Here at Last: the Sigma ART 85mm f/1.4

Another significant new product introduced at Photokina: the much-anticipated Sigma ART short tele.

Sigma has made a real splash, consistently, over several years now, with its high-end ART series of lenses. I've reviewed only one, but I used two samples on two different brands of camera, and had many good things to say.

The new Sigma 85mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM Art lens makes the ART primes into a complete set, adding to the 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm (I would get either the 20mm or the 24mm but not both, and probably the 35mm or 50mm but not both).

The two greatest restrictions on lens designers are 1. intended selling price, and 2. size and weight. Sigma seems to be defying the laws of lens design when it comes to the former; its art lenses significantly undercut the competition's pricing without any noticeable cutting of corners or sacrifices in performance. (I look forward to what Roger Cicala has to say about that, and reserve the right to change my opinion later in light of whatever he says!) But with all the ART lenses, restriction 2. is where you, the buyer, will make your sacrifice: these are solid, hefty lenses. In fact, Sigma hasn't even told us the weight of the new 85mm yet. They probably don't want people talking about it!

This is a big lens, though, five inches long and with a whopping 86mm filter size. (My first medium-format camera had a large filter size on its 80mm normal lens, and I was impressed with how big the filter was. It was a 67mm.)

But hey, it's just a decision. At least it's a clear one. You buy into this lineup, you deal with size and weight. You don't want to deal with size and weight, you look elsewhere. Simple, clear equation.

The lens has 14 elements in 12 groups, which is either delightful or risible depending on your point of view, and with that many elements, you bet your socks it has great multicoating—it has to. (Thank zooms for improving multicoating so much over the years.) It also has a beefed-up HSM focusing motor, said to have more torque, for moving all that glass around. Two of the elements are FLD, which Sigma says is the equal of fluorite (which Canon uses), and one still-exotic anomalous partial dispersion/high-refractive-index element. It has a rounded, nine-bladed aperture.

Best of all...it was very likely designed by the same wizards who designed the other Sigma ART lenses, which is good news. My personal opinion is that those guys, whoever they are, have photographic taste as well as scientific expertise and design skill. I could see it in the 35mm ART. That's just my bet, but I'd bet on it.

It will cost $1,199.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Treat yourself to a lens. You know you deserve it.
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Comments

[John McMillin]

Nice, I'm sure, but I'm not shopping for dumbbells. I'll take a Pentax 31 Limited, at 12 ounces, please.

[Henning Wulff]

A reasonable set of 3 of these would be wonderful, but ohhhh my back. I'm just grabbing this out of thin air, but I think Edward Weston said that there wasn't anything photogenic more than 500 feet from the car.

Pair these up with a couple of D5's or 1DX Mk whatever and you'll wish you had decided to bring your 8x10 instead.

On the other hand, one of the better values in photo equipment.

[Zach]

As much as I'm a camera weight-weenie, there's something just right about a lens that weighs as much or more than the camera hanging off the back. I wouldn't want to lug one around all day though!

[Del Bomberger]

I'm closer to 70 than 60 and I just can't get with these tiny lightweight cameras. I like a camera and a lens with some mass to it. Yes they are heavy, I feel their weight when I go out-often with two of them around my neck or on my shoulders-just like the good old days-except now I often tote a tripod along. I must not be alone. Thanks Sigma! And extra thanks to Fuji for their new MF offering!

[John Krill]

I just purchased the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 zoom lens for my Nikon D5100. I should have purchased this lens when it first came out but for some reason didn't consider Sigma a worth while manufacture of lenses. Was I wrong. Nikon has nothing that matches this lens. Yes Nikon has a 17-55mm F2.8 but it's listed at $1499.95. I payed $399.00 for the Sigma (On sale. Reg price $669.00.)

I've only had time to take it out on one day of shooting but it looks to be very sharp lens. Fast focus. The only problem I had was the focus ring. The lens weighs 1.24LBS and you really need to hold the camera with both hands the old fashion way - one on the camera body and the other on the lens. Because the focus ring is always active you can easily prevent the lens from focusing. Just something you need to get used to.

And yes like the ART lens mentioned in this post is has a large filter size at 77mm. I thought it was large until I read the size of the above mentioned lens.

I would like to read some opinions on clear filters. K+B has a couple of clear filters with one having a special coating that helps to bead any water that collects on the glass. It's $53 at B&H.

Is clear filters O.K. or should I still be using a UV filter? In the film days I knew the answer but with digital I just don't know.

PS: Yes I use TOPs link to B&H.

[Kalli]

It's a good thing not all photographers are like me, but if I had a full frame Nikon or Canon, I would be totally unable to look past the fact that both make what I assume are already very good 85mm lenses for around $400. f/1.8 is plenty big enough for me.

[Paulo Bizarro]

This lens monster makes the Zeiss Batis 85 f1.8 even more attractive:)

[marcin wuu]

There's the new Zeiss Loxia 85/2.4 that's small, cute, optically brilliant and expensive. Slow, but nice. Different strokes, eh?

[sebastel]

as for elements count: i didn't trust my eyes when i saw the lens diagram of the new olympus 25mm/1.2. but they really put in 19 elements (in 14 groups).

wow.

[David Raboin]

I've always been a zoom lens photographer, but the cheap-ish Canon 85mm f1.8 that my wife bought me for Christmas a few years back is now a favorite of mine. 85mm is a great focal length for snapping photos of my family. It gives me some working distance, focuses like a rocket, and the 85mm focal length gives nice separation of subject from background even without resorting to the wide apertures. Another reason why I love the Canon 85mm -- this point goes against the new Sigma -- is it's size. The 85mmm f1.8 feels perfect on my 5D. It's lightweight, small, but just big enough to feel well balanced on a DSLR. During jacket weather, I often bring just my camera, the 85mm, and Canon's 40mm pancake in my pocket. With that lens combo I can shoot almost everything that interests me and leave the camera backpack at home. I'm sure this new Sigma will take beautiful photos and look really cool mounted on a camera, but sadly, it's not for me. The list price is amazing. Such a temptation.

[Eric Brody]

John Krill, I'll share my opinion on clear filters. I use a protective filter only in situations where there is obvious risk to the front element from blowing sand, splashing water, or at serious elevation to decrease UV. There's been a lot of discussion on the web about this and in my view the consensus is that 1) it's pretty hard to tell if a filter was used from an optical viewpoint except for some flare situations when degradation is obvious. 2) Most lens front elements are pretty sturdy. Some argue that, in a fall, filters are more likely to damage the front element from shattering than protect it since they are often made of thin non-sturdy glass. Everyone is entitled to their choice in this matter but this is mine and I'm sticking to it, for now.

[Joe Holmes]

I'm totally on board. I love my Sigma 24 and 50mm Art lenses -- equal to (24) or better than (50) the Nikon equivalents. And with the 85, it looks like I'll have a walkaround set with no Nikon branding at all. (On the other hand, I may never be able to give up the Nikon 14-24mm.)

[Eamon Hickey]

The two greatest restrictions on lens designers are 1. intended selling price, and 2. size and weight

Although I knew point #2, it's really hit home for me in the past 2-3 years, as more and more lenses come to market designed to perform well on super high-resolution sensors. Many of these new lenses are real monsters.

I just received a Leica SL for testing, along with its "kit" 24-90/2.8-4 (long-ish on the tele end, but only f/4 at that zoom position). I never imagined I'd see a mid-range zoom of this, um, generous size, and it's especially disorienting if you grew up thinking of Leica in terms of the M-system, with its wonderful compact lenses. I'm sure that the 24-90's size is necessary for it to meet its performance aim points, but I keep having to check the name on the front to verify that it is indeed a Leica.

[Dave Kee]

I have a lot of lenses, but since I bought my Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 I find I just leave it on my D7200. With VR and the D7200's wonderful high ISO capability, I don't really need a speedier lens. I have become just too lazy to mess with multiple lenses.