the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM, the Voigtländer MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm 2.0 Aspherical and the Voigtländer MACRO APO-LANTHAR 110mm 2.5, I will also mention the SONY ZEISS Sonnar 55mm 1.8 T’*ZA which I often use in APSC mode for portraits.
Another vote for the Batis 85. Also the Batis 135 is perfect for me. Great optics, 67mm filter diameter, same color and bokeh rendition across the entire lens line and THEY ARE MUCH LIGHTER IN WEIGHT than all their competition. What's not to like about it? (Unless you absolutely must have f1.4 that is).
@andreascarl9636 i have the Batis as well but am selling it as i have purchased a Sigma DG DN. I love having aperature ring options, and enjoy the f1.4 as well. Batis is a slick looking lens though!! Gonna miss it
One reason you forgot to mention [I think] why someone would want to invest into the more expensive GM2 is someone like myself, who owns a Sony a9iii, and benefits from the FPS the 9III and a1 offer. This came in very handy during the Paris Olympics this past summer and why despite me loving Sigma Art lenses, I invest in lenses that help me achieve my creative goals.
I have the Canon 1.2 85mmm red ring, this beast is incredible! For video or still portraits! Unfortunately, it is heavy, but this lens is just stunning!
Hmm. Been waiting for this as an upgrade to my 85mm 1.8. But in Australia it's launched at $3000 v Sigma at $1300! Since I upgraded to an A7R v and G-Master 35 &50 mm (plus 70-200 28ii) I have not really used my 85 1.8. Which way to go? Help!
For the video, I rather see the 24mm, but it take more skill to compose clutter. For photo don't knw if I should update my 1.8 for a Cheap 1.4 Mk1 or go for MK2. 🤔🤔🤔 thanks for the video!!! Going for mrk2 1.4
Would have liked to see sharpness stopped down. Especially for these kinds of primes, sometimes the first stop or so is much softer than the rest of the range. I own the Sigma and although F1.4 is very sharp, it is sharpest at F5.6, which I do use instead depending on what I'm shooting. Would be good information to know to aid in purchasing.
@@TonyAndChelsea Stopped down is always sharper. Maybe not a lot, but always some. For most lenses, f/5.6-f/8 is the sweet spot. There's a reason landscape photographers say "f/8 and be there."
@@careylymanjones Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. They were saying that when you compare modern lenses like these stopped down they show almost no difference.
@@TechnoBabble Modern lenses are great, and on many of them, you reach the point of diminishing returns by f/4-5.6. But there's still a slight improvement. And a little extra DOF makes focus less critical. I'm not INTERESTED in turning my backgrounds into such a featureless blob that you can't tell where the shot was taken. What's the point of going somewhere beautiful for a shoot, and turning the background into a blob? Might as well have stayed in the studio, and shot with a canvas background. The studio would have air conditioning, and you wouldn't have to worry about wind trashing your subject's hairdo.
@@careylymanjones I explained it to you in an even simpler way and you still didn't get it... WHEN YOU COMPARED MULTIPLE LENSES TO EACH OTHER, WITH ALL OF THEM STOPPED DOWN, THERES BARELY A DIFFERENCE. Nobody is saying that lenses don't get sharper when you stop them down. If you compared these lenses to each other at f/5.6 they would be essentially identical.
I was hoping for a Sony 85mm 1.2 GM. I have the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM and it’s awesome. I already have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN and it’s pretty good. So, the Sony 85mm 1.4 II is really not something I would consider at all. Disappointing, because I would have purchased a 85mm 1.2 lens. Hoping that Sigma make one instead.
My guess is they will make a 1.2. But the 1.4 definitly needed a refresh and they went with this one first (plus they will sell more of the 1.4, according to a Sony representative)
You cannot see the difference between f1.2 and f1.4 unless you put pictures side by side, know what to look for, and stare at the image for about 30 seconds. I could take a photo with an 85mm 1.4 and tell you it was 1.2 and you'd never know the difference.
This new lens is a miracle for how small and light it is, don't forget on APS-C you would need 56mm f/0.95 to match the light gathering, depth of field and field of view.
Depth of field, yes. Exposure, no. For exposure purposes, f/1.4 is f/1.4, no matter what size sensor. When you use an external light meter, you don''t have to tell it your sensor size.
@@careylymanjones I didn't say exposure. You are conflating light gathering with exposure. You have to remember you're working with different sized sensors: APS-C: 337.5 mm² vs FF: 864 mm² . So when you are taking an image, you will need your lens to provide 2.56x more light on full frame just to get the same light intensity (exposure) onto the larger sensor. So a 24mm f/2.8 lens on Full Frame will have identical exposure as a 16mm f/2.8 lens on APS-C and 3.85mm f/2.8 lens on an iPhone4, sure. But to achieve this, each is working with a vastly different amount of gathered light. For all intents and purposes, if you wanted to match images between systems, an f/2.8 lens on APS-C is equivalent to an f/4.2 on Full Frame. This will not only match the depth of field, but also the signal to noise and total light hitting both sensors. You will get an output image that has similar noise, dynamic range, detail, depth of field, etc, etc, etc - but you will need to match exposures either in post or by multiplying the ISO by the crop factor squared (this will not only match your exposure but also your noise levels). It's wonderful how mathematically, the aperture is just a ratio of focal length to iris diameter. Because it means we can use the same light meter, we can jump between focal lengths and even whole camera systems and easily match exposures. While the exposure is the same, the larger the sensor, the more light and the cleaner the images with more micro contrast and dynamic range, especially in low light.
When I tested f/1.2 I found that I rarely got both eyes in focus. I rather save weight and money for f/1.4. I do think that the Sony’s have a slight edge in bokeh over Sigma.
How about the fact that Canon RF 85/1.2 L is $600 more and weighs ~500-660 grams more. The Nikkor Z 85/1.2 S is $1000 more and also about 500-600 grams more. I actually own the Canon f/1.2 and the original Sony GM version 1 and I admit I am more interested in AF speed these days but don’t shoot professionally any more so I’m sure I’m biased but not interested in a $2400-$2700 lens. Thank you and take care.
As a professional wedding shooter, I'm very happy Sony went with the more practical option rather than competing in a pointless arms race. In no way is the extra cost and especially the weight of an f/1.2 worth the extra 1/3 stop.
Honestly, I would wish for new DN Version of the Sigma 105 1.4. This my favorite portrait lens. But sometimes you can feel and see that the AF isn't up to date anymore.
I own the Sigma 85, and while its autofocus in low-light is noticeably worse than my Sony and Sigma lenses at other focal lengths (maybe a bad copy?), it's not enough of an issue to make me upgrade. An extra available f-stop would be worth it, though, and I'm glad you touched on that disappointment 🙁
Thanks for the interesting comparison! This was one of the few lenses in Sony's line-up that really needed an upgrade with the coffee-grinder motors in the original version. It's the only GM-lens I have ever sold. Now that Sony stayed with the 85mm f1.4, I am actually hoping they will make a 100 or 105mm f1.4 or f1.2, that would be really cool. I'd like to see them make a 28mm f1.4 GM as well, in the same size as the 24 and 35mm f1.4 GM.
I've been itching to pull the trigger on the Sigma for a few months because I just assumed Sony would release an f1.2 before a new f1.4... But now seeing these head-to-head comparisons, I think I'll go ahead and get the Sigma, especially given that it currently has a £100 (GBP) voucher making it close to half the price of the new Sony. Honestly, I won't see any benefit from the Sony in my shooting... So that's decision made!
Tony I've been out of the camera game for 10 years my last camera was DSLR should I go mirrorless can you do an update please. Will a DSLR be junk as they are no more firmware updates should I just go mirrorless and replace everything I have
use what works, upgrade if you benefit from the differences between dslr and mirrorless (size, weight, autofocus) and adapt your existing lenses to the new camera body.
I've owned the Sigma for several years. It's great and no need to change. I know published specs on focal length are not always on target but the new Sony, according to your test, is wider than 85mm. Not a plus in my opinion. Overall a very useful comparison.
amazing and thorough review, thank you!! I never worry too much about 1.2 vs 1.4 in terms of the blur, because I can only ever tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but I do like the option of catching that extra light in low light situations. Too bad Sony did not give us the option this time, although I am scared to imagine what an 85mm 1.2 GM would have cost...
I have the Sigma and I would never consider buying another 85mm lens. The GM I was so bad when I rented it. And the quality of the Sigma is excellent. There’s no way there’s a $900 difference in quality in most conditions.
Samyang made two 85 1.4, Sigma makes two, Sony made two, Meike makes one too. Samyang makes a manual 85 1.2. I mean it's not the same as Canikon with AF 1.2, but it's still pretty good, no?
I have the Sigma and it’s spectacular. I agree Sony should have passed on that obvious Sigma winner and gone with a 1.2 to fill the niche for professional photographers.
I'm really impressed with the Sigma Art series in terms of value for money. Just imagine if Sigma released a version II of the Sigma 85mm F1.2 DG DN Art that’s just as sharp as the Sony but a bit cheaper-those sales would be insane! Personally, as a portrait photographer, I was really hoping for the F1.2, but I still think they did an amazing job with this GM II.
Any lens that creates a greater separation between amateur-hour iPhone images and lower quality images is a great point to be focused on. Too many photographers fail to understand that people no longer value a professional image like they used to. They will not pay for excellence when what they can produce on their own is good enough. I've thought long and hard about how to thrive in 2024 and beyond as a professional. wo components are: shoot with technology that the masses can't reasonably duplicate and choose a genre where the barrier to entry is significantly higher. Don't do this and say goodbye to your income stream. AI and other technologies are quickly pushing many photographers into extinction. As a Nikon shooter, I'll go with the F1.2 85mm. It's dreamy good!!!
I have the A9iii…the Sigma is out. Can’t even do 20 fps, much less 120 fps. However, I mainly use my Sony 90 macro foe video, so it doesn’t actually matter. No actual need for any 85.
Ive moved back to Sony so will get the GM 85mm ii. Your results show a bigger difference to the old one than some other tubers 🙂 lots of bokeh makes me feel sick and queasy so no urge for a 1.2
It a very good lens, but f 2.8 , it is also a macro lens. Tested by DxO mark with good results, I have one and I’m very happy with it, but I need a fast lens for portrait , a no brainer the Sigma Art is the top pick
The 85mm f1.4 GM II is a really great lens but the Sigma’s price makes it a better choice for my work. I might hold off for a bit tho in case Sony or Sigma makes an 85mm f1.2. That’s really a dream lens
Aren't most professional portraits taken with some kind of colored or other patterned backdrop? That would make extreme shallow depth of field much less of an issue along with corner sharpness. It might even be preferred to have less sharp corners along with a bit of vignetting present. If that's the case the size and price difference just doesn’t seem to be worth it.
Now, with just 650 dollars, I can easily buy the Sigma 85 DG DN. It is great for an amateur photographer like me. Although the second-generation GM is even better than sigma, but the price is three times higher at this moment or at least in a year, it is not for me or many other casual photographers
Compact size and image quality are not mutually exclusive. And for street photography, an unobtrusive camera/lens can be the difference in getting the shot or not. And if I'm schlepping my kit 10 mi into the mountains, I would prefer Sigma's 90mm f/2.8 i-Series lens over ANY fast 85mm. The optimum kit for studio portraits is not the optimum kit for everything.
And let's not forget *Canon has 85 1.4 IS (!!)* lens. In the dark without flash you would be able to shoot portraits at 1\40-1\80s handheld, while without IS you'd probably go for 1\160-1\200s to avoid shake. That means you can correspondingly lower ISO and get way cleaner shots. P.S. Yes, I know the 85 in question is EF (for DSLR or MILC with adapter) and about the IBIS, but still.
Yes, I'm wondering this too. For wider angles, the brighter aperture is very useful, but for 85mm, even f/1.8 obliterates the background so much, I almost never use that. It's so shallow that part of the person's face is already out of focus and you have no clue where they are, they could be at a wedding or standing next to a dumpster in a dodgy neighbourhood, who knows! - I do wonder what the use case for 85mm f/1.2 vs f/1.4 is hmm.
@@livejames9374 I’m looking online at comparison images, even with full body the background looks obliterated in both, only when you have a full body in the bottom half of the image keeping the top half empty you see a slight difference, I donno, maybe there are situations where it’s more pronounced. Like on a 16mm, hell yes, going from f/2.8 to f/1.8, wow, it’s not even close. On a 24mm going from f/1.8 to f/1.4, not as drastic but you see an obvious difference - you can usually pick out the f/1.4 images from the rest. On 85mm, even side by side I can barely tell f/1.4 vs f/1.2. To be honest unless you put identical images side by side I couldn’t even pick out f/1.8 vs f/1.4.
1:08 To be honest I prefer the "iPhone look". It may not be the best choice for portraits, but for video I find it places you in your home, whereas with the 85mm you can be in your home or in the ISS and it would make no difference.
Preach! I can't believe that it took them 8 years just to give us a slightly upgraded 85! I've been holding off for years on getting an 85 in hope that they would release a 1.2 (or offer some significant differences worth upgrading from the Mark 1), but I'm going with the Sigma now. What a letdown.
I suspect that Sony had discarded the 85mm F1.2 idea, because there's no room for it: There is already the outstanding Sigma 105mm F1.4 (for E mount), which gives same-sized bokeh balls already. Everyone with an interest in such is probably already supplied with this lens. The other thing: F1.2 is more a hobbyist / enthusiast thing. Pros have a mindset of delivering reliably. They don't aim for "only one eye is sharp with a bit of luck, everything else is not, the nose is already disappearing into the void of blur". Such a portrait would be useless for any commercial use. Even some individual clients might scratch their head and refuse to pay the bill in full 😏 Working pros are probably way more different than "more bokeh than talent" hobbyists guys, than what we would think. On the other hand, such hobbyists may be economically more "valuable" to brands than pros are. Already by numbers of customers in these two segments. So let's assume for now, that the Sigma 105mm F1.4 might have been the decisive reason going against an 85mm 1.2?
Lots of pros love the Canon & Nikon 85 f/1.2. You don't have to shoot wide open, but you have the option. With full-body shots, 85 f/1.2 isn't even especially shallow depth-of-field.
I believe that 85mm is not a preferred focal length for full body shots. That would be an almost paparrazzi-like tele look, with a destroyed background. This looks old-fashioned easily. Often, just boring. For contemporary fashion(able) photography, it is more modern to smartly include the environmental context into the portrait and its emotion. Rather than to just destroy it for the sake of destroying it 🙂 For youtubers' talking-head videos, things are different. Then nobody is actually interested in any emotion conveyed by an environmental context. For that use case, using bokeh to destroy background is OK, of course, or at least it isn't wrong. Actually, it wouldn't matter for anything.
@@TonyAndChelsea Can confirm; I use Nikon's 85 f/1.2 S for a lot of indoor activities: concerts, performances, etc, and it's fantastic even wide open. 👍
I saw a comparison between the Sigma 85 DG DN Art, the 105 Art, and the 135 Art. The boke looked better on the 135mm. Aside from that, I don't believe that is the reason Sony hasn't released an 85MM F/1.2, which they do have a patent for. They did after all release the 50mm F/1.4 when we already had the better F/1.2. I'm going to take a guess and say they will likely do the same with the 85. I think sometime next year would be fitting for them to release it.
1.2 vs 1.4 argument is not same as 1.4 vs 1.8 argument here is why: 1. Build quality, with the exception of Batis 85 1.8, typically 1.4s are well built, weather sealed, compared to 1.8s. Also Batis 1.8 is more expensive, or as expensive as Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN. Manufacturers target 1.4 and 1.8 lenses at different price and build quality. 2. DOF: This is important, depth of field (DOF) vs aperture relation is exponential. The DOF narrows down significantly at 1.2 compared to 1.4, than 1.4 compared to 1.8. Ex: For some 1.2 might be just too narrow, that if eyes are in focus, tip of nose might be out of focus! When you talk about 1.2 vs 1.4 build quality doesn't come in to argument, thats only for 1.4 vs 1.8, hence the two comparisons are not just same (ignoring weight and cost differences).
Having said above, Sony can still give 85mm f1.2 for those who desire it! My point is the discussion of 1.2 vs 1.4 is NOT same as 1.4 vs 1.8 for above mentioned reasons.
I am not going to get any because I had Sigma a few months after it was released. I paid under $750 for it, it was brand new. where I am we seems to have the best price for Sigma lenses. and had it for about 2 years,
How many people in the more limited number of photographers in this world are clamoring for an 85mm f1.2 lens? Raise your hands if you do. I don't see anyone, oh there is one way back of the room. No, that the catering person coming in with the goodies. These discussions are beyond realistic. I'm thinking of getting a Sony ZF-1 for the size alone. It has a f1.8 to f4.0 lens. I'm not going to carry a big camera with a huge lens around in public. I want a camera that looks like and is the size of a cellphone. I'm realizing the world of the camera person has changed. I grew up during the 70s on as an adult. We all carried some form of camera around our necks. Today people use their cellphone. A camera now looks intimidating, so I am going Small for those occasions. Keeping my big guns for serious work.
@@bondgabebond4907 That's not entirely true. That ZV-1 II (I assume this is what you meant?) has an f/5 to f/11 full frame equivalent aperture in terms of light gathering, field of view, depth of field, noise levels, etc. If you find yourself never shooting below f/5 wide and f/11 tele on full frame or f/3.4 wide and f/7.3 tele on APS-C then it may be a great option for you. I love smaller packages. Personally I'm usually on the ZV-E1 with the Viltrox 20mm f/2.8, incredible weight to size ratio.
If Sony released this f/1.4 lens two years ago, there wouldn't be as much complaint. If they really want compactness, they could've updated 85 1.8 first. It just shows a lack of effort from Sony.
Last time I've used the Sigma Art at a wedding. It was spot on. Actually, it turned into my absolute favourite lens.
I agree. It is awesome. The Sony GMII is very video-centric.
Sony 85mm f/1.8 works just fine for weddings. The only people who care about the bokeh or extreme sharpness are the lens-owners.
It's late, and I am watching a lens review. I never held a camera in my life.
lmfao
Hopefully you had a good rest while dreaming of holding the camera and the lens.
My men
😱
Good for you, don't bother... It's an expensive obsessive hobby.
I gotta say your video makes me realize how good the sigma one is 😂
6:59 having a 1.2 option would be nice, but canon doesn’t give you a 1.4 option and that extra $1000 between a 1.4 GM and RF 1.2 is a big chunk of change to cough up for the extra 1/3rd of a stop. Not to mention the size and weight of the RF because it’s a 1.2
AF is extremely bad too on that lens.
What you just said is probably main reason why I am not going to go for Canon when upgrading to ff.. Canon offers you either bad and dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 or super super expensive 85mm f1.2 and literally nothing in-between. I do not need or want 1.2, I just need sharp, reliable 1.4 and unfortunately out of 3 biggest camera brands only sony offers it at the moment. Nikon also does not have 1.4, only expensive 1.2 and "cheap" 85mm 1.8 (which is at least better than canons 50mm 1.8)
Of course you can also adapt older lenses but I don't trust that I am gonna get 100% out of the lens using the adapter and older lenses aren't really optimized for mirrorless. That's more of an option for people who really want to go budget or already own good selection of lenses from previous generation of mounts.
@@FTRekyou can used the Canon EF 85/1.4 on a Canon mirrorless body with an adapter. I use the EF 85/1.2, it’s extremely fast on the Canon R6II.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutubeAF is not bad on the RF 85 1.2
@@FTRek The "super super" expensive RF 1.2 is only 600 USD more than the 1.4 GM II. 600 bucks for having 1.2 instead of 1.4 is nothing ridiculous, rather standard and relevant.
For example the price difference between Sony GM 50m f/1.4 and f/1.2 is 700 USD (All prices from BHPhoto).
I started photography in 1990 with a Ricoh xr-10 and I have quite a collection of 35mm film cameras and lenses still. I have watched many of the people on TH-cam talk about the new digital cameras that have come out since film went digital. I have listened to many others who also talk about digital cameras and out of ALL OF THEM I HAVE FOUND THAT THESE 2 people are the most NON-BIAS OF ALL OF THEM. This is the best thing I can say about them and what they are doing for the digital camera world.
I carry lenses with me all day at weddings, and honestly, I love the choice to keep these things light weight and portable. I stopped using my 135 1.8 because it was too much extra weight to carry around..
Keeping my Sigma 85 for now.
I agree. I thought I'd pre-order this one, because the sigma doesn't mix too well with the 50 and 35 GM (renders colours much warmer and punchier) - then I saw that they are trying to charge 2100 EUR for the GM II. Nope, absolutely not.
Thinking about getting the a7CR to be able to switch and using the 85 FF as 125 in APS-C mode when needed.
@@youknowwho9247 people who recommends the 85mm GM II have no cost constraints.
The color of the older GM😢. In my opinion, the Sigma is still the winner because of size and cost. Yeah, I know about distortion and still think it’s super sharp corrected.
I have the Sigma, no plans on trading that one in any time soon. Just got the Sigma 50 1.2 as well, great combo.
that's way too heavy. It's just not practical. 50mm is an everyday focal length, so the weight needs to be light enough for an everyday carry.
@@veritas932that's funny. I regularly carry around lenses about the same weight or heavier for the past 2 years.
The weight is near negligible if you carry it in a shoulder sling or camera bag.
I recently got the Meike 85mm f1.4 and I was incredibly surprised with the results. It has nothing to envy to my 35mm GM regarding lens quality imo unless you're really pixel peeping, do you think you'd be willing to compare it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's only 1/3 of a stop difference between F1.2 and F1.4
Would love to see eye AF tracking comparison for photos with these lenses. Do they keep up with newer AF performance in camera bodies? Sigma often lags behind in this department.
I have the Sigma 85 1.4. Exceptional lens. The new Sony GM, in some ways, makes me appreciate my Sigma even more, given how a small the differences are between Sony's latest and greatest. Also, I got mine pre-loved at fraction of the price so able to invest the savings into other things.
I just retired so I thought I would give photography a try. I just bought the Sony A7RV, Sony 85mm GM 2 f/1.4 and the Sony 35mm GM f/1.4
Whenever I start a new hobby I hate upgrading later
Great combo
actually, you should have started off with a zoom. I started off with primes and ended up with zooms for ease of use. All that changing of lens is inconvenient and zooming with feet is practically hogwash. When you shooting at Mt Fuji in the distance, zooming with feet isn't going to provide a vastly different perspective. When you're in a pub taking snapshots of your friends, there's only so much you can back up. When you're in a touristy place and everyone is in front and behind you taking pics, you can really zoom with your feet. Only option is to zoom with your lens. You can of course crop it in post, but all that post production is going to take effort when you're doing 50 pics a day. Just start off with a 24 70 GM II. If F2.8 can't hack it in low light, then increase the ISO and denoise in post. Those pics would be an exception rather than the norm.
Good luck in your new hobby. Veritas has some excellent suggestions, but they assume that you can always determine the proper composition immediately, while you are taking the image. There are many people who feel that they do well at this, but there are also people who feel that finding the proper composition takes more time than they have at the moment of capture out in the field. I would argue that both approaches are valid, for some people.
I used to be part of the "get it right the first time" camp, until I also started painting. Now, I take a few high-quality images of a scene, with some compositions in mind. When I process these images I spend more time trying to find better compositions within my original compositions. I try to adopt the guideline that even good compositions almost always contain at least one better, more powerful, and cleaner composition. I may not have the skill or willingness to take the time to find that better one, but I find that it is useful to try.
Eventually, I'll bet that you will take Veritas' advice and add a quality zoom or two to your kit. When you do, don't sacrifice the sharpness, lack of chromatic aberration, and fabulous dynamic range of your Sony primes.
I would have loved a photo AF comparison, especially against the sigma!
I currently have the Sigma, every review said it was better than the GM. It's a great lens and like it a lot but it does pair...weird with my GMII zooms, I think there's a color difference. I've been planning on a 35 being my next lens, I was going to go Sigma to save money + match it to my 85. But now I'm rethinking to switch to Sony primes if there's a good 85.
My theory of 1.4 instead of 1.2:
1. I heard SONY E mount is too small to make 85 1.2. I don’t know if it is true.
2. SONY wants to avoid the 50mm GM 1.2 and 1.4 situation. They released the 50 1.2 first then most people bought it then a lot less people bought the 1.4 version when it came out much later. SONY wants to sell as much 85 1.4 GM II as possible to make as much money as they can, then release the faster and more attractive 1.2 version to force the real enthusiasts to buy them again. (Just my theory)
I very much doubt that E mount is "too small to make 85 1.2". The only folks claiming such seem to be exclusively Nikon fans without much understanding of the technical issues. I had hoped that this myth were put to rest after the very nice 50f1.2.
The fact is very simple. For me 85 1.2 would become ready for example next year. But 1.2 will have compromises. The strategy here is rigth. Firts launch an updated very sharp 85 1.4, lighter and more travel friendly than before at the same price. And later add 1.2 that would be at least 2800 usd, less people could buy it,much more heavier, much more bulkier wider and longer, and with 82mm filter size I Imagine a big big lens. So then having both on the store you would choose better. I think this is the reason
@@daran0815Leica M has a tiny lens mount. Yet it has a 50/.95.
@@bngr_bngr It's not me who is saying the mount would be a problem.
Sony can make a 85 1.2. It’s not a mount limitation.
I have the sigma already but find it misses focus often enough to be annoying It also struggles to focus looking into the sun at times I've actually thought about selling it and just getting the Sony 1.8
I’ve got the Sigma 85 1.4, it’s on my camera almost always! It has noticeable pincushion distortion, but that’s easily corrected. For me, the results speak for themselves so I’d go for the cheaper option here!
I have a Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f1.4 RF-mount cine lens that I use with a tilt shift adapter. Cost about $150. Isn't that great?
"3 greatest", well I am VERY happy with my ZEISS Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T* which are more light weight, I also have the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM, the Voigtländer MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm 2.0 Aspherical and the Voigtländer MACRO APO-LANTHAR 110mm 2.5, I will also mention the SONY ZEISS Sonnar 55mm 1.8 T’*ZA which I often use in APSC mode for portraits.
Another vote for the Batis 85. Also the Batis 135 is perfect for me. Great optics, 67mm filter diameter, same color and bokeh rendition across the entire lens line and THEY ARE MUCH LIGHTER IN WEIGHT than all their competition. What's not to like about it? (Unless you absolutely must have f1.4 that is).
@andreascarl9636 i have the Batis as well but am selling it as i have purchased a Sigma DG DN. I love having aperature ring options, and enjoy the f1.4 as well. Batis is a slick looking lens though!! Gonna miss it
I have the Sony GM 85mm 1.4 and the Sony FE 85mm 1.8 and I am happy with both of them. The FE 85 mm 1.4 is a lightweight. In weight and price.
If Sigma 85 had a better looking, less bulky lens hood, it will be my pick
Agree, that lens hood is nuts
But, with the hood on, the Sony 85 GM is still bigger and longer than when the Sigma hood is on. Go look at size comparison pics. 👍🏽
Had the Sigma 85 1.4 DGDN for a year+ now. Happy wtih it. Might get the 105 1.4 again as Sony has no option there.
One reason you forgot to mention [I think] why someone would want to invest into the more expensive GM2 is someone like myself, who owns a Sony a9iii, and benefits from the FPS the 9III and a1 offer. This came in very handy during the Paris Olympics this past summer and why despite me loving Sigma Art lenses, I invest in lenses that help me achieve my creative goals.
This was a ten minute advertisement for the Sigma 85mm.
Yeah no kidding. Watching everyone else review the new GM I was convinced I need to buy it. Now I think I'm sold on the Sigma
Sigma DG DN is straight 🔥
I have the Canon 1.2 85mmm red ring, this beast is incredible! For video or still portraits! Unfortunately, it is heavy, but this lens is just stunning!
Hmm. Been waiting for this as an upgrade to my 85mm 1.8. But in Australia it's launched at $3000 v Sigma at $1300! Since I upgraded to an A7R v and G-Master 35 &50 mm (plus 70-200 28ii) I have not really used my 85 1.8. Which way to go? Help!
For the video, I rather see the 24mm, but it take more skill to compose clutter. For photo don't knw if I should update my 1.8 for a Cheap 1.4 Mk1 or go for MK2. 🤔🤔🤔 thanks for the video!!! Going for mrk2 1.4
In term of the weight, the Sigma 85 is shorter and feels less front heavy than new GM ii.
Would have liked to see sharpness stopped down. Especially for these kinds of primes, sometimes the first stop or so is much softer than the rest of the range. I own the Sigma and although F1.4 is very sharp, it is sharpest at F5.6, which I do use instead depending on what I'm shooting. Would be good information to know to aid in purchasing.
Stopped down always shows less of a difference than wide-open.
@@TonyAndChelsea Stopped down is always sharper. Maybe not a lot, but always some. For most lenses, f/5.6-f/8 is the sweet spot. There's a reason landscape photographers say "f/8 and be there."
@@careylymanjones Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. They were saying that when you compare modern lenses like these stopped down they show almost no difference.
@@TechnoBabble Modern lenses are great, and on many of them, you reach the point of diminishing returns by f/4-5.6. But there's still a slight improvement. And a little extra DOF makes focus less critical.
I'm not INTERESTED in turning my backgrounds into such a featureless blob that you can't tell where the shot was taken. What's the point of going somewhere beautiful for a shoot, and turning the background into a blob? Might as well have stayed in the studio, and shot with a canvas background. The studio would have air conditioning, and you wouldn't have to worry about wind trashing your subject's hairdo.
@@careylymanjones I explained it to you in an even simpler way and you still didn't get it...
WHEN YOU COMPARED MULTIPLE LENSES TO EACH OTHER, WITH ALL OF THEM STOPPED DOWN, THERES BARELY A DIFFERENCE.
Nobody is saying that lenses don't get sharper when you stop them down. If you compared these lenses to each other at f/5.6 they would be essentially identical.
I was hoping for a Sony 85mm 1.2 GM. I have the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM and it’s awesome. I already have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN and it’s pretty good. So, the Sony 85mm 1.4 II is really not something I would consider at all.
Disappointing, because I would have purchased a 85mm 1.2 lens. Hoping that Sigma make one instead.
On the same boat as you with the same gear. Viltrox is making an 85mm F/1.2, and it should be very good.
@@princeharbinger for full frame? Where did you get this information?
My guess is they will make a 1.2. But the 1.4 definitly needed a refresh and they went with this one first (plus they will sell more of the 1.4, according to a Sony representative)
You cannot see the difference between f1.2 and f1.4 unless you put pictures side by side, know what to look for, and stare at the image for about 30 seconds. I could take a photo with an 85mm 1.4 and tell you it was 1.2 and you'd never know the difference.
@@77dris one stop more light is always less noise when shooting indoors for example without proper lights.
This new lens is a miracle for how small and light it is, don't forget on APS-C you would need 56mm f/0.95 to match the light gathering, depth of field and field of view.
Depth of field, yes. Exposure, no. For exposure purposes, f/1.4 is f/1.4, no matter what size sensor. When you use an external light meter, you don''t have to tell it your sensor size.
@@careylymanjones I didn't say exposure. You are conflating light gathering with exposure.
You have to remember you're working with different sized sensors: APS-C: 337.5 mm² vs FF: 864 mm² . So when you are taking an image, you will need your lens to provide 2.56x more light on full frame just to get the same light intensity (exposure) onto the larger sensor. So a 24mm f/2.8 lens on Full Frame will have identical exposure as a 16mm f/2.8 lens on APS-C and 3.85mm f/2.8 lens on an iPhone4, sure. But to achieve this, each is working with a vastly different amount of gathered light.
For all intents and purposes, if you wanted to match images between systems, an f/2.8 lens on APS-C is equivalent to an f/4.2 on Full Frame. This will not only match the depth of field, but also the signal to noise and total light hitting both sensors. You will get an output image that has similar noise, dynamic range, detail, depth of field, etc, etc, etc - but you will need to match exposures either in post or by multiplying the ISO by the crop factor squared (this will not only match your exposure but also your noise levels).
It's wonderful how mathematically, the aperture is just a ratio of focal length to iris diameter. Because it means we can use the same light meter, we can jump between focal lengths and even whole camera systems and easily match exposures. While the exposure is the same, the larger the sensor, the more light and the cleaner the images with more micro contrast and dynamic range, especially in low light.
Is audio bad cuz of noise reduction and high pass filter on DJI mic?
When I tested f/1.2 I found that I rarely got both eyes in focus. I rather save weight and money for f/1.4. I do think that the Sony’s have a slight edge in bokeh over Sigma.
wait till you try the 50mm F1.0 from Voligtlander and that's a manual focus lens. One eyelash will be in focus....
Why don't you consider the Samyang 85 1 4 gen2?
Could you do something on action cams and/or drones again?
@2:50 Sony mk1 made you look Yellow... did you shoot that at different Kelvin?
Can you upload non HDR video option? The HDR drives me crazy.
How about the fact that Canon RF 85/1.2 L is $600 more and weighs ~500-660 grams more. The Nikkor Z 85/1.2 S is $1000 more and also about 500-600 grams more. I actually own the Canon f/1.2 and the original Sony GM version 1 and I admit I am more interested in AF speed these days but don’t shoot professionally any more so I’m sure I’m biased but not interested in a $2400-$2700 lens. Thank you and take care.
As a professional wedding shooter, I'm very happy Sony went with the more practical option rather than competing in a pointless arms race. In no way is the extra cost and especially the weight of an f/1.2 worth the extra 1/3 stop.
Honestly, I would wish for new DN Version of the Sigma 105 1.4.
This my favorite portrait lens.
But sometimes you can feel and see that the AF isn't up to date anymore.
I own the Sigma 85, and while its autofocus in low-light is noticeably worse than my Sony and Sigma lenses at other focal lengths (maybe a bad copy?), it's not enough of an issue to make me upgrade. An extra available f-stop would be worth it, though, and I'm glad you touched on that disappointment 🙁
Thanks for the interesting comparison! This was one of the few lenses in Sony's line-up that really needed an upgrade with the coffee-grinder motors in the original version. It's the only GM-lens I have ever sold. Now that Sony stayed with the 85mm f1.4, I am actually hoping they will make a 100 or 105mm f1.4 or f1.2, that would be really cool. I'd like to see them make a 28mm f1.4 GM as well, in the same size as the 24 and 35mm f1.4 GM.
love your unbiased and comprehensive reviews, please keep em coming!
I've been itching to pull the trigger on the Sigma for a few months because I just assumed Sony would release an f1.2 before a new f1.4... But now seeing these head-to-head comparisons, I think I'll go ahead and get the Sigma, especially given that it currently has a £100 (GBP) voucher making it close to half the price of the new Sony. Honestly, I won't see any benefit from the Sony in my shooting... So that's decision made!
No brainer, stick to your Sigma Art😊
Tony I've been out of the camera game for 10 years my last camera was DSLR should I go mirrorless can you do an update please. Will a DSLR be junk as they are no more firmware updates should I just go mirrorless and replace everything I have
use what works, upgrade if you benefit from the differences between dslr and mirrorless (size, weight, autofocus) and adapt your existing lenses to the new camera body.
I've owned the Sigma for several years. It's great and no need to change. I know published specs on focal length are not always on target but the new Sony, according to your test, is wider than 85mm. Not a plus in my opinion. Overall a very useful comparison.
is the GM II quiet enough for AF Videos for Sports, like boxing when audio is needed?
I would say yes, it is. I've owned it for about three weeks at this point, and I haven't heard the motors.
amazing and thorough review, thank you!! I never worry too much about 1.2 vs 1.4 in terms of the blur, because I can only ever tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but I do like the option of catching that extra light in low light situations. Too bad Sony did not give us the option this time, although I am scared to imagine what an 85mm 1.2 GM would have cost...
@6:45 But Tony, Canon doesn't even offer a RF mount 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.4, just f2 or f1.2...
Guys you make the best lens comparing videos imho. Thanks :)
I have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 dg dn it’s plenty good for me I won’t side grade to the new Sony 85 1.4. gmii
Sony GM 85mm Mark 1 is now officially a vintage lense ;-)
I have the Sigma and I would never consider buying another 85mm lens. The GM I was so bad when I rented it. And the quality of the Sigma is excellent. There’s no way there’s a $900 difference in quality in most conditions.
And the Sigma can be had in secondhand market for like $600-700 all day
Samyang made two 85 1.4, Sigma makes two, Sony made two, Meike makes one too. Samyang makes a manual 85 1.2. I mean it's not the same as Canikon with AF 1.2, but it's still pretty good, no?
I have the Sigma and it’s spectacular. I agree Sony should have passed on that obvious Sigma winner and gone with a 1.2 to fill the niche for professional photographers.
This lens and the 24-70mm is what made me not stay in Sony when I had my A7II. Glad they updated it several years later.
I'm really impressed with the Sigma Art series in terms of value for money. Just imagine if Sigma released a version II of the Sigma 85mm F1.2 DG DN Art that’s just as sharp as the Sony but a bit cheaper-those sales would be insane! Personally, as a portrait photographer, I was really hoping for the F1.2, but I still think they did an amazing job with this GM II.
Any lens that creates a greater separation between amateur-hour iPhone images and lower quality images is a great point to be focused on. Too many photographers fail to understand that people no longer value a professional image like they used to. They will not pay for excellence when what they can produce on their own is good enough. I've thought long and hard about how to thrive in 2024 and beyond as a professional. wo components are: shoot with technology that the masses can't reasonably duplicate and choose a genre where the barrier to entry is significantly higher. Don't do this and say goodbye to your income stream. AI and other technologies are quickly pushing many photographers into extinction. As a Nikon shooter, I'll go with the F1.2 85mm. It's dreamy good!!!
This is the seventh full-frame E-mount AF 85mm F1.4 not the third.
Thanks for doing this, Tony, I was looking for this comparison. Great job here!!!
I like the Zeiss Batis 85mm 1.8. Very sharp.
Hi Tony! Excellent review! Can you please provide us some RAWs? Thank you in advance! 🙏🏻
The very week before the GM II debuted, I bought the original GM from KEH for $748. (It was $935 before a 20% coupon code.)
I have the A9iii…the Sigma is out. Can’t even do 20 fps, much less 120 fps. However, I mainly use my Sony 90 macro foe video, so it doesn’t actually matter. No actual need for any 85.
Hi Tony, Is it somehow possible to use fast Sigma or other manufacturer lenses with some kind of adapter on Canon R full format?
One of the EF Sigma 85mm F1.4 primes might work.
Ive moved back to Sony so will get the GM 85mm ii. Your results show a bigger difference to the old one than some other tubers 🙂 lots of bokeh makes me feel sick and queasy so no urge for a 1.2
The old Sony was just trash.
What about the 90mm f2.8 macro lens
It a very good lens, but f 2.8 , it is also a macro lens. Tested by DxO mark with good results, I have one and I’m very happy with it, but I need a fast lens for portrait , a no brainer the Sigma Art is the top pick
The 85mm f1.4 GM II is a really great lens but the Sigma’s price makes it a better choice for my work. I might hold off for a bit tho in case Sony or Sigma makes an 85mm f1.2. That’s really a dream lens
My Sony 85 GM isn’t nearly as bad as yours sharpness-wise. Mine is softer than 50 1.2 GM, but not by much.
There are 6 options for an 85mm 1.4 with AF. You missed the old Sigma Art and 2 Samyang lenses. Just sayin 😅
Aren't most professional portraits taken with some kind of colored or other patterned backdrop? That would make extreme shallow depth of field much less of an issue along with corner sharpness. It might even be preferred to have less sharp corners along with a bit of vignetting present. If that's the case the size and price difference just doesn’t seem to be worth it.
Now, with just 650 dollars, I can easily buy the Sigma 85 DG DN. It is great for an amateur photographer like me. Although the second-generation GM is even better than sigma, but the price is three times higher at this moment or at least in a year, it is not for me or many other casual photographers
Couldn't agree more on Tony's take on weight and size. Compact size are nice too have, but image quality and durability are way more important.
Wouldn't say way more important but having the option to be either is the important thing. Good options for different situations.
Compact size and image quality are not mutually exclusive. And for street photography, an unobtrusive camera/lens can be the difference in getting the shot or not. And if I'm schlepping my kit 10 mi into the mountains, I would prefer Sigma's 90mm f/2.8 i-Series lens over ANY fast 85mm. The optimum kit for studio portraits is not the optimum kit for everything.
happy with my sigma 85 1.4 ... thanks for the confirmation
And let's not forget *Canon has 85 1.4 IS (!!)* lens. In the dark without flash you would be able to shoot portraits at 1\40-1\80s handheld, while without IS you'd probably go for 1\160-1\200s to avoid shake. That means you can correspondingly lower ISO and get way cleaner shots. P.S. Yes, I know the 85 in question is EF (for DSLR or MILC with adapter) and about the IBIS, but still.
Eye autofocus?
Great work Tony!
There is the TTArtisan 90mm F1.25. Not the best lens but basically an 85mm F1.2
The biggest thing I took away from this is how much I dislike the audio from the DJI mic! Was dramatic when you switched to it!
Noticed that too, but usally the DJI mic sounds better.
1:10 Sorry it may be an unpopular opinion but I like the wide-angle deeper-DOF POV better
My 85 mm f1.4 GM 2 arrives tomorrow.
Why is your audio so messed up? I would expect a youtuber with 1,63 mil subs to have speakers to listen to a video before uploading
Why nobody compare 50mm 1.4 vs 85mm 1.4 gm ii
Without doubt I will by the Sigma 85 1.4
Can you please do a comparison of the new Sony 85mm and Canon and Nikon 85mm f1.2? Thank you!
Yes, I'm wondering this too. For wider angles, the brighter aperture is very useful, but for 85mm, even f/1.8 obliterates the background so much, I almost never use that. It's so shallow that part of the person's face is already out of focus and you have no clue where they are, they could be at a wedding or standing next to a dumpster in a dodgy neighbourhood, who knows! - I do wonder what the use case for 85mm f/1.2 vs f/1.4 is hmm.
@@DigiDriftZone1.2 gives a magical look for full body portraits
@@livejames9374 I’m looking online at comparison images, even with full body the background looks obliterated in both, only when you have a full body in the bottom half of the image keeping the top half empty you see a slight difference, I donno, maybe there are situations where it’s more pronounced.
Like on a 16mm, hell yes, going from f/2.8 to f/1.8, wow, it’s not even close. On a 24mm going from f/1.8 to f/1.4, not as drastic but you see an obvious difference - you can usually pick out the f/1.4 images from the rest. On 85mm, even side by side I can barely tell f/1.4 vs f/1.2. To be honest unless you put identical images side by side I couldn’t even pick out f/1.8 vs f/1.4.
1:08 To be honest I prefer the "iPhone look". It may not be the best choice for portraits, but for video I find it places you in your home, whereas with the 85mm you can be in your home or in the ISS and it would make no difference.
Comparing to the Sony 1.8 and the Sigma 1.4, the price isn't justified. If money is no object, I buy an R5 just for the 85mm 1.2 RF lens.
Should have included the Sony 1.8
Preach! I can't believe that it took them 8 years just to give us a slightly upgraded 85! I've been holding off for years on getting an 85 in hope that they would release a 1.2 (or offer some significant differences worth upgrading from the Mark 1), but I'm going with the Sigma now. What a letdown.
Time to switch to Canon folks.. R5 mk2 and 85mm 1.2 is great combo.
My guess: Sony will release a 85 1 2 in addition.
But if Sony will, they will release 85 f1.2 first
I suspect that Sony had discarded the 85mm F1.2 idea, because there's no room for it: There is already the outstanding Sigma 105mm F1.4 (for E mount), which gives same-sized bokeh balls already. Everyone with an interest in such is probably already supplied with this lens.
The other thing: F1.2 is more a hobbyist / enthusiast thing. Pros have a mindset of delivering reliably. They don't aim for "only one eye is sharp with a bit of luck, everything else is not, the nose is already disappearing into the void of blur". Such a portrait would be useless for any commercial use. Even some individual clients might scratch their head and refuse to pay the bill in full 😏
Working pros are probably way more different than "more bokeh than talent" hobbyists guys, than what we would think.
On the other hand, such hobbyists may be economically more "valuable" to brands than pros are. Already by numbers of customers in these two segments.
So let's assume for now, that the Sigma 105mm F1.4 might have been the decisive reason going against an 85mm 1.2?
Lots of pros love the Canon & Nikon 85 f/1.2. You don't have to shoot wide open, but you have the option. With full-body shots, 85 f/1.2 isn't even especially shallow depth-of-field.
I believe that 85mm is not a preferred focal length for full body shots. That would be an almost paparrazzi-like tele look, with a destroyed background. This looks old-fashioned easily. Often, just boring.
For contemporary fashion(able) photography, it is more modern to smartly include the environmental context into the portrait and its emotion. Rather than to just destroy it for the sake of destroying it 🙂
For youtubers' talking-head videos, things are different. Then nobody is actually interested in any emotion conveyed by an environmental context. For that use case, using bokeh to destroy background is OK, of course, or at least it isn't wrong. Actually, it wouldn't matter for anything.
@@TonyAndChelsea Can confirm; I use Nikon's 85 f/1.2 S for a lot of indoor activities: concerts, performances, etc, and it's fantastic even wide open. 👍
@@tubularificationed you're speaking with a lot of confidence there
I saw a comparison between the Sigma 85 DG DN Art, the 105 Art, and the 135 Art. The boke looked better on the 135mm. Aside from that, I don't believe that is the reason Sony hasn't released an 85MM F/1.2, which they do have a patent for. They did after all release the 50mm F/1.4 when we already had the better F/1.2. I'm going to take a guess and say they will likely do the same with the 85. I think sometime next year would be fitting for them to release it.
1.2 vs 1.4 argument is not same as 1.4 vs 1.8 argument here is why:
1. Build quality, with the exception of Batis 85 1.8, typically 1.4s are well built, weather sealed, compared to 1.8s. Also Batis 1.8 is more expensive, or as expensive as Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN. Manufacturers target 1.4 and 1.8 lenses at different price and build quality.
2. DOF: This is important, depth of field (DOF) vs aperture relation is exponential. The DOF narrows down significantly at 1.2 compared to 1.4, than 1.4 compared to 1.8.
Ex: For some 1.2 might be just too narrow, that if eyes are in focus, tip of nose might be out of focus!
When you talk about 1.2 vs 1.4 build quality doesn't come in to argument, thats only for 1.4 vs 1.8, hence the two comparisons are not just same (ignoring weight and cost differences).
Having said above, Sony can still give 85mm f1.2 for those who desire it!
My point is the discussion of 1.2 vs 1.4 is NOT same as 1.4 vs 1.8 for above mentioned reasons.
I am not going to get any because I had Sigma a few months after it was released. I paid under $750 for it, it was brand new. where I am we seems to have the best price for Sigma lenses. and had it for about 2 years,
Keeping my Sigma as well. Agree that Sony missed out on going f/1.2 with this new lens.
How many people in the more limited number of photographers in this world are clamoring for an 85mm f1.2 lens? Raise your hands if you do. I don't see anyone, oh there is one way back of the room. No, that the catering person coming in with the goodies.
These discussions are beyond realistic. I'm thinking of getting a Sony ZF-1 for the size alone. It has a f1.8 to f4.0 lens. I'm not going to carry a big camera with a huge lens around in public. I want a camera that looks like and is the size of a cellphone. I'm realizing the world of the camera person has changed. I grew up during the 70s on as an adult. We all carried some form of camera around our necks. Today people use their cellphone. A camera now looks intimidating, so I am going Small for those occasions. Keeping my big guns for serious work.
@@bondgabebond4907 That's not entirely true. That ZV-1 II (I assume this is what you meant?) has an f/5 to f/11 full frame equivalent aperture in terms of light gathering, field of view, depth of field, noise levels, etc. If you find yourself never shooting below f/5 wide and f/11 tele on full frame or f/3.4 wide and f/7.3 tele on APS-C then it may be a great option for you.
I love smaller packages. Personally I'm usually on the ZV-E1 with the Viltrox 20mm f/2.8, incredible weight to size ratio.
Who said it's not next remember the 50 1.2 then 50 1.4 they had to flip it to sell the 85 1.4
Always my favorite photography reviewers! I might upgrade mine...... maybe haha
If Sony released this f/1.4 lens two years ago, there wouldn't be as much complaint. If they really want compactness, they could've updated 85 1.8 first. It just shows a lack of effort from Sony.