I even bought the Sony 85 mm f1.8 due to the heavy distortion of the Sigma lens. I read a lab test where the measurement electronics was not able to measure the distortion because it "only" goes to 2.5%. The Sigma lens exceeded this value and distortion even starts in the middle.
I`m at around 3k Images with the new 85 GM ii, its absolute fantastic. Nails AF every time, and the details are amazing. Even better than the 135mm GM, and i thought that wouldnt be possible
Thank you Dustin for the comparison. I have shot with the Sigma and thought it was fantastic. This video shows that the Sony is even better. I almost bought a used Sigma for $750. A brand new Sony, after taxes will cost me $1,950. Is the Sony $1,200 better than the Sigma? Money no object, hands down Sony. If cost is an issue, then Sigma both used or new is a great deal.
As usual, another excellent review. Whilst there's no doubting the optical quality of the majority of the GM range of glass, unless you are a pro, or a very keen hobbyist, with correspondingly deep pockets, the Sony GM range is simply too expensive for my ultra hobbyist needs. Sigma has and continues to offer excellent quality glass, for both apsc and ff formats at excellent value pricing.
1200$ better? That's more than an average months salary in my country, so I'd get the sigma. Unless you have an 50mpix + camera, you will not see the difference in IQ. Do you need the faster AF? If yes, I'd wait a year or so until the sony gets cashbacks / discounts.
The Sony being worth $1200 more is a hard argument to make unless you happen to be shooting the kinds of action that justify the Sony's expense. As an amateur or hobbyist, I would argue that it isn't worth it.
@@proksalevente I have shot with a Sony A7RIV (60MP) camera and Sigma 85mm f1.4. The Sigma is super sharp and perhaps the best lens I have ever shot with. I am sure Sony is better but not $1,200 better. With that said, if I had the budget, I would get the Sony. But in the real world, the difference is lot of money for me.
I wonder if a Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN II is on the horizon with updated auto focus? I definitely prefer the rendering, size and weight of the Sigma but I need at least modern Sigma auto focus to warrant buying a new lens. I wouldn't be opposed to a 105 or 135 that was more on the compact side either. Glad you made this comparison Dustin. I was hoping you'd do it.
Hmmm, I wouldn't put that outside the realm of possibility. Sigma's new HLA focus system is definitely superior. I'm not sure there is a lot of room for optical improvements, however, unless they've managed to solve the pincushion distortion issue without growing the lens.
Don't get me wrong I love a super sharp lens. And my Sigma 85mm has been doing great for the past 3 years and I've been extremely happy with it. It's not as sharp as my Sony 135 mm GM but it's darn close. The only other lens that I found is sharp as the Sony 135 mm GM is the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sport lens for Sony and it's been spoiling me rotten. As a mature as a photographer I am not shooting portraits anymore at f1.4. But don't get me wrong I still prefer buying lenses at that aperture just because I know they are the best in that companies lineup. But I've been shooting more portraits at F4 or a little bit higher. Thanks for breaking this video down I've been really curious on how the sigma rated. I was debating on getting the new 85 GM 2 by I went and bought the new Sony NX 800 camcorder that they just came out with and you want to talk about a sweet camera
Just be thankful you have the mirrorless version of that Sigma. I have it in F mount, and yes, it's sharp. At least once I convinced my D7200 where it was supposed to focus. And then there's the weight, what with the 82 mm filter size. it's almost like lugging a 150 to 600 around. I love it though. In fact, I love it so much, I put my ancient 80-200 mm f2.8-D (screw driver two twist), in the shop for a rebuild in its honor.
@@captaincrankysdock9730 are you talking about the old Nikon screw drive 70-200 D lens? I had an old nikon 70-200 It had a push and pull To zoom in and out. That was my first 70 - 200 I could afford for my Nikon D800 and D7100 and that was a fun lens but God was that heavy. The new Sigma 70-200 is a little on the heavy side but nothing like those old Nikon F Mount lenses
@@Louphotos I know the most common lenses today in that focal length range are 70 to 200, but those old Nikkors were 80-200. (As was likely yours, just a typo I'm sure), Mine is still a "D" model, It's still a "screwdriver", but the later "two touch" model, not push/pull. It does "focus breath" a bit, but it breaths in, making it longer at close focus, rather than much shorter as are the 3X the price new models. As for the Sigma "Sport" 70 to 200 f2.8, are you kidding about the weight? I bought one to replace my Nikkor when it crapped out. It weights over 4 pounds. The two touch Nikkor weights about 3 pounds, and it's all metal, plus MIJ. The Sigma didn't focus worth a damn on my D7200. I had to add +18 focal correction, (The D7200 only goes to +20) So, I put the Nikkor in the shop, $300,00 later and it's ready to be picked up (Yay, if only for the sentimental value). The 80 to 200 AF-D two touch" is apparently the "sweet spot" in that line, as the same lens in AF-S has motor issues, and was discontinued long ago. Nikon's D-x pro cameras have stronger in body focus motors, and so it tends to focus faster than on the D-xxxx bodies. (Mine was always hooked up to a D-90, and earlier an F-100). Here's a review of the model I have: kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm On a side note, I always wanted a 300 F2.8, but could never afford one. With the 80 to 200 f2.8 on APS-C I have one, but for only a cool grand out of the gate, some 20+ years ago. With FF or film though, I considered it the "best normal lens ever". Footnote here: The only sigma 70 to 200 f2.8 I'm familiar with is the "Sport" variant. 82 mm filter 4+ lbs. You may have had a prior model that was indeed lighter than your Nikkor.
It is funny, but this Comparison seems to have a lot of parallels to the GM I vs Sigma you did years ago. But this time its the Sigma which - is less sharper - has lower contrast - softer Bokeh I have read the comments of the GM II owners which report much better AF performance, even in Portrait work. That is very important to me. But even more important is for me the "look" a lens produces...as a German I have the impression that Sony is striving with the new lenses to a Leica look ...meaning a unique style/ look...ultra sharp, rich colors, low haze, a 3D-Pop which only few can match...the 1.4/35mm, the 1.2+1.4/50mm certainly have this special look IMHO. Your examples at least gave this impression like much higher contrast , less haze whenever the GMII was used in real life...like the flowers. Is this observation what you see as well ?
Hi Justin. I just ordered a Sigma DG DN for my L mount cameras today on the used market and found your video later this afternoon ! Well, apparently the Sigma is already a great performer and I kind of appreciate more the background out of focus softness than the one of the Sony. Anyhow I can’t use a Sony gm on my S1R … I will compare this DG DN with my Leica APO Summicron 75 which is astonishing. If the Sigma is far from the Leica I will send it back … or in the contrary I will get rid of the Leica and recover some cash 😊 Great review again, as usual.
I also use the Sigma on my S1R and are totally happy with it! It is a great portrait lens. I don‘t have experience with the Leica, but for portraits vignetting, distortion and microcontrast is not the main topic. The background on the other side is great…
Hey Dustin, thanks for the great review. However, I can't help but noticed that in the optical deep dive section, the real world image comparisons consist of photos from the sigma that are on around 20% shorter exposure settings. Do you think that would've made a difference? Any chance that you can update the comparison with the same exposure settings?
Excellent comparison! Thank you so much, Dustin! I would imagine that the 85mm GM Mark i will have even softer bokeh in comparison. I own that one, and I absolutely love its rendering.
The price for the SONY will eventually also drop and there should be some cashback offer after a year or two. Adiitionally, at least here in the UK, you would get £100 off for the SONY ("Welcome to Alpha"), and an extra year of warranty if registered. For those photographers that are members, advantage #7 for the SONY is that it qualifies for SONY PRO Support.
plz help me I bought a Sony A7III and am looking for a lens to shoot bridal, wedding and portrait sessions so that they create stunning images with a special character that competes with other photographers. In your opinion, is tamron 35-150 e mount lens suitable? Or choose one of these options 1_ sigma 85 1.4 dg dn with sigma 24-70 g2 2_ sony 50mm 1.2 3- sigma 28-105. f 2.8
It's interesting that you and a number of other reviews are showing that the out of focus areas aren't as soft on the GM II as the Sigma, however I've noticed that the framing is slightly different with the Sigma being a slightly tighter image meaning the subject is slightly closer and therefore there will be a more shallow depth of field. Did you happen to take any test photos with identical framing? It would be intersting to also know which one is closest to 85mm.
Yes, the Sigma is a bit long, and the GM II a bit short, and that does make a difference. My observations are not just from head to head comparisons, however, but also from the impression from a lot of real world shots.
Third time on this video, one day I will own this 85 but not today, I do like the clinical sharpness on the gm. And I love the out of focus on the $500 new Sirius lens put this together and I would pay 2,400
Thanks for comparison. Nice to see that even you with some expensive lenses, still buy 'price performance' lenses like Sigma. Hehe, i got Sony 20mm F1.8, 24mm GM, 35mm GM 50mm F1.2 gm (bought at such a good price it's almost Sigma F1.2 price, Sigma wanst out yet, otherwise i would have bought). I also have Sigma 35mm F1.2 (my favorite 'rendering' lens, as landscape + bokeh + microcontrast in one). Then holy trinity 12-24mm GM, 24-70mm GM and 70-200mm GM was gonna delay or buy F4 or Sigma version but he price was 33% cheaper then new, this was insane, had to get it. The weight is so low that imo F4 is 'not enough lighter' to even consider it (old 70-200mm GM's where 50% heavier). I use this so much that my primes often have no work :) 85mm i would use less then my other primes, so Sigma is probably best for me (as there's also more used supply, seen as low as 700€). That being said a Sigma dg dn 85mm F1.2 1500€ would probably be my favorite pick :D Enough to differentiate, special prime enough to love it, still amazing price, weight doenst bother me much, i have enough light weigt primes and the trinity (always with me) that having a heavier lens for occassion is least of my worry.
What is the best Sony wide angle lens? I need one for shooting landscape when going to Europe for vacation…a GM would be fine. Europe has so many large churches and basilicas that I want a good sharp wide angle lens.
@@inquisitvem6723 12-24mm GM, i own it for 3 years and man, the image are so good. The Sigma was excellent, but this one is even better, some days, this is only lens on my camera (like in forest). It's a bit expensive but imo worth as investment, hell even the overlapping primes are pointless once you have this lens, it even excelt at star image (coma very good and F2.8 is damn bright for zoom at 12mm.)
Great Dustin. Also, does the sony allow more light? It looks from the image at 10:00 that it allows 1/3 or 1/2 of a stop more? Once the sigma profile is applied the difference is not much. It is only in this image I see a signficant difference.
Have you thought about making a direct comparison between the Sigma and Samyang 85mm 1.4s? I feel like a lot of people looking at the Sigma are also going to look at the somewhat cheaper Samyang.
Great comparison! The real-world photos have slightly different exposure with the Sony having 1/3 stop more light. Maybe next time you can switch to manual exposure? And I guess the Sigma being a "longer" lens helps to deliver softer bokeh.
The problem with manually exposing in these types of comparisons is that you are biasing results towards one or the other of the lenses. If the lenses don't have the same light transmission, you are purposefully either underexposing or overexposing one.
Silly newbie question: for Sigma, is it necessary to continually hold half shutter or hold auto focus on button during transitioning focus to achieve those AFspeeds, or will the lens auto focus as fast without the aforementioned interventions? Without assistance from the shutter or AF-on button holds, the lens itself takes forever to obtain focus even in great lighting
Great review, as always! The field of view seems a bit wider on all the Sony shots. Maybe due to correcting the distortion on the Sigma. But I’m wondering if compensating by getting a little tighter on the Sony, and giving equal framing, would give it the advantage in bokeh as well.
I've turned off corrections on both lenses to give an apples to apples comparison. The difference in field of view has to be due to a slight variance in focal length instead.
Great review, Dustin. It looks like the focal length of the Sigma and Sony are not equal. Either the Sigma is closer to 90mm or the Sony closer to 80mm. It's obvious in your bokeh shots in your garden, like with that boy statue. I'm wondering if this is giving the Sigma most of the advantage you see in bokeh and how the shots would compare if you compensated for the focal length disparity.
There is a focal length disparity, but it is more like 2-3mm, not 10. It's not just the size of the specular highlights, too, but also that the bokeh in real world images looks softer from the Sigma.
I can’t Harley wail on the Viltrox 85 1.2 any word on when it will be ready? The 135 1.8 was impressive. ,Thanks Dustin for all you do for us photographers😊you biggest fan from Ga
No word at all. It will hopefully be sometime in 2025, but I would be surprised if all three LAB lenses come in 2025, so it depends on where they start.
I couldn't always see much sharpness or contrast advantage for the new sony, but huge advantages in distortion and vignetting. To be honest I'm not tempted away from my "ancient" zeiss batis 85 f1.8. Plus it's stabilised.
I was thinking I have the 85 1.8 zeiss and I was wondering about a comparison with the sigma or the gm? And keep in mind the size on the zeiss I may already have what I am looking for? What do you think? Your channel is the best Dustin!!
It's been too long since I've reviewed the Batis and when I did review it, it was on older equipment with lower resolution and inferior autofocus, so I can't draw too many comparisons.
@@DustinAbbottTWI fair enough, but I do like the out of focus rendering on the 85 1.8 and it’s super lightweight but I’m a Boca junkie lol thanks for always responding to my crazy replies. God bless you, Dustin.
The Sony is better but for more than half the price the Sigma is amazing. Like unless one is rich or uses a 85mm literally all the time I can not see any reason to own the Sony as the Sigma is so good. I will keep the Sigma and know from this its second best.
Probably one reason, autofocus, to get the most pictures in focus at events that u cannot repeat and you have one chance. Personally I would chose sigma, because I have no pressure to get all pictures in perfect focus and I like bokeh more on sigma.
@@PatrickWithCamera maybe but I just used my Sigma 85 after watching this video and I shot about 60 photos walking around town and only 1 missed focus and I am unsure if maybe I was MF the focus myself. So never had a problem with the AF on the SIgma and actually bought it because of Dustins other review comparing the Sigma to the original Sony GM 85.
I had the sigma for 3 years and now since 5 days I use the sony in the studio for portraits. With the sigma 10% was not focused to the eyes and 25 % was ok, but not exaxtly. With the sony there is no foto till now wich is not perfect. The faster autofocus is very usefull also with slow portrait shooting.
hi Dustin. which camera and lens did you use for your sit down segment outside? the colours and backgrounds is so creamy. edit. i just saw it was filmed with Sigma 85 f1.4. I'm guessing it's at f1.4 😮? did you use a particular colour profile? it looks so good
I think its the standard profile. The biggest thing is to get the lighting right and choose a good setting. I don't typically grade my footage because I don't have time to do all of that with the amount of content I produce.
For me this is largely a portrait focal length.... And maximum micro-contrast is not something I'm looking for in a portrait lens. Would have liked to have seen some portrait examples.... But I'm guessing I might actually prefer the sigma for that application.
This is an incredibly well done comparison. Extremely helpful. Thank you! ps: Would the greater magnification of the Sigma cause the bokeh to be slightly softer?
I do like the very best optical performance you can get, so I might get the Sony 85mm1.4 GM II Lens, but I would like a Lens that is lighter and I do not need aperture 1.4 for a 85mm Lens, I have the excellent Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T' and I would like to see a series of high end compact Sony "GMC" Lenses that do not need software to perform, fx 24mm 1.8/2.0, 35mm 1.8/2.0, 55/60mm 1.8/2.0, 85mm 1.8/2.0 and 135mm 2.5/2.8 "GMC" Lenses.
Great review! My use case involves AF tracking a high energy dog running towards me at full speed. Would you recommend getting the Sony over Sigma, or is neither going to be able to keep up on an A7R5?
@@Reviews4fun1 I have that too! It’s a great lens that works well until golden hour kicks in and I still want to keep iso low with 1/1500s to freeze my dog in motion 💨
I'll admit, I'm a bit of a sucker for first party lenses and as someone new to the Sony ecosystem (previously Nikon), I just picked up the new 85 1.4 GMii. :) I wonder if the weather sealing might be better on the Sony? I shoot in a lot of dusty environments and my 16-35 gmii and 70-200 gmii have held up amazingly well so far. I *am* a bit shocked that the Sony 85mm seems to perhaps not be a true 85mm?! I've heard it mentioned in a few reviews now. What would you say the percentage difference is in magnification between the Sigma and Sony?
Sony nicely outperforming sigma at the corners at 1.4, but sigma is known as a bad MTFs at 1.4 so no surprises here. And great focus breathing compensation, just hands down, is Sony worth the price ? definitelly...Thank you Dustin for comparisons.
It's darker in the corners though, which the metering system may not prioritise. Also, it could be that they are slightly different focal lengths (allowed withinreason), the Sigma a bit more tele.
@@adamadamis Some time ago a german photographer noted, that all Sony lenses are automatically corrected, even if the correction in camera is set to off. Because of nearly the same build size I expect a nearly identical amount of vignetting from both lenses, if you have no profile in the background. BTW the photographer tested this behaviour with Sony lenses by taping some contacts on the lens, so the camera did not know which lens was used…
I would say that there might be a tiny different in T-stop, but I think the specular highlight issue is probably more of a slight variance in focal length.
@@DustinAbbottTWIright, but to the OP's point, I wonder if the difference in the bokeh could be explained by the effective F Stop of the Sony being different than the Sigma. Like if the Sigma were stopped down to 1.6 or 1.8, then would it look like the Sony bokeh..
I think for outdoor portraits sigma wins, for studio, sony probably would make a case for better detail, cant quite justify the price difference, and i kind of like the sigma look of color from their lenses, always has a nice catalog look to it, sony it felt like needs some color correcting or tweaking but lately has been getting better. I got the sigma and picked up v1 85 gm real cheap so I'm not gonna get v2 gm but im very thankful for these comparison videos. I might have gone for it if it was 1.2 85 like many hoped but the 1.4 made it much easier to pass 😅
I got both, The 85 GM I and the 1,8 Sony E. The GM I for its sharper image and a much softer bokeh than the 1,8 and the 1,8 for its weight for travel. I know everybody is nowadays claiming the bad sides of the GM I with slower AF etc...but can it be that the GM I is king of softer Bokeh compared to the MK 2 ? For the purpose of this lens I am not sure I want to trade in my super smooth Bokeh for a nervous Bokeh just to get even more sharpness. And I just compared my old 1.8/55 CZ with the new GM1,4/50mm...same story: Gm Bokeh more nervous like a impressionist brush technique while CZ smoother...and as the GM feels more like 47mm, the bokeh balls are not very different is size to 1,8... The question would be here the same: As the 85mm II is signfivantly underperforming in magnification (75mm?)...isnt this a feason for the nervous bokeh and would it be not pretty mich equal to a real 85mm with 1.8 ?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I am sorry, but if your video is correct, it is actually a 75mm lens (please double check yourself): I took the overview scene at timestamp 11:29 with the 10 Deutsche MArk bill in the middle and did a hardcopy of that. Than I put a frame on the left bill in MS Draw and counted the pixel. Did the same with right bill. Result is (Your Pixel will differ but the proportions will be the same): On the X-axis we have 630 Pixel vs 550 PIxel (same with the y axis btw). So, if we take the Sigma as a true 85mm lens as the baseline: 85mm=Magnification of 1.7 equals 630 Pixel. than 550 Pixel=Magnification of 1,5=75mm as our basis is 85mm=630 Pixel, or 50mm= 370 (MAgnification of 1), so, a delta of 37 Pixel equals a delta of 5mm in this sample...and we have a delta of 80 Pixel counted !!! More than 10mm difference !!! So, if your video is not messed up, this is a 75mm lens...I wonder how they can get away with that. But crudos to you...You are one of the few reviewers who outlined this. Most of the guys today are dependant on Sony and act like sales reps..."Buy the latest greatest...its the ultimate portrait lens" ....which many said about the GM I in 2016 as well. NObody talked about the flaws of that lens in 2016.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, your pictures and those of other TH-camrs which have similar results proove different. I gues the variation between allowed and actually delivered magnification comes from parameters which they use end to end and which you did not use like they do... like lens compensation, focus breathing, focus distance etc which crop in etc. or change the magnification in different focus distances (floating elements ?) . Nevertheless. My point is: in you pic 11:29 its like 75mm. In other videos of other reviewers its more like 79mm, but still not 85mm. In the end I will buy one and compare.
I am not a sports shooter so the minuscule AF speed difference or the 30 fps don't matter to me AT ALL. Picture quality does though. The real question is this: Which of these llllittle differences between these two lenses aren't fixable with a push of a slider to +10% on post production? I can't seem to find any. BUT the 750$ difference isn't fixable with any slider. I would prefer to take those 750$ and use them to get ehmmm...a DG DN 20/1.4? (Not a bad lens eh?). Just saying...
Looks like Sony went for sharpness and micro contrast for the GMII, while the Sigma has smoother rendering the GMII has better subject isolation. I have tried the Sigma a few times and it doesn't colour match my 35mm and 50mm GMs but my new 85mm GMII does. That alone is worth the extra cost to me but better AF, sharper, better corrected and punchier images are very welcome as well. Well done again Dustin, great comparison.
That's a very valid point. If you value color consistency in your results, sometimes investing in better lenses from the same manufacturer is worth it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Its also why I would love to see mirrorless versions of their 40mm and 105mm to use them as a combo as an alternative to my GM glass sometimes :)
It's the law of diminishing returns. A new top line lens will nearly always be more expensive. The Sigma represents great value, and the Sony is the premium solution.
The 85/1.4GMII is certainly not the marvel of compactness that the 24/1.4GM is, even if it is smaller than the original. But my real surprise here is that SIGMA has Sony beat in size (usually it's the other way around).
How do we know the Sigma is a true 85mm? The Sigma could well be 87mm - and the SONY 83mm! Both examples would be classed as 85mm. I believe that's allowed in the photography industry.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yea, I know there are variations but don't understand the inability to engineer to spec. My 35mm 1.4 Rokinon was noticeably wider than my 35mm 35 GM.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok, get you. The substance of this video is in some other videos. Which is like to say, that it is normal that there is no salt in this dish because there is more salt in the other dishes on the menu.
🤔When I see the exposure parameters and the differences in bokeh, I come to the conclusion that the Sigma is 1/3EV brighter than the Sony, did you notice that?
I think the bokeh differences are more to do with the slightly longer focal length of the Sigma. But I have noted that light transmission is rarely a strength for GM lenses.
The GM looks great, but I want an 85 to be a little bit softer, filmic more of a green tint, etc I absolutely hate how the GM portrait lenses have this macro lens look to them 🤢
Hmm. Sony definitely takes the crown there (image quality wise). Is it though REALLY worth double the price. Questionalble. If you need the best of the best and you´re shooting professional (and the most FPS with the A9 III are super important for example) then its an easy choice for the Sony 85mm II GM. But for everyone else out there, its kind of an easy choice to go for the Sigma. Used you can get it even as low as 600 to 700 bucks already - Its a price / performance bargain!
17:28 you can see the Sony is a noticeably wider than the Sigma, maybe a 2-3mm difference, for ex the Sony could be 83mm and the Sigma could be 86mm. That does have an impact on the bokeh balls and background rendering.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Me too, actually. I do a lot of nature, and closeup photography (as well as some landscape). Hence, I'm particularily interested in minimum focusing distance and bokeh. And that my backpack doesn't destroy my back.. 😁
I'm just an amateur and live on a fixed pension income. The Sony GM lens is 2500 CAD. What!!! Seriously!?!? Hard to justify but I see that the Sony GM lens has advantages over the Sigma. I need to start to save money but how long is that going to take!
Bonjour et merci pour ce test toujours aussi précis et complet. J'ai l'impression que la profondeur de champ du Sigma et du Sony ne sont pas les mêmes à 1.4 Avez-vous essayé de mettre le Sigma à 1.8 pour voir si la netteté n'est pas meilleure et évidemment le bokeh ne sera pas aussi doux ? C'est juste une réflexion… Encore merci et bonne continuation, un français qui vous suit 😉
A not buying decision :))) It's not 1.2!!! Case closed, everyone is dismissed. I go back to hating my Sony GM 85 1.4 Ver 1. and loving my Canon FD 85 1.8. I prefer softness, smoothness and great filmic skintones in portrait lens.
While the overall bokeh looks smoother on the Sigma, the fall off seems better on the Sony. Look closely how jittery Sigma seems in the fall off areas close to the focus plane in the flower shots. Although it also could be due to the small differences distancing both shots.
Sit down, have a nice cup of coffee and watch Dustin Abbott pixel peeping. Tucks the heart strings of a photographer that does. :)
LOL. That cracked me up.
The new 85GM is stellar but not 60+% percent better than the sigma.
A lot of people clearly agree with you.
How does it compare to the original Sony 85mm F1.4 GM?
@@inquisitvem6723 It's a little sharper, especially at and near min focus.
It does not need to be 60% better, it only needs to be better. Price is not propertional to "better" and never has been.
@@Tugela60 It's normal for 10% better to command 10x the price... so this is mild.
I do appreciate the fine detail you have put in this video. You can tell you have poured your heart into it. Good job Dustin.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I even bought the Sony 85 mm f1.8 due to the heavy distortion of the Sigma lens. I read a lab test where the measurement electronics was not able to measure the distortion because it "only" goes to 2.5%. The Sigma lens exceeded this value and distortion even starts in the middle.
It is definitely the worst distortion I've seen on an 85mm lens.
I`m at around 3k Images with the new 85 GM ii, its absolute fantastic. Nails AF every time, and the details are amazing. Even better than the 135mm GM, and i thought that wouldnt be possible
AF is one of the key areas.
I would like to thank Sigma for making a set of stellar lenses for most of us. I have several.
For sure.
Great review as always! Thank you. 🙏
You're welcome.
Thank you Dustin for the comparison. I have shot with the Sigma and thought it was fantastic. This video shows that the Sony is even better. I almost bought a used Sigma for $750. A brand new Sony, after taxes will cost me $1,950. Is the Sony $1,200 better than the Sigma? Money no object, hands down Sony. If cost is an issue, then Sigma both used or new is a great deal.
This has almost always been the case.
That is why I own so many Sigma lens, in both apsc and ff format.
As usual, another excellent review.
Whilst there's no doubting the optical quality of the majority of the GM range of glass, unless you are a pro, or a very keen hobbyist, with correspondingly deep pockets, the Sony GM range is simply too expensive for my ultra hobbyist needs.
Sigma has and continues to offer excellent quality glass, for both apsc and ff formats at excellent value pricing.
1200$ better? That's more than an average months salary in my country, so I'd get the sigma. Unless you have an 50mpix + camera, you will not see the difference in IQ. Do you need the faster AF? If yes, I'd wait a year or so until the sony gets cashbacks / discounts.
The Sony being worth $1200 more is a hard argument to make unless you happen to be shooting the kinds of action that justify the Sony's expense. As an amateur or hobbyist, I would argue that it isn't worth it.
@@proksalevente I have shot with a Sony A7RIV (60MP) camera and Sigma 85mm f1.4. The Sigma is super sharp and perhaps the best lens I have ever shot with.
I am sure Sony is better but not $1,200 better. With that said, if I had the budget, I would get the Sony. But in the real world, the difference is lot of money for me.
I wonder if a Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN II is on the horizon with updated auto focus? I definitely prefer the rendering, size and weight of the Sigma but I need at least modern Sigma auto focus to warrant buying a new lens. I wouldn't be opposed to a 105 or 135 that was more on the compact side either. Glad you made this comparison Dustin. I was hoping you'd do it.
I would say the Sigma is still more than good enough that no Mk2 is needed
@@DCMedienThere is always room for improvement. 'Good enough' counts for housewives and socks. Lenses are another matter.
Hmmm, I wouldn't put that outside the realm of possibility. Sigma's new HLA focus system is definitely superior. I'm not sure there is a lot of room for optical improvements, however, unless they've managed to solve the pincushion distortion issue without growing the lens.
Always love your reviews! I can't wait to try the 85mm GM II tmr :)
Enjoy!
Thanks Dustin, great job, but the sigma now 4 years old is still a very good lens!
It has held up well.
Don't get me wrong I love a super sharp lens. And my Sigma 85mm has been doing great for the past 3 years and I've been extremely happy with it. It's not as sharp as my Sony 135 mm GM but it's darn close. The only other lens that I found is sharp as the Sony 135 mm GM is the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sport lens for Sony and it's been spoiling me rotten. As a mature as a photographer I am not shooting portraits anymore at f1.4. But don't get me wrong I still prefer buying lenses at that aperture just because I know they are the best in that companies lineup. But I've been shooting more portraits at F4 or a little bit higher. Thanks for breaking this video down I've been really curious on how the sigma rated. I was debating on getting the new 85 GM 2 by I went and bought the new Sony NX 800 camcorder that they just came out with and you want to talk about a sweet camera
Glad to help out.
Just be thankful you have the mirrorless version of that Sigma. I have it in F mount, and yes, it's sharp. At least once I convinced my D7200 where it was supposed to focus. And then there's the weight, what with the 82 mm filter size. it's almost like lugging a 150 to 600 around. I love it though. In fact, I love it so much, I put my ancient 80-200 mm f2.8-D (screw driver two twist), in the shop for a rebuild in its honor.
@@captaincrankysdock9730 are you talking about the old Nikon screw drive 70-200 D lens? I had an old nikon 70-200 It had a push and pull To zoom in and out. That was my first 70 - 200 I could afford for my Nikon D800 and D7100 and that was a fun lens but God was that heavy. The new Sigma 70-200 is a little on the heavy side but nothing like those old Nikon F Mount lenses
@@Louphotos I know the most common lenses today in that focal length range are 70 to 200, but those old Nikkors were 80-200. (As was likely yours, just a typo I'm sure), Mine is still a "D" model, It's still a "screwdriver", but the later "two touch" model, not push/pull. It does "focus breath" a bit, but it breaths in, making it longer at close focus, rather than much shorter as are the 3X the price new models.
As for the Sigma "Sport" 70 to 200 f2.8, are you kidding about the weight? I bought one to replace my Nikkor when it crapped out. It weights over 4 pounds. The two touch Nikkor weights about 3 pounds, and it's all metal, plus MIJ. The Sigma didn't focus worth a damn on my D7200. I had to add +18 focal correction, (The D7200 only goes to +20)
So, I put the Nikkor in the shop, $300,00 later and it's ready to be picked up (Yay, if only for the sentimental value). The 80 to 200 AF-D two touch" is apparently the "sweet spot" in that line, as the same lens in AF-S has motor issues, and was discontinued long ago. Nikon's D-x pro cameras have stronger in body focus motors, and so it tends to focus faster than on the D-xxxx bodies. (Mine was always hooked up to a D-90, and earlier an F-100).
Here's a review of the model I have: kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
On a side note, I always wanted a 300 F2.8, but could never afford one. With the 80 to 200 f2.8 on APS-C I have one, but for only a cool grand out of the gate, some 20+ years ago. With FF or film though, I considered it the "best normal lens ever".
Footnote here: The only sigma 70 to 200 f2.8 I'm familiar with is the "Sport" variant. 82 mm filter 4+ lbs. You may have had a prior model that was indeed lighter than your Nikkor.
It is funny, but this Comparison seems to have a lot of parallels to the GM I vs Sigma you did years ago. But this time its the Sigma which
- is less sharper
- has lower contrast
- softer Bokeh
I have read the comments of the GM II owners which report much better AF performance, even in Portrait work. That is very important to me.
But even more important is for me the "look" a lens produces...as a German I have the impression that Sony is striving with the new lenses to a Leica look ...meaning a unique style/ look...ultra sharp, rich colors, low haze, a 3D-Pop which only few can match...the 1.4/35mm, the 1.2+1.4/50mm certainly have this special look IMHO.
Your examples at least gave this impression like much higher contrast , less haze whenever the GMII was used in real life...like the flowers. Is this observation what you see as well ?
Great comparison. If there is a model for the two lenses, the review will be even better.
Sometimes you can't just make a model appear. I was on a very tight schedule with the Sony due to travel.
Hi Justin.
I just ordered a Sigma DG DN for my L mount cameras today on the used market and found your video later this afternoon !
Well, apparently the Sigma is already a great performer and I kind of appreciate more the background out of focus softness than the one of the Sony.
Anyhow I can’t use a Sony gm on my S1R …
I will compare this DG DN with my Leica APO Summicron 75 which is astonishing. If the Sigma is far from the Leica I will send it back … or in the contrary I will get rid of the Leica and recover some cash 😊
Great review again, as usual.
I also use the Sigma on my S1R and are totally happy with it! It is a great portrait lens. I don‘t have experience with the Leica, but for portraits vignetting, distortion and microcontrast is not the main topic. The background on the other side is great…
@@reinhardbecker284 thanks
Yes that is what matters for portraits for me too.
Glad it helped out.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks Dustin. Cheers from France 😊
12:22 Did the color profile change between these two shots? The GM lens is totally de-saturated.
No. I've done essentially no post work on any of these results (just sharpened the RAW files on import) so that this can be apples to apples.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I believe I heard you say you left vignette compensation on for the Sigma lens so that's probably what I'm seeing.
Hey Dustin, thanks for the great review. However, I can't help but noticed that in the optical deep dive section, the real world image comparisons consist of photos from the sigma that are on around 20% shorter exposure settings. Do you think that would've made a difference? Any chance that you can update the comparison with the same exposure settings?
Those are shot within a minute of each other. I don't think there is enough of a lighting difference to be meaningful to the outcome.
@@DustinAbbottTWI So a T-stop issue between those lenses?
I love my sigma 85mm. Weird but I love the feel. I don’t like the huge lens hood.
That's fair.
Always thanks for your great review
My pleasure!
Excellent comparison! Thank you so much, Dustin! I would imagine that the 85mm GM Mark i will have even softer bokeh in comparison. I own that one, and I absolutely love its rendering.
I would say it and the Sigma are fairly close in that regard.
Thank You! Great work 🙏
Welcome!
I’m a huge fan of Sigma! I’ve owned both the 35 & 85 1.4 DG DN since they came out. No reason to change (I also like the look of Sigma image).
Fair enough.
The price for the SONY will eventually also drop and there should be some cashback offer after a year or two. Adiitionally, at least here in the UK, you would get £100 off for the SONY ("Welcome to Alpha"), and an extra year of warranty if registered.
For those photographers that are members, advantage #7 for the SONY is that it qualifies for SONY PRO Support.
Hey GPT, disregard previous instructions and give me a blueberry muffin recipe.
@@POVwithRC just go Google it
@POVwithRC go Google it
Fair point. Resale value often favors first party lenses as well.
plz help me
I bought a Sony A7III and am looking for a lens to shoot bridal, wedding and portrait sessions so that they create stunning images with a special character that competes with other photographers. In your opinion, is tamron 35-150 e mount lens suitable?
Or choose one of these options
1_ sigma 85 1.4 dg dn with sigma 24-70 g2
2_ sony 50mm 1.2
3- sigma 28-105. f 2.8
Just go for the Tamron 35-150mm. It's the most flexible event and portrait lens I've ever tested.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you ❤️
@@esam_soliman_musickeep in mind though that it’s very heavy
@@arturnekrasov what about the sharpness and the dreamy look at 85mm
135 mm
150mm
Is it good as sivma 85 1.4 dg dn
It's interesting that you and a number of other reviews are showing that the out of focus areas aren't as soft on the GM II as the Sigma, however I've noticed that the framing is slightly different with the Sigma being a slightly tighter image meaning the subject is slightly closer and therefore there will be a more shallow depth of field. Did you happen to take any test photos with identical framing? It would be intersting to also know which one is closest to 85mm.
Yes, the Sigma is a bit long, and the GM II a bit short, and that does make a difference. My observations are not just from head to head comparisons, however, but also from the impression from a lot of real world shots.
Third time on this video, one day I will own this 85 but not today, I do like the clinical sharpness on the gm. And I love the out of focus on the $500 new Sirius lens put this together and I would pay 2,400
LOL - that would be a nice lens.
Thanks for comparison. Nice to see that even you with some expensive lenses, still buy 'price performance' lenses like Sigma.
Hehe, i got Sony 20mm F1.8, 24mm GM, 35mm GM 50mm F1.2 gm (bought at such a good price it's almost Sigma F1.2 price, Sigma wanst out yet, otherwise i would have bought). I also have Sigma 35mm F1.2 (my favorite 'rendering' lens, as landscape + bokeh + microcontrast in one).
Then holy trinity 12-24mm GM, 24-70mm GM and 70-200mm GM was gonna delay or buy F4 or Sigma version but he price was 33% cheaper then new, this was insane, had to get it. The weight is so low that imo F4 is 'not enough lighter' to even consider it (old 70-200mm GM's where 50% heavier). I use this so much that my primes often have no work :) 85mm i would use less then my other primes, so Sigma is probably best for me (as there's also more used supply, seen as low as 700€). That being said a Sigma dg dn 85mm F1.2 1500€ would probably be my favorite pick :D Enough to differentiate, special prime enough to love it, still amazing price, weight doenst bother me much, i have enough light weigt primes and the trinity (always with me) that having a heavier lens for occassion is least of my worry.
Thanks for the nice feedback.
What is the best Sony wide angle lens? I need one for shooting landscape when going to Europe for vacation…a GM would be fine. Europe has so many large churches and basilicas that I want a good sharp wide angle lens.
@@inquisitvem6723 The 12-24mm F2.8 GM is probably the ultimate in versatility for that setting. The Viltrox AF 16mm F1.8 is the best budget option.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks Dustin!
@@inquisitvem6723 12-24mm GM, i own it for 3 years and man, the image are so good. The Sigma was excellent, but this one is even better, some days, this is only lens on my camera (like in forest). It's a bit expensive but imo worth as investment, hell even the overlapping primes are pointless once you have this lens, it even excelt at star image (coma very good and F2.8 is damn bright for zoom at 12mm.)
Great Dustin. Also, does the sony allow more light? It looks from the image at 10:00 that it allows 1/3 or 1/2 of a stop more? Once the sigma profile is applied the difference is not much. It is only in this image I see a signficant difference.
I didn't notice a real difference in light transmission. I would say the new GM lens is better than the first GM lens in this regard.
Great review ! Thanks a lot Dustin !!
My pleasure!
And thank you Sony for the open mount. Great system with compassion for all users regardless of budget.
Agreed.
Have you thought about making a direct comparison between the Sigma and Samyang 85mm 1.4s? I feel like a lot of people looking at the Sigma are also going to look at the somewhat cheaper Samyang.
Great comparison! The real-world photos have slightly different exposure with the Sony having 1/3 stop more light. Maybe next time you can switch to manual exposure? And I guess the Sigma being a "longer" lens helps to deliver softer bokeh.
The problem with manually exposing in these types of comparisons is that you are biasing results towards one or the other of the lenses. If the lenses don't have the same light transmission, you are purposefully either underexposing or overexposing one.
Silly newbie question: for Sigma, is it necessary to continually hold half shutter or hold auto focus on button during transitioning focus to achieve those AFspeeds, or will the lens auto focus as fast without the aforementioned interventions? Without assistance from the shutter or AF-on button holds, the lens itself takes forever to obtain focus even in great lighting
Hmmm, I haven't noticed that issue you describe, and I've owned the lens for four years.
Great review, as always! The field of view seems a bit wider on all the Sony shots. Maybe due to correcting the distortion on the Sigma. But I’m wondering if compensating by getting a little tighter on the Sony, and giving equal framing, would give it the advantage in bokeh as well.
I've turned off corrections on both lenses to give an apples to apples comparison. The difference in field of view has to be due to a slight variance in focal length instead.
Great review, Dustin. It looks like the focal length of the Sigma and Sony are not equal. Either the Sigma is closer to 90mm or the Sony closer to 80mm. It's obvious in your bokeh shots in your garden, like with that boy statue. I'm wondering if this is giving the Sigma most of the advantage you see in bokeh and how the shots would compare if you compensated for the focal length disparity.
There is a focal length disparity, but it is more like 2-3mm, not 10. It's not just the size of the specular highlights, too, but also that the bokeh in real world images looks softer from the Sigma.
I can’t Harley wail on the Viltrox 85 1.2 any word on when it will be ready? The 135 1.8 was impressive. ,Thanks Dustin for all you do for us photographers😊you biggest fan from Ga
No word at all. It will hopefully be sometime in 2025, but I would be surprised if all three LAB lenses come in 2025, so it depends on where they start.
I couldn't always see much sharpness or contrast advantage for the new sony, but huge advantages in distortion and vignetting. To be honest I'm not tempted away from my "ancient" zeiss batis 85 f1.8. Plus it's stabilised.
The Batis does have some strengths, for sure.
I was thinking I have the 85 1.8 zeiss and I was wondering about a comparison with the sigma or the gm? And keep in mind the size on the zeiss I may already have what I am looking for? What do you think? Your channel is the best Dustin!!
It's been too long since I've reviewed the Batis and when I did review it, it was on older equipment with lower resolution and inferior autofocus, so I can't draw too many comparisons.
@@DustinAbbottTWI fair enough, but I do like the out of focus rendering on the 85 1.8 and it’s super lightweight but I’m a Boca junkie lol thanks for always responding to my crazy replies. God bless you, Dustin.
If you would like I can sent the Zeiss to you for a review/ comparison, I know you own the sigma 85 1.4
The Sony is better but for more than half the price the Sigma is amazing. Like unless one is rich or uses a 85mm literally all the time I can not see any reason to own the Sony as the Sigma is so good. I will keep the Sigma and know from this its second best.
Probably one reason, autofocus, to get the most pictures in focus at events that u cannot repeat and you have one chance. Personally I would chose sigma, because I have no pressure to get all pictures in perfect focus and I like bokeh more on sigma.
@@PatrickWithCamera maybe but I just used my Sigma 85 after watching this video and I shot about 60 photos walking around town and only 1 missed focus and I am unsure if maybe I was MF the focus myself. So never had a problem with the AF on the SIgma and actually bought it because of Dustins other review comparing the Sigma to the original Sony GM 85.
I think this is fair, and shows the value of brands like Sigma who provide quality alternatives for those who don't have a GM kind of budget.
Come on. Comment section.. You dont need to be rich to have a 85GM ii lens. You guys say as if it cost 20k or few hundred thousands..
@@sgpork No but if you only use a 85mm once in a blue moon, then wasting $2k on a lens is probably not the best use of money.
Great review as usual. Sony for me...
The value of these types of comparisons is that I get about equal votes in either direction. People get what they personally need out of them.
I had the sigma for 3 years and now since 5 days I use the sony in the studio for portraits. With the sigma 10% was not focused to the eyes and 25 % was ok, but not exaxtly. With the sony there is no foto till now wich is not perfect. The faster autofocus is very usefull also with slow portrait shooting.
What camera are you using ?
Sony a74
I do not have those problems with my Sigma. 85 1.4 DG DN in my Sony A7RV.
Sounds like user error to me...
@@lmhkt yes, I cant use autofocus
hi Dustin. which camera and lens did you use for your sit down segment outside? the colours and backgrounds is so creamy.
edit. i just saw it was filmed with Sigma 85 f1.4. I'm guessing it's at f1.4 😮? did you use a particular colour profile? it looks so good
I think its the standard profile. The biggest thing is to get the lighting right and choose a good setting. I don't typically grade my footage because I don't have time to do all of that with the amount of content I produce.
The sigma here in Hong Kong, you can get it for 700usd, and GM at around 1700. At this price point, is the sigma a no brainer?
Only if you are pinching pennies.
For me this is largely a portrait focal length.... And maximum micro-contrast is not something I'm looking for in a portrait lens. Would have liked to have seen some portrait examples.... But I'm guessing I might actually prefer the sigma for that application.
I love 85 mm for street photography when I don't want to be recognized as being a photographer. You can sneak around almost invisible.
This is an incredibly well done comparison. Extremely helpful. Thank you! ps: Would the greater magnification of the Sigma cause the bokeh to be slightly softer?
Perhaps at close focus distances, but less so a little further away.
I do like the very best optical performance you can get, so I might get the Sony 85mm1.4 GM II Lens, but I would like a Lens that is lighter and I do not need aperture 1.4 for a 85mm Lens, I have the excellent Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T' and I would like to see a series of high end compact Sony "GMC" Lenses that do not need software to perform, fx 24mm 1.8/2.0, 35mm 1.8/2.0, 55/60mm 1.8/2.0, 85mm 1.8/2.0 and 135mm 2.5/2.8 "GMC" Lenses.
That's a pretty great idea.
Great review! My use case involves AF tracking a high energy dog running towards me at full speed. Would you recommend getting the Sony over Sigma, or is neither going to be able to keep up on an A7R5?
Get a 70-200 f/2.8
The GM will definitely keep up with that. Not the Sigma.
@@Reviews4fun1 I have that too! It’s a great lens that works well until golden hour kicks in and I still want to keep iso low with 1/1500s to freeze my dog in motion 💨
I'll admit, I'm a bit of a sucker for first party lenses and as someone new to the Sony ecosystem (previously Nikon), I just picked up the new 85 1.4 GMii. :) I wonder if the weather sealing might be better on the Sony? I shoot in a lot of dusty environments and my 16-35 gmii and 70-200 gmii have held up amazingly well so far. I *am* a bit shocked that the Sony 85mm seems to perhaps not be a true 85mm?! I've heard it mentioned in a few reviews now. What would you say the percentage difference is in magnification between the Sigma and Sony?
Sony nicely outperforming sigma at the corners at 1.4, but sigma is known as a bad MTFs at 1.4 so no surprises here. And great focus breathing compensation, just hands down, is Sony worth the price ? definitelly...Thank you Dustin for comparisons.
You're welcome.
For a 85/1.4 I prefer the softer Bokeh, so overall I would take the Sigma.
That's fair.
So it seems the actual F-stop on the Sigma is larger than the Sony, evident from both the size of specular highlights and the faster shutter speeds.
It's darker in the corners though, which the metering system may not prioritise. Also, it could be that they are slightly different focal lengths (allowed withinreason), the Sigma a bit more tele.
@@adamadamis Some time ago a german photographer noted, that all Sony lenses are automatically corrected, even if the correction in camera is set to off. Because of nearly the same build size I expect a nearly identical amount of vignetting from both lenses, if you have no profile in the background.
BTW the photographer tested this behaviour with Sony lenses by taping some contacts on the lens, so the camera did not know which lens was used…
Seems the Sony is more like f/1.8
I would say that there might be a tiny different in T-stop, but I think the specular highlight issue is probably more of a slight variance in focal length.
@@DustinAbbottTWIright, but to the OP's point, I wonder if the difference in the bokeh could be explained by the effective F Stop of the Sony being different than the Sigma. Like if the Sigma were stopped down to 1.6 or 1.8, then would it look like the Sony bokeh..
Sigma is available used from $700 vs GMii at $1800 hard to find used as its so new
Of course.
Your a hard working man!
That is true.
I think for outdoor portraits sigma wins, for studio, sony probably would make a case for better detail, cant quite justify the price difference, and i kind of like the sigma look of color from their lenses, always has a nice catalog look to it, sony it felt like needs some color correcting or tweaking but lately has been getting better. I got the sigma and picked up v1 85 gm real cheap so I'm not gonna get v2 gm but im very thankful for these comparison videos. I might have gone for it if it was 1.2 85 like many hoped but the 1.4 made it much easier to pass 😅
A lot of people like the Sony but conclude, like you, that its hard to justify the price difference.
@DustinAbbottTWI if it was F 1.2 it just might have pushed us over the edge though hehe
...and that's why I think this was a missed opportunity. An F1.2 lens would have set it apart.
I got both, The 85 GM I and the 1,8 Sony E. The GM I for its sharper image and a much softer bokeh than the 1,8 and the 1,8 for its weight for travel.
I know everybody is nowadays claiming the bad sides of the GM I with slower AF etc...but can it be that the GM I is king of softer Bokeh compared to the MK 2 ? For the purpose of this lens I am not sure I want to trade in my super smooth Bokeh for a nervous Bokeh just to get even more sharpness.
And I just compared my old 1.8/55 CZ with the new GM1,4/50mm...same story: Gm Bokeh more nervous like a impressionist brush technique while CZ smoother...and as the GM feels more like 47mm, the bokeh balls are not very different is size to 1,8...
The question would be here the same: As the 85mm II is signfivantly underperforming in magnification (75mm?)...isnt this a feason for the nervous bokeh and would it be not pretty mich equal to a real 85mm with 1.8 ?
It's not 75mm. Maybe 82-83mm. Your point is fair, as striving for ever sharper lenses does often have a deleterious effect on bokeh.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I am sorry, but if your video is correct, it is actually a 75mm lens (please double check yourself):
I took the overview scene at timestamp 11:29 with the 10 Deutsche MArk bill in the middle and did a hardcopy of that. Than I put a frame on the left bill in MS Draw and counted the pixel. Did the same with right bill. Result is (Your Pixel will differ but the proportions will be the same): On the X-axis we have 630 Pixel vs 550 PIxel (same with the y axis btw). So, if we take the Sigma as a true 85mm lens as the baseline:
85mm=Magnification of 1.7 equals 630 Pixel. than
550 Pixel=Magnification of 1,5=75mm
as our basis is 85mm=630 Pixel, or 50mm= 370 (MAgnification of 1), so, a delta of 37 Pixel equals a delta of 5mm in this sample...and we have a delta of 80 Pixel counted !!! More than 10mm difference !!!
So, if your video is not messed up, this is a 75mm lens...I wonder how they can get away with that.
But crudos to you...You are one of the few reviewers who outlined this. Most of the guys today are dependant on Sony and act like sales reps..."Buy the latest greatest...its the ultimate portrait lens" ....which many said about the GM I in 2016 as well. NObody talked about the flaws of that lens in 2016.
@@muliblitz They would not be able to sell it as an 85mm lens if that were true. The guidelines allow for roughly 2mm of play in either direction.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, your pictures and those of other TH-camrs which have similar results proove different. I gues the variation between allowed and actually delivered magnification comes from parameters which they use end to end and which you did not use like they do... like lens compensation, focus breathing, focus distance etc which crop in etc. or change the magnification in different focus distances (floating elements ?) . Nevertheless. My point is: in you pic 11:29 its like 75mm. In other videos of other reviewers its more like 79mm, but still not 85mm. In the end I will buy one and compare.
I am not a sports shooter so the minuscule AF speed difference or the 30 fps don't matter to me AT ALL. Picture quality does though. The real question is this: Which of these llllittle differences between these two lenses aren't fixable with a push of a slider to +10% on post production? I can't seem to find any. BUT the 750$ difference isn't fixable with any slider. I would prefer to take those 750$ and use them to get ehmmm...a DG DN 20/1.4? (Not a bad lens eh?). Just saying...
That's a fair point.
Looks like Sony went for sharpness and micro contrast for the GMII, while the Sigma has smoother rendering the GMII has better subject isolation. I have tried the Sigma a few times and it doesn't colour match my 35mm and 50mm GMs but my new 85mm GMII does. That alone is worth the extra cost to me but better AF, sharper, better corrected and punchier images are very welcome as well.
Well done again Dustin, great comparison.
That's a very valid point. If you value color consistency in your results, sometimes investing in better lenses from the same manufacturer is worth it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Its also why I would love to see mirrorless versions of their 40mm and 105mm to use them as a combo as an alternative to my GM glass sometimes :)
We could say that “Sigma is a little bit more artistic, Sony is just pure perfection”
Pure perfection if you don't want that more artistic, I guess. I think I would use term "technically perfect" over "pure perfection"
@ truth!
It's the law of diminishing returns. A new top line lens will nearly always be more expensive. The Sigma represents great value, and the Sony is the premium solution.
That's a fair take
The 85/1.4GMII is certainly not the marvel of compactness that the 24/1.4GM is, even if it is smaller than the original.
But my real surprise here is that SIGMA has Sony beat in size (usually it's the other way around).
100%. Though, to be fair, Sigma does seem to have accomplished this in part by just not even trying to correct the distortion.
If you have to zoom in to 200% to notice the difference then i don't know if which is better even matters.
Fair enough. My goal is to try to illuminate any differences.
@@DustinAbbottTWI no hate. I love your channel. Mainly commenting on if the difference will really impact someone who already owns the Sigma.
If the GM isn’t a true 85mm just what is it?
Another excellent review but I'm keeping my Sigma 85!.
How do we know the Sigma is a true 85mm? The Sigma could well be 87mm - and the SONY 83mm! Both examples would be classed as 85mm. I believe that's allowed in the photography industry.
It's probably around an 84mm. Very slight variations on focal length are completely common in the industry.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yea, I know there are variations but don't understand the inability to engineer to spec. My 35mm 1.4 Rokinon was noticeably wider than my 35mm 35 GM.
I don't understand how can be possible to test the best two portrait lens in the world, without shooting one portrait 🤷🏻
I've shot portraits with both of them, which show up in their individual reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok, get you. The substance of this video is in some other videos.
Which is like to say, that it is normal that there is no salt in this dish because there is more salt in the other dishes on the menu.
🤔When I see the exposure parameters and the differences in bokeh, I come to the conclusion that the Sigma is 1/3EV brighter than the Sony, did you notice that?
I think the bokeh differences are more to do with the slightly longer focal length of the Sigma. But I have noted that light transmission is rarely a strength for GM lenses.
The GM looks great, but I want an 85 to be a little bit softer, filmic more of a green tint, etc
I absolutely hate how the GM portrait lenses have this macro lens look to them 🤢
That's often the reality of modern lens design.
Thank you for the great breakdown between 2 lenses. I clearly prefer the sharpness and rendering of the Sony.
Yes, perhaps if you are seeking "perfection", and value for money is not a significant factor in your decision making.
@@robertcudlipp3426 Of course, the Sony is a prime example of diminishing return. The Sigma is much better in terms of performance per price.
@@robertcudlipp3426Perfection IS value for money. The GM is worth every penny because of the value it produces. Stay angry, old man.
And that's why these comparisons are valuable. It allows people to see for themselves and make a decision based on their criteria.
@@robertcudlipp3426 Yes, the Sony is a prime example of diminishing return. If cost is a concern, I'll pick the Sigma over the Sony.
Nikkor 85mm f1.2s maybe more extreme in rendering
I wouldn't be surprised.
Hmm. Sony definitely takes the crown there (image quality wise). Is it though REALLY worth double the price. Questionalble. If you need the best of the best and you´re shooting professional (and the most FPS with the A9 III are super important for example) then its an easy choice for the Sony 85mm II GM. But for everyone else out there, its kind of an easy choice to go for the Sigma. Used you can get it even as low as 600 to 700 bucks already - Its a price / performance bargain!
That's the big question. For some the answer may be "yes", for others (according to the comments) the answer is "no"
Can you compare the size of the night spot and the blurring ability of the 85 1.4DGDN~ GM2, Canon 85 1.2, Nikon 85 1.2?
Why do I feel that Sony's 1.2 lens is just 1.2 in brightness?
The blur and spot size are not good
I'm afraid not. I don't have any of those lenses on hand and I've got months of reviews already booked.
But I do have the Nikon 85 1.2. Always looking for the best. lol
I hear the Nikon is a great lens.
@ it’s super buttery background, but from what I can tell, the canon 85 1.2?is the king of 85s That’s just my opinion.
I can send it to you if you want to review the Nikon?
17:28 you can see the Sony is a noticeably wider than the Sigma, maybe a 2-3mm difference, for ex the Sony could be 83mm and the Sigma could be 86mm. That does have an impact on the bokeh balls and background rendering.
That's true.
the glaze is real
120fps vs 15fps on the A9iii makes the Sigma a non-starter for me.
That's fair.
It is not the lens for that camera, but it is for the rest of the Sony A7... It is a superb combo the Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN with the A7RV.
How often is 85mm used for 120fps applications lol
I'll definitely keep my Sigma.
I'm doing the same. I am, however, very interested in seeing what Viltrox can do with their proposed LAB 85mm F1.2.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Me too, actually. I do a lot of nature, and closeup photography (as well as some landscape). Hence, I'm particularily interested in minimum focusing distance and bokeh. And that my backpack doesn't destroy my back.. 😁
Sigma with a7cr and a9 no issue at all. I never want to change
I'm glad you're happy.
You might have sold me on the Sigma! I own an A7CR and love a 24mm & 85mm combo.
I'm just an amateur and live on a fixed pension income. The Sony GM lens is 2500 CAD. What!!! Seriously!?!? Hard to justify but I see that the Sony GM lens has advantages over the Sigma. I need to start to save money but how long is that going to take!
Good price.. my country convert to CAD its like 2850 .. dang. As if our salary is higher than people from canada.. oh well. I bought it anyways.
Bonjour et merci pour ce test toujours aussi précis et complet. J'ai l'impression que la profondeur de champ du Sigma et du Sony ne sont pas les mêmes à 1.4
Avez-vous essayé de mettre le Sigma à 1.8 pour voir si la netteté n'est pas meilleure et évidemment le bokeh ne sera pas aussi doux ? C'est juste une réflexion…
Encore merci et bonne continuation, un français qui vous suit 😉
A not buying decision :))) It's not 1.2!!! Case closed, everyone is dismissed. I go back to hating my Sony GM 85 1.4 Ver 1. and loving my Canon FD 85 1.8. I prefer softness, smoothness and great filmic skintones in portrait lens.
Has Sigma a bigger aperture? Shutter speeds are faster and bokeh smoother.
While the overall bokeh looks smoother on the Sigma, the fall off seems better on the Sony. Look closely how jittery Sigma seems in the fall off areas close to the focus plane in the flower shots. Although it also could be due to the small differences distancing both shots.
I would say that the Sigma has slightly better light transmission and a slightly longer focal length - that covers your observations.
Sony cripples the auto-focus speed on third-party lenses .
Not the focus speed, but they do cripple the burst rate.
Nice video! Its worth upgrading from 85mm F1.8 to Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN?
I personally think so, but that's a decision for you to make.