The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Has Started Shipping in North America

[neuroanatomist]

In regards to vignetting levels wide open. I said nearly. See the difference?
Yes, 1.5EV and 2.0EV in the extreme corners. Stop it down to F1.8. Now what?
To your knowledge and since you trust Bryan:

What other 85mm wide aperture prime lens are you aware off that exhibits such a low level of vignetting at F1.4 or F1.8? Zeiss Otus, Milvus, Tamron, Canon 85/1.2, Nikon, Sony GM?

The Canon 85/1.2L II has less vignetting than the Sigma 85/1.4A at comparable wide apertures. Viggo provided a link, did you bother to click it? Set both to f/1.4, the Canon has less vignetting. Stop it down to f/1.8. Now what? The Canon still has less vignetting.

Heck, even though the Canon 85/1.2L II has less vignetting than the Sigma 85A, maybe in designing the 85/1.4L IS, Canon made the vignetting sufficiently worse than the f/1.2L version such that the Sigma has less vignetting that the new lens (despite the 85/1.4L IS having a narrower max aperture and a larger filter thread).

In regards to sharpness issue: what MTF charts are you talking about?
There are tons literary tons of images are available out there lens is on sale in Australia for much longer than in North America. Can’t you see that there is not much sharpness there wide open to call home about? If you cannot see, then wait until Bryan will put the test results up for you. I am sure it is not much time to wait now. Lensrentals will be another resource to trust when it comes to optical sharpness tests.

Oh, I see. Again, you're comparing shots with lens modules that apply appropriate microcontrast adjustments vs. an uncorrected image. You're relying on the post-processing skills of random people on the internet and assuming they're all similar. You don't know if the images are even correctly focused. But the Sigma is better, you know this. That's what we call jumping to conclusions. It may be that you're correct, and that the Sigma is better that the 85/1.4L IS in all respects. But as a scientist, I am accustomed to data-driven conclusions. To date, there's no real data on the 85/1.4L IS.

Sorry that you can't seem to get past your conception of the Sigma 85A's superiority. The lens must make an uncomfortable lump when you sleep with it under your pillow each night.

And can I say this conclusion: my 13 y.o. son knows that call someone “full of crap” is a misnomer.

True, you are not literally full of crap. More properly phrased, you are either a liar or you are grossly misinformed and propagating that misinformation. Take your pick.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, is this vignetting free for you to at least apologise for calling me names?

You stated that the Sigma 85/1.4A is better than the Canon 85/1.4L IS in many ways, including vignetting. The Sigma lens is not better than the 85/1.2L II in terms of vignetting. It is possible that the 85/1.4L IS has more vignetting than the 85/1.2L II, such that the Sigma is indeed better. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? I will point out that compared to the 1.5-2 stops with the Sigma, Bryan suggested the 85/1.4L IS has ~1.3 EV in the corners.

So, would you like retract your premature conclusion? Or would you prefer continue spreading misinformation, which is effectively the same as lying?

 

[SecureGSM]

This is the link I posted above yes 0.2 EV Canon advantage in extreme corners.
Still vignetting free, Viggo. That’s nothing you know that. Nothing to even sneeze at.

Try this:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1085&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=1

 

[SecureGSM]

Neuro,
What I see in images available is certainly more than 1.3EV in extreme corners. Wait until Bryan put his test results up and then we will revisit this issue. For now I much prefer for you not to call me or anyone else for that matter names ever. You are entitled to buy what you pleased based on information available.

Roll back to my initial point: it is not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of.

Neuro, is this vignetting free for you to at least apologise for calling me names?

You stated that the Sigma 85/1.4A is better than the Canon 85/1.4L IS in many ways, including vignetting. The Sigma lens is not better than the 85/1.2L II in terms of vignetting. It is possible that the 85/1.4L IS has more vignetting than the 85/1.2L II, such that the Sigma is indeed better. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? I will point out that compared to the 1.5-2 stops with the Sigma, Bryan suggested the 85/1.4L IS has ~1.3 EV in the corners.

So, would you like retract your premature conclusion? Or would you prefer continue spreading misinformation, which is effectively the same as lying?

 

[SecureGSM]

Neuro, why are you keep referring to Canon 85 F1.2 II lens?
I said better that new Canon 85 F1.4 lens.
Yes, 0.2 EV stop worse than canon 85 F1.2 in extreme corners at F2.0. Is that much?

I said once I will repeat second time : stop calling people names

Being rude and erogant is not a skill to be proud off.
Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with.
Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.
Equally I had none shot with new Canon 85 Is lens but CA levels in images available, bokeh, sharpness and rendition ( and vignetting I detect) is nothing like what Sigma glass is capable of.
You are entitled to your own opinion as I do. Lets accept that calling people names is unacceptable behaviour around here.
Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue. One condition though: stop calling people names. Alright.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Roll back to my initial point: it is not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of.

Yes, let's roll back...was that your initial point?

Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).

Your initial point was that the Sigma 85/1.4A is a much better lens than the Canon 85/1.4L IS. Now, you are saying that the Canon 85/1.4L IS is 'not obviously superior to' the Sigma 85A. Those are rather different concepts: originally, the Sigma was better, now it's not obviously worse. The hard thing about revisionist history is that the forum remembers your previous statements.

My point is that we have such limited data on the 85/1.4L IS that forming conclusions about it's performance is premature. Apparently you're quite happy to draw conclusions in the absence of data. I'm not.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's unsupported by data. As I've pointed out before, some people have the opinion that the earth is flat. They are welcome to hold that opinion, and to share it, even if doing so makes them look like idiots.

Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with.
Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.

Please, try to stick to relevant points instead of wandering off on tangents. How is my experience (or lack thereof) relevant to the discussion? I am saying nothing negative about the performance of the Sigma 85A, by all accounts it's an excellent lens. All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is better than another lens about which there is extremely limited data.

You are the one arguing that the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon. I am simply stating that in the absence of data, that's not a valid conclusion. I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know, and we won't know without data on the 85/1.4L IS. It would be like me concluding that I weigh more than you, because I weigh 82 kilos. Silly, right?

Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue.

Sounds good on the surface, but why bother? You've already decided that the Sigma is the better lens. Maybe you're the exception, but in my experience, people who make up their mind before seeing any real data don't subsequently allow the real data to change their mind. Like a fist, closed minds strike harder.

 

[Wedding Shooter]

Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.

Curious: how many frames have you shot personally with the Canon? Exactly his point.

But all in all... this discussion is getting somehow boring.

I have the Canon ordered. Because it has a better AF then my current f1,2 and it has IS.
I don't mind the Canon or Sigma being sharper in the lab. I shoot weddings for a living and the Canon has the better package for my needs.

 

[slclick]

They are both getting outstanding reviews and I'm sure anyone would be happy with either.

 

[LSXPhotog]

LMAO! The Sigma 85 Art is Vignette free? Not true.

I just spent all of today testing the Sigma 85 Art alongside the new Canon 85 and will be selling the Art. The Canon is extremely sharp but still a little behind the Sigma...but my Sigma missed focus a lot in my testing and when the shutter speeds got slower the Canon remained sharper.

The Sigma is better with axial chromatic aberration.

Bokeh is nearly identical wide open and ACTUALLY, I found the bokeh to be nicer and smoother stopped down on the Canon.

I'm posting a thread in the next day or so. Maybe tonight.

 

[Viggo]

LMAO! The Sigma 85 Art is Vignette free? Not true.

I just spent all of today testing the Sigma 85 Art alongside the new Canon 85 and will be selling the Art. The Canon is extremely sharp but still a little behind the Sigma...but my Sigma missed focus a lot in my testing and when the shutter speeds got slower the Canon remained sharper.

The Sigma is better with axial chromatic aberration.

Bokeh is nearly identical wide open and ACTUALLY, I found the bokeh to be nicer and smoother stopped down on the Canon.

I'm posting a thread in the next day or so. Maybe tonight.

Looking forward to that posting ! I’m getting mine, hopefully, by the end of the week

 

[jaell]

One of my favorite aphorisms lately is:

"That which has been asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchen's Razor)

There is not evidence right now about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 L IS regarding its sharpness, CA, AF speed, etc.

I'm sorely tempted to purchase the Sigma 85mm Art, myself. But I'm going to wait until there is data available regarding the Canon before I make that decision.

In my opinion, if the Canon's IQ is comparable to the Sigma, the IS and at-least-as-good-if-not-likely-better AF of the Canon will be worth the $400 (US) more the Canon costs. But until I see some data, I cannot make that decision, even though I just sold a lens and have enough money to pull the trigger on the Sigma in time to take Christmas pictures of my kids.

 

[SecureGSM]

Roll back to my initial point: it is not obviously evident that the new Canon 85 F1.4 IS is s better glass than Sigma 85 F1.4 IS. It is good lens but not a spectacular one. This is my opinion that is here to stay regardless of what your opinion may be. And reason being: Sigma 85 Art is in my bag and I know what is the lens capable of.

Yes, let's roll back...was that your initial point?

A.M.: yes, l it was:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33808.msg695376#msg695376

... In conclusion, I would like to stress the point that Canon 85 IS is a solid performer just not as exciting as Canon 35 F1.4 II for an instance...

Besides the Sigma 85 Art is a (much) better glass. rendition, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, CA and rock solid AF (centre and peripheral AF points, good and bad light confirmed).

Your initial point was that the Sigma 85/1.4A is a much better lens than the Canon 85/1.4L IS. Now, you are saying that the Canon 85/1.4L IS is 'not obviously superior to' the Sigma 85A. Those are rather different concepts: originally, the Sigma was better, now it's not obviously worse. The hard thing about revisionist history is that the forum remembers your previous statements.

A.M.: well that was my inital point: Canon is not that obviously ( not necessarily ) a better buy than Sigma. read below

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33808.msg695298#msg695298

A.M.: no, not that obviously a better buy with Canon at A$2,250 vs Sigma Art at A$1,125 in Australia.

My point is that we have such limited data on the 85/1.4L IS that forming conclusions about it's performance is premature. Apparently you're quite happy to draw conclusions in the absence of data. I'm not.

Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass.
It is OK if you cannot see it. Being an scientist and owning a ton of super expensive Canon gear is not a recipe for noticing things or see what others fail to see. That is how it is. some people cannot see the forest for the trees. skills, experience, etc. it is ok to have an opinion. the earth is not flat

and here is a post form someone you may consider credible:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33747.msg693825#msg693825

Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.

and that message was way before other images were made available. by now it is being quite obvious for many.
for many is the key word. not the sharpest lens with plenty CA wide open. solid performer but not the champion.

here. plenty of real world images and none of them suggest this lens is strikingly sharp, rendering champion or bokeh delicious:

http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/

please observe these images. professionally taken by the way.

By looking at the following image. from your experience would you say that CA levels in the image are normal or elevated?

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's unsupported by data. As I've pointed out before, some people have the opinion that the earth is flat. They are welcome to hold that opinion, and to share it, even if doing so makes them look like idiots.

Are you talking to yourself? you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior. it turns out not being the case from time to time. not always, but from time to time. in this case Canon delivered a solid performer but not a champion. not a 35 F1.4 II level of performance.

one observation though: for some very strange reason, anyone who dare to have an opinion that is different from the opinion you have, becomes your personal enemy, an idiot, full of crap, a lair or revisionist. Just look at yourself... what is up with this ego.

Misinformed you are being silly enough arguing the point about the subject you have no first hand experience with.
Just how many frames have you shot personally with Sigma 85 Art? Exactly my point.

All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is better than another lens about which there is extremely limited data.

You are the one arguing that the Sigma is a better lens than the Canon. I am simply stating that in the absence of data, that's not a valid conclusion. I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know, and we won't know without data on the 85/1.4L IS. It would be like me concluding that I weigh more than you, because I weigh 82 kilos. Silly, right?

no, not absence of data. plenty of data out there. plenty. and you guess correctly: you weigh more than me. I weigh 76 kilos. now there is enough data to draw the conclusion that you weigh more than me. because we both know how to compare 2 digit decimal numbers and know kilos from pounds.

Can I just suggest again: let’s wait until reliable test results are available and then revisit this issue.

Sounds good on the surface, but why bother? You've already decided that the Sigma is the better lens.

Maybe you're the exception, but in my experience, people who make up their mind before seeing any real data don't subsequently allow the real data to change their mind. Like a fist, closed minds strike harder.

not unless those people are intelligent and open minded. there is a host of super talented individual roaming around this place. Intelligent people are capable of facing facts and changing their mind when confronted with strong evidence or data.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass.

Images are anecdotes, not data. Are they properly focused? Who knows. How were they post-processed, if at all? Who knows. I notice you have completely ignored the fact which I mentioned twice: RAW converters have dedicated lens correction modules for the Sigma 85/1.4A, but those modules are not yet available for the Canon 85/1.4L IS. That single fact alone completely invalidates your premature conclusion.

Are you talking to yourself? you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior.

And with that, you've made it clear there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote, and are instead going to egregiously misrepesent my position (there's that full-of-crap-liar-propagating-misinformation thing again), it makes discussion impossible. For the record, from the post you quoted liberally and selectively, but either failed to read fully or failed to comprehend:

I am saying nothing negative about the performance of the Sigma 85A, by all accounts it's an excellent lens. All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is better than another lens about which there is extremely limited data.

I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know...

Please go on your merry way, secure in your knowledge that your Sigma 85A is superior to the Canon 85/1.4L IS. Don't let any future data to the contrary affect your opinion in the slightest. As for me, I'll keep an open mind and wait for actual data on the 85/1.4L IS, then I'll draw conclusions and happily discuss them...with anyone able to conduct a discussion honestly (and to be very clear, that doesn't include you).

 

[SecureGSM]

Plenty of data (images) out there, plenty enough to conclude that this lens is not a spectacular glass.

Images are anecdotes, not data. RAW converters have dedicated lens correction modules for the Sigma 85/1.4A, but those modules are not yet available for the Canon 85/1.4L IS. That single fact alone completely invalidates your premature conclusion.

A.M.:Neuro, I am looking at bunch of _uncorrected_ Sigma 85A files here. pure OOC RAWs. I know what I am talking about. this single fact along completely invalidates your idea about my idea being premature conclusion.

here is one for you. go ahead and do you judgement for Sigma 85A glass. if that is not good enough than let me know and I will send you more.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/VHMnlxn4jGI19AAr1

Are you talking to yourself? you opinion that Sigma lens is not that great based on what? exactly. it is you opinion based on your own opinion. you are the one that has limited your perception of this world to the opinion that all thing Canon are superior.

And with that, you've made it clear there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote, and are instead going to egregiously misrepesent my position (there's that full-of-crap-liar-propagating-misinformation thing again), it makes discussion impossible. For the record, from the post you quoted liberally and selectively, but either failed to read fully or failed to comprehend:

I am saying nothing negative about the performance of the Sigma 85A, by all accounts it's an excellent lens. All I'm saying is that it's premature to conclude that the Sigma is better than another lens about which there is extremely limited data.

I'm not saying the 85/1.4L IS is better than the Sigma. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying we don't know...

As for me, I'll keep an open mind and wait for actual data on the 85/1.4L IS, then I'll draw conclusions and happily discuss them...with anyone able to conduct a discussion honestly (and to be very clear, that doesn't include you).

How scientific is that? call someone full of crap, a lair and what is not and this is a honest discussion in your books. you do what you please but stop insult people. I have no problem with people disagree with my opinion. I have problem with people being rude, arrogant, selfish and disrespectful. I hope this is something that a scientist is able to cope with.

 

[LSXPhotog]

So anyone that thinks the Canon isn't sharp...relax, you don't know what you're talking about. LOL

All images are straight out of camera RAW without touching them.

Make sure you click on the the "Load Full Resolution" icon.

Zoomed in 200%


Observation - What I'm seeing at 200%? First the Canon has a higher T value and it's extremely sharp. The Sigma may have backfocused slightly in this shot, but...that happens a lot with that lens.

Bokeh


Observation - The bokeh is beautiful on both lenses, the color temperature hasn't been matched, so please ignore that until I make the thread.

Stopped down to f/4


Observation - Stopped down to f/4, the Canon renders backgrounds MUCH smoother. I was actually noticing the backgrounds seemed slightly smoother in most shots.

Axial Chromatic Aberration


Observation - Here is a more real world axial chromatic aberration example versus a sheet of white paper with black text...because we all take photos of those, right? LOL The Sigma is basically flawless here. The Canon? Not entirely flawless, but still a very good showing. The 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2L would be a mess here.

 

[SecureGSM]

LSXPhotog, as you suggested "... The Sigma may have back-focused slightly in this shot.." and it happens a lot for you apparently. if that is consistent then you need to AFMA your lens properly, I mean properly.
there is no point in comparing of Sigma OOF shots with Canon in focus shots. can you please take couple of shots in Live View mode. thanks.
p.s. in Axial CA example Sigma is definitely out of focus. back focused again. there is a tell tale sign when it does. and Sigma is actually significantly worse in your example. just so that you are aware.

 

[privatebydesign]

LSXPhotog, as you suggested "... The Sigma may have back-focused slightly in this shot.." and it happens a lot for you apparently. if that is consistent then you need to AFMA your lens properly, I mean properly.
there is no point in comparing of Sigma OOF shots with Canon in focus shots. can you please take couple of shots in Live View mode. thanks.
p.s. in Axial CA example Sigma is definitely out of focus. back focused again. there is a tell tale sign when it does. and Sigma is actually significantly worse in your example. just so that you are aware.

That is kind of a dumb attitude, one to tell somebody who clearly knows what they are doing to AFMA "I mean properly", two to think he hasn't already done that, and three, why? If those are the results he personally is getting with his gear then those are relevant comparisons, at the very least, for him.

You keep banging on about how brilliant your Sigma is for AF, there are dozens of people who say theirs isn't. If you rely on AF then take the comparison images with AF, what use is a lens twice as sharp if it won't AF reliably?

 

[SecureGSM]

Pbd,

according to LSXPhotogs words, his Sigma 95 does back focus alot. it that is a consistent behaviour, then the lens is out of tune. simple logic. the results he is getting are likely due to the lens requires AFMA,

there are many and many local photogs that come to me are unhappy about their Sigma lens producing out of focus images alot and walking out completely satisfied.

photographers are good at taking photos and not necessarily at lens calibration. in fact many would not have a clue.

with Canon lens it is much easier to get the lens in tune right. with Sigma it is a loooooong and boring process. it has to be done at all 4 distances and once done 85A will focus consistently for you.

here. statistically proven AF consistency report. 54 shots, one after another.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrtuQdT3Zm2eagtjt2K7g5_V8AwkA4ix

p.s. there is no need for me to think twice if the lens is back focused in sample images provided. the characteristics of CA patern evidently suggest that lens has back focused indeed.

p.s.2 i suggested live view mode comparison just to avoid AFMA routine for SIGMA for the moment.

LSXPhotog, as you suggested "... The Sigma may have back-focused slightly in this shot.." and it happens a lot for you apparently. if that is consistent then you need to AFMA your lens properly, I mean properly.
there is no point in comparing of Sigma OOF shots with Canon in focus shots. can you please take couple of shots in Live View mode. thanks.
p.s. in Axial CA example Sigma is definitely out of focus. back focused again. there is a tell tale sign when it does. and Sigma is actually significantly worse in your example. just so that you are aware.

That is kind of a dumb attitude, one to tell somebody who clearly knows what they are doing to AFMA "I mean properly", two to think he hasn't already done that, and three, why? If those are the results he personally is getting with his gear then those are relevant comparisons, at the very least, for him.

You keep banging on about how brilliant your Sigma is for AF, there are dozens of people who say theirs isn't. If you rely on AF then take the comparison images with AF, what use is a lens twice as sharp if it won't AF reliably?

 

[LSXPhotog]

LSXPhotog, as you suggested "... The Sigma may have back-focused slightly in this shot.." and it happens a lot for you apparently. if that is consistent then you need to AFMA your lens properly, I mean properly.
there is no point in comparing of Sigma OOF shots with Canon in focus shots. can you please take couple of shots in Live View mode. thanks.
p.s. in Axial CA example Sigma is definitely out of focus. back focused again. there is a tell tale sign when it does. and Sigma is actually significantly worse in your example. just so that you are aware.

My Sigma 85mm Art has LIVED on the USB dock for better parts of the year. When I got the lens, it seemed to be pretty damn spot on, so I didn't touch it. After my first long race event shooting with it, I had several shots that were off. So I spent a good portion of time getting it dialed in with a FoCal Lens Cal target and it was working really well. Then, after a month or two, it suddenly seemed that I wasn't getting sharp focus again, so I put it back on. Rinse and repeat. I've been doing this every few months and I'm basically done with this lens in general as a result of the autofocus. The only thing consistent about it is its inconsistency. There's no rhyme or reason to when and where or what focus distance it will miss on, the lens misses. Also understand that I'm very strict on what I consider "acceptable" and throw away anything where a nose is sharp, but the eyes aren't.

Tomorrow I plan to do more tests with the lens. For determining critical sharpness, I will indeed be using live view. But in the real world, I don't walk around like a dink using live view to photograph professional work - is use it here and there, but I shoot 95+% of my work through the viewfinder...

I really don't understand why you're defending Sigma so much? I have owned the 50mm Art and 85mm Art since the day they came out. They're truly incredible pieces of glass, but for what I do and how I use gear, I can't keep the 85mm in my bag. The 50mm I use for isolated detail work and occasional portraits where it works just fine. But 85mm is too important.

 

[LSXPhotog]

To correct you, I said it back-focused and that it happens often with the lens. But it is not a consistent behavior, it's consistent for the lens to occasionally go wacky and miss. The next 5-6 shots will be perfect, then it will be off. There is no way to dial out autofocus that is inconsistent. I have this thing pretty damn near perfection with the amount of time I've spent with it - even sending it into Sigma to have checked. Sigma, or Tamron for that matter, just can't create a lens that's as consistent as native Canon. This is speaking from my experience.