you always get what you pay for.

So G master then?

I wonder how this lens compare to its smaller sibling, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 in terms of rendering and overall look.

I think the same is true for the Sony 1.8/85 (SEL85F18).

I kinda hate it beause it seems to replace normal reviews.

I don't want to hear those guys talk, I want to see images not compressed to death by youtube.

@ roweraay: Until Sigma comes out with a DM version of the 135/1.8, of course! Even the Sigma 135/1.5 non-DM is supposed to be spectacular...but too big. Fingers crossed for a DM version.

DM or DN?

I'm actually curious to see how much smaller they could make a 135mm, the Batis 135mm f2.8 is significantly lighter than any other AF 135mm options (like 600g vs 900g+?) but it's not much smaller than most of the heavier alternatives (the specs on most sites seem to have a wrong diameter btw), let alone older film/RF 135mm.

Not everyone is looking for max DoF control or shooting action with the thing, some of us would just appreciate a 135mm prime that's smaller than a superzoom.

@ Impulses: Yes, "DN" - sorry for the confusion. When I was with Canon, I *loved* my 135/2.0 lens. I am a narrow DoF junkie, so 2.8 may not quench my thirst, though my friend's Batis 85/1.8 is pretty sweet.

@garyster......yes, Sigma is firing on all cylinders lately. I bought their 85/1.4 DG DN and now debating about getting their 35 f/2 DG DN (instead of the Sony 35/1.4 GM). I am very impressed with Sigma's recent design direction.

@Impulses.....I agree. if Sigma can shave off some weight from a future "DG DN" 135/1.8, I am all for it. I just love my current 135/1.8GM from an image quality standpoint, but it is a literal bazooka, and certainly won't mind a bit of size paring, if they can maintain the image quality. Even if some minor distortion or aberration correction need to happen in-camera or in post (less of an issue in the digital era vis-a-vis the film era), I would certainly be okay with that, if the size reduces by say 300-400gms.

I would recommend to buy all 4 models, just in case ?

The older SLR version has quite pronounced field curvature too. In fact, I nearly returned it before I'd figured out what was going on! Sample variation seemed to be quite an issue with the older lens too, I had two copies for a time and one was quite a bit sharper than the other, visible even without pixel peeping. If memory serves Lloyd Chambers had a similar experience. Still an incredible lens though, if you get a good one.

So you're going all in on L mount? :P

I think realistically Sigma is likely to be the first third party lens marker to crack RF/Z mount, just cause they have the most resources (and Tamron has ties to Sony, etc.); but they're also likely to keep designing for E/L mount's constraints first and then maybe porting over that design to any of the others.

It'll be a pretty interesting dynamic for them and any other third party, but having that broad third party support on a mount is definitely an edge.

Makes you wonder if people who wouldn't have looked at L mount before might do so now. The primary beneficiary of this, however, is probably Sony.

It's part of the reason I chose the S1R. That and it's a quite extraordinary camera!

the sigma has more field curvature. if both focus on the same spot, the sigma will be sharper.

The GM isn't designed to be sharp, it's designed to be consistent across the frame with beautiful rendering.

Worrying about sharpness is for fools.

@ Melindra: "Worrying about sharpness is for fools" could be the dumbest DPR post of the month. A close second is, "The GM isn't designed to be sharp"

Sounds like someone is bitter that they overpaid for a GM and didn't opt for the Sigma version.

I’m with Melindra. All of these lenses are sharp enough but talk of sharpness is repeated over and over here like it is the only thing that matters.

I have neither.
Do you also wonder why Cine lenses cost so much?

It's all about sharpness for some people, it's the rendering, the transitional characteristics, the colours, coatings, reliability, OE support etc.

The best photographs of the last 100 years weren't great because they were sharp.

But you keep collecting gear and telling everyone you have a sharp lens, whatever makes you feel good is ok with me. Enjoy photography your way buddy 👍

@ Melindra: I don't collect gear (2 bodies 3 lenses total), but thanks for the assumption, and I don't remember telling *anyone* that I have a sharp lens...

It is just that your silly, condescending statements make you sound jealous that there are other lenses that are better choices than the GM line.

That is all.

You're right and when you're right, you're right 👍

That's why most of the top pros shoot a 24-70 and why the saying 'f8 and be there' exists.

Because MTF/sharpness.

There is always a confusion. Of course Melindra is correct. Sharpness is irrelevant since "Sharpness" is a personal interpretation of humans and not a measurable quantity. Resolution would be the better option to talk about, and this is measured by the contrast. Rendering is a consequence of the transmission functions of a lens which cannot be changed. Sharpness is accessible to post processing software, resolution not!

Expensive lenses are usually expensive due to the expensive materials and in addition the very low tolerances in the production process. A excellent lens design in the computer is worthless, if you do not correct for misaligned glas in the assembly process of a lens. How much misalignment of each lens element from the optical axis do you accept and how much effort are you willing to pay for to correct these misalignment in production? That defines the price tag at the end.

@ Melidra: Glad you agree - not going to pay 2x for a lens that isn't as sharp as the Sigma!

Have a great day.

Sharp is everything!

@ John Gellings: Agreed! Of course, there are other factors, but paying $2K+ for a lens that isn't as sharp as one that is almost half the price seems ridiculous.

Yeah, stupid Sony, they don't know how to make a lens as sharp as Sigma.

You guys are hilarious.

You sound like those consumers who put chips in their cars that 'unlock' more power, because the world's best engineers missed something the eBay seller found lol.

@ Melindra: *you* were the one that agreed with us (unless that was some of that childish sarcasm you detest so much).

If I am paying 2x the price, I would expect it to be *at least as sharp if not sharper* than the less expensive model, plus all of those other attributes that make a lens stellar.

To say "it is not designed to be sharp" is such a cop-out, that you just sound silly (as other forum members have also pointed out).

And not that it matters, but since you brought it up, the engine in my car is stock, no "chip", haha.

You expect sharpness equivalent to another lens but the lens designer (Sony) obviously doesn't care about achieving maximum sharpness, because it's not important.

Also, as pointed out, sharpness and resolution are two different things and I doubt you'll see a real world difference anyway.

I'm a big Sigma fan, but the GM is also a very good lens and worth the asking price, if you're not skilled enough to notice the subtleties that seperate lenses more expensive than the Sigma, good for you, you'll save money.

Some people are, obviously, happy to pay more for higher end items.

If you think the GM price is such a problem, you must not understand Leica glass.

You're a Hyundai guy, that's cool, I see and understand why a Porsche is better and unfortunately that means I have to work a lot harder.

Good on you for believing your MTF chart means your cheaper lens is 'better'. That's great for you 👍

@ Melindra: Glad you finally understood what I was talking about! Have a nice week.

Probably a7s3 or even perhaps the new panasonic s5

Its usually the S1h unless otherwise specified.

Why?

Is there even a reason to enable EFC at shutter speeds above say 1/1000? I know there's some debate about where exactly the shutter shock danger zone ends (1/320? 1/500?), some brands probably have different cutoffs and it might even depend on the lens, but it seems like an auto cutoff to full mechanical should be the default tbh... It is for most others AFAIK.

Shutter shock will depend on the combination body+lens so I think it is difficult to set up exact numbers. High Mpix cameras will suffer more because of it, generally.

40/1.4!

Let's hope they will make 24/1.4 better than Sony's.

More than all of them I want the 35mm 1.4 Art to be downsized for sony. if they can also somehow reduce the price because of less metal being used, I'd be happy to suggest a price of 500-550.
That would wipe the smile off of sony with their ridiculously overpriced 35mm f/1.8 and let's be honest, the 1k Sony Distagon T ZA 35mm f/1.4 that performs nearly identical to the overachieving Samyang AF 35mm f/1.4

Not enough market share (sales) for the L mount. We should never forget that reviews are indirectly financed by sales.

I am kind of guessing that the L-mount version may be currently on a S5 being tested. Hence not in the video here until the information embargo is lifted

I think you can close aperture if you want ...?

this seems more like a psychological problem....

Z and RF mounts are closed, so all these new third-party lenses are ignoring them. Given their small userbase compared to say EF, F, and FE they may or may not get these lenses in the future.

Third party lenses are 90% of the reason to go Sony.

Lack of third party lenses is the major frustration with Fuji. Lots of third party lenses are a big selling point for M43.

Third party glass is a beautiful thing.

Ambassador Bolton,

I agree. The mirrorless sweet spots right now feel like M43, EF-M (for all that cheap adapted glass and some inexpensive native options), and FE (third party glass). Now that doesn't matter if you're a pro who can budget for the very best, but hobbyists have constraints...

It's interesting that you mention EF-M. Few people seem to do so, which is a shame because the M6 II out resolves its Sony APS-C rivals and to my eye, takes better pictures. And also yes, the adapted EF glass.

Curious: does adapted EF glass on a Canon EF-M body have better AF and etc. than it would on another vendor's body-as in, adapted to Sony or Fuji etc.?

My understanding is that EF and EF-M are electronically compatible, so you get the full performance of any EF lenses.

@Mr Bolton: There are quite a few 3rd party lenses for Fuji, even some very decent ones with AF (Viltrox). Also there are rumors that Fuji might open their protocoll.

I don't think Sigma has made any RF/Z AF lenses yet, have they? It'll probably be a while until they reverse engineer those mounts, they or others might even wait to see which of the two systems is selling better before committing resources to it... Even when that starts happening, some third parties will surely design for the more constrained E mount first and then recycle that design for RF/Z.

@Lord Powershooter I sure hope those long standing rumors become truth!

Meanwhile yes there are a number of manual focus Fuji options-I own some of them. But it would be awesome to have some Sigma or Tamron or more Zeiss options. Hey, L mount is a full 2.3mm longer in flange distance, so I'm sure the L to Fuji X adapter can't be far off :-D

And yes, I'm aware of the Viltrox and pretty stoked to try some out.

Closed mount, so no. Not sure why people would buy into a closed mount to be honest. Just greed and profits at your expense.

Fuji got the Touit lenses from Zeiss (AF lenses)

EF is a closed mount with the biggest lens catalog on the planet

EF also was one of two de-facto standards with a huge installed base. Z and RF have yet to catch up to the installed base of their predecessors.

Wow, so much BAD information!

Nikon Z an Canon RF might be "closed", but RF is just EF with a little bit extra data, so Rokinon has already started making AF lenses for RF, and they work just as well as any EF-mount third-party lens would, without the "command ring" extra function. Tamron and Sigma are definitely toying with RF...

Nikon Z is fully closed, but the popularity is still enough to entice Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon etc to figure it out. They might not say they're working on it, for legal or "business as usual" reasons we don't know, but yeah, we'll see these lenses on Nikon Z within a year or two.

Meanwhile, Nikon's 85 1.8 S is probably still a better lens than this Sigma, considering its truly insane image quality for $400 less, (also, the bokeh is even smoother, thanks to the more massive mount, despite the number "1.8") ...and apparently maybe better (less) field curvature?

All in all, don't count RF and Z out just yet. They're already showing just how good they can be.

@Matt,

Z and RF have been out for years and are both missing older third party glass and being passed over for inexpensive new third-party glass. It's a legitimate concern for people who are buying today and shooting today, not holding out for glass years from now.

Two years. They've been out for two years. These things take time.

@Brent,

lol, do you even remember when the EOS R press release was? I remember, because I was there, it was September 5th 2018.

Sony's E-mount first came out in 2010, and it was an open mount then, and it wasn't until 2016 that they made the 30 1.4 DN for APS-C. They didn't even bother making actual mirrorless full-frame lenses until 2019, also SIX YEARS after the first full-frame E-mount body came out.

And yet, we've already seen AF lenses for RF, well under the 2-year mark for the age of Canon's full-frame mount. So, you better believe Canon and Nikon's mounts will be supported by third parties ASAP.

In the meantime, it's a false dichotomy to talk about how people buying today are very concerned about a lack of third-party or affordable options, because it overlooks the glaring error in the whole logic that Sony users originally touted as being the biggest reason to jump to the mount in the first place- ADAPTERS...

...Back when Sony FE lenses (and bodies) first became a thing, everybody jumping to Sony was touting how awesome the mount was due to the fact that Metabones, a third-party adapter, allowed you to use your Canon and other lenses on Sony, That's what made Sony "the most versatile, best system".

Now, all of a sudden, we have NATIVE adapters, and NATIVE lenses, (Canon EF lenses, Canon EF-RF adapter, and Canon RF-mount body) with essentially flawless and smooth operation, (worlds better than any Metabones adapter ever could have accomplished!) ...and yet somehow, Canon and Nikon's full-frame mirrorless systems are crippled, despite having literally millions of lenses on the market to mount?

I don't buy the logic. It's highly flawed, and just plain biased towards Sony.

Now, here's the kicker:

I love Sony; I prefer their system by far for many things, and certainly the A9 and A9 II are my hands-down favorite wedding photography cameras; I would have loved to have them 10-15 years ago! GM lenses are turning out better every year, and Tamron and Sigma's options are just fantastic, each brand is hitting a truly unique, desirable niche market / gap, from the lightweight, cheap Tamron 2.8's to these impressive Sigma Art primes. I would aboslutely recommend Sony in a heartbeat, depending on what someone needed.

But I'm looking at the entire history of progress, and I'm not blind to the present reality or the inevitable future. Anyone who already knows Nikon or Canon, is familiar with their DSLRs and has a lens or two, no longer needs to lose sleep wondering if they should jump to Sony for better autofocus, or better lens selection. The present options are already good enough, and the future will be here very soon.

@matthew saville I think your history of Sigma lenses is a bit off. Sigma announced 3 different lenses for Sony APS-C in 2012-13.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_19mm_F2.8_EX_DN

Sigma did not offer full frame mirrorless lenses until recently because they were waiting on the Canon and Nikon mount specifications. Their business model relies on maximizing their design investment by using the same design for all mounts. So I do agree that this means that at some point Sigma will offer DN lenses in those mounts, assuming the technical issues aren't insurmountable. On the other hand, this does give Sony a real short term advantage for people who aren't interested in waiting for Canikon when Sony is pretty developed already and already has Sigma DN designs available now.

No one cares about the history of lens development or what adapters were popular before the glass they came out. They care about the lenses that are available today to use, not what might come in a 2-5 years. Does anyone buy a camera saying "Someday, I'll get to shoot with the lens I want."?

Sure if you have existing glass adapt away, but anyone new to full frame can choose between a full ecosystem with good options at different price points or a more limited selection.

@Brent,

Well, that "someday" argument is literally the exact one that Sony users made for almost five years, so, look who's talking now!

Canon and Nikon have a legacy of millions of lenses, and their native adapters with native lenses on native bodies is completely different from the craptastic adapter situation that Sony users were glowing about for years, so it's just fair to say that Nikon Z and Canon RF already have one of the best lens selections for their mounts, period.

You know what, though? Personally, I do hate adapters. I'd rather shoot native and adapter-less. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in Sony fans making this argument now. We can't have it both ways, saying that Canon EF and Nikon F "were" massively popular, but now all of a sudden RF and Z are hopeless because there's "no lenses for them."

...Bottom line: If someone asks me what camera to buy RIGHT NOW, I'll suggest the Nikon Z5 or Canon EOS R6, and one or two native lenses plus maybe one or two adapted (name-brand, or even third-party) lenses, ..just as equally as I'd recommend an A7III.

Just a few months or one year ago, I would have absolutely recommended the A7 III alone, as the most future-proof system/investment. But Canon and Nikon's bodies are now stepping up to the plate, and their native mirrorless lens selection is growing rapidly, and adapted DSLR name-brand lenses have always been there to fill in the gaps.

Oh, and TechArt already has a Sony FE to Nikon Z adapter, LOL, so this precious Sigma 85 DN we're commenting about, ...works on Nikon Z. ;-)

I didn't have a Sony camera back then and I have no idea why you want to bring up what people were saying five years ago. It literally has nothing to do with what options people have to buy today. Honestly I would prefer to buy an R6 over an A7III, but those RF lens prices are insane.

Adapting DSLR glass is a viable budget option, but there is a lot of unique native mirrorless glass coming out from Tamron and Sigma that is great for the hobbyist.

If you are/were a Canon user, then you're accustomed to the fact that they haven't made a decent mid-priced 50mm f/1.4 in decades, and their 50mm f/1.8 optical formula has been rehashed for decades, and the same goes for other common focal lengths. Canon was never the smart buy for someone on a budget, until the third-parties came along; the fact that they have done both a 35 1.8 and an 85 f/2 already is actually quite impressive and unprecedented, though admittedly their painfully slow 24-105 f/4-7.1 is in keeping with their "cripple hammer" tactics.

Either way, yes I'd go for an R6 too, but I'd also have to charge some big $$$ for a few gigs to help pay for a couple 2.8 L zooms and maybe an L prime or two, because that's definitely more than 50% of the reason to buy Canon in the first place...

BTW, Tamron just also released two new highly unique lenses for DSLRs; their 17-35 2.8-4 and their 35-150 2.8-4; I reviewed them last year and they're really great, besides the puny AF motor.

EIther way, my point right now is that what people were saying 5 years ago is an indication that the situation right now is not as dismal as some people are claiming it is.

People were gushing over third-party adapters and off-brand lenses 5 years ago, and now they have an even better option, native adapters that give virtually seamless integration into literally millions of affordable lenses.

Ergo, people do indeed have GREAT options today, despite a current shortage of fully native, affordable options.

Again, Canon has already started doing a lineup of affordable RF lenses, and Roki-Yang has already figured out their AF so we can expect a huge "dump" of AF RF lenses very shortly. Nikon has already started working on a full lineup of unprecedented-ly good f/4 zooms, and their f/1.8 primes are some of the best ever, plus, as I said, there's an adapter so all these Sony FE Tamron and Sigma lenses now work decently on Z.

Wow! I just looked at that Techart adapter, and the Nikon Z with its build quality and ergos.. just started looking a lot better!

Having access to all that FE glass (yes, I chuckle while remembering how that wasn't the case just a few years ago-as with Nikon Z native, now) is really an appealing option.

I don't see how the Z5 would do anything notable that my Fujis cannot, but the full frame Z6 is, well, full frame and can shoot good video..

The Z5 is full-frame, it's a Z6 but with a different sensor and dual SD card slots.

Having said that, Fuji is the best in the game at APS-C image quality, so I'd certainly pit them against any FF body under normal conditions.

But, I buy new cameras to really push the limits of what is possible with photography; otherwise I would have stopped buying new cameras 5-6 years ago.

Agreed. And if you're pushing limits, then you're betting that Canon will get that R5/6 firmware overheating situation worked out-not buying a Z5. Not knocking the Z5, but it's hovering around the $1000 price point, so not groundbreaking tech to be had.

IBIS and dual card slots for around $1K in full-frame? There's definitely enough that is ground-breaking about the camera to attract a lot of people, though maybe not someone who is waiting for a next-generation flagship sensor. The only hint that the Z5 might not be as groundbreaking as we're hoping is that the sensor isn't BSI, but Nikon has been known to achieve the impossible on many occasions, especially in that price range, especially compared to Canon. (The Z5 is likely to destroy the EOS RP, and even eclipse an EOS RP mk2, if one were to show up soon, just like how the D610-D750 made the Canon 6D-6D2 seem pointless...)

Either way, everybody pushes the limits in different directions. The EOS R6 is a push in the direction of flagship speed and AF At an affordable price, but I wouldn't be surprised if even the Z5 still beat it for base ISO dynamic range, where landscape photographers etc (who don't care about FPS/AF, for example) are very concerned...

2014 sensor with 2014 1080p video. 1.7x crop in 4k on a 24mp sensor so.. less res and dynamic range than M43 in 4K? And it's $400 more than an X-T3. Oh, and there are what, six lenses available for it? And how expensive are they?

I like Nikon's cameras, but there is, as always, so much more to it than sensor surface area.

Also, the A7 sensor, likely the same as used in the Z5 for which Photons to Photos doesn't have a test yet, doesn't beat out the R5 although it does hold up admirably well as ISO increases. They don't have a test for the R6, but I suspect it will have a little more DR because lower resolution equals bigger pixels, and the R6 is a lot newer of a sensor.

Finally, on the same Photons to Photos PDR chart.. my X-H1 destroys the Canon RP by over a stop and a half at low ISO.. It actually kind shocked me when I compared them..
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Canon%20EOS%20RP(APS-C),FujiFilm%20X-H1,Nikon%20Z%206,Sony%20ILCE-7

Has its place for well to do portrait specialists ;-)

It has been consensus for many. GM still offers nicer bokeh but Sigma is sharper. For some GM is more balance/artful but pricey for sure.

Closed mount so no.

EF Mount is closed too.. and is the most popular mount for 3rd party..

They'll figure it out in a year or two. Rokinon has already figured out AF on RF. And as for Nikon Z, if you're shopping in the price range (and weight class) of this Sigma, there's good news- Nikon's existing 85 1.8 Z costs $400 less, and thanks to the massively wider mount, the bokeh is even more creamy, despite the "1.8" number...

Yes, it was.. but it was in a time of only 2 choices and essentially a monopoly. Now things are different. 4 choices, one of which is completely open mount and another that incorporates a big third party from the start.

Your recollection doesn't go back very far, if you think third party lenses have only been around since there were two choices... ;-)

i am from the UK and with my aging eyesight i am using the bigger inchers more and more on my tape

Yeah, f/1.4 is a pretty crazy aperture on an 85mm lens. You still don't get a great lot of DOF at f/2.8...

Brick wall shooters: pass on this one..

It must be a problem with the wall. ;)

My understanding is that Sigma designers decided to allow some distortion in order to get better reduction of other aberrations, because distortion is very easy to correct in camera (for JPGs) or in PP.

The lens profile in a raw converter should deal with it automatically.

Correcting distortion comes at cost. Plus, it's not always 'automatic' - if it has wave pattern then you're out of luck (this lens however does not seem to have such pattern).

You had to wait a day. :( Really rough.

Sorry OT, saw your gear list, you're shooting with the Rii & Riv, I was wondering how you find the AF speed of the 55/1.8 on the Riv. I use the same lens on Rii and it is by far the slowest AF lens I have - very hesitant and prone to hunt for focus.

Angrymagpie Do you have the 55 1.8 or the 50 1.8?

55mm, the Sony Zeiss one. I’ve always felt that its AF is noticeably worse than the two other lenses I used the most with the same body (35/2.8 & 28/2), and have been wondering if it would ever become snappy enough for photojournalism use with a newer generation body. The 55/1.8 is ludicrously sharp, which I find amazing for cropping when used with my Rii. But the AF has been a bit of a let down

the fe55/1.8 is 15fps af-c capable on the a9, it's not a slow-focusing lens.

the fe35/2.8 and fe28/2 are also 15fps lenses on the a9.

if you want better af, get a newer camera body, that a7rii is five years old.

Strange - the 55mm is easy as fast as the 35/2.8 on my A7iii.

Check out the 85/1.8 for the times you want something in between! Costs less, sharp at f1.8 and quick AF (and reliable at video).
For portrait you have the 135mm anyway 🤩

Angrymagpie The 55/1.8 works great for me on both cameras. I didn't have any AF problem with it.

I have the Sony 55 F1.8, 85 F1.8 and 135 F1.8 and the 55 focusing is just as good as the other lenses.

What the video didn't mention:
The Sigma has a yellow color cast (on Sony bodies) and a ton of barrel distortion. But if you want to sell the lens, you better don't mention the negatives, I guess, right?

@orim barrel distortion is a compromise due to the size that can easily be corrected with software and lens profile which is stilll not available. Images in jpg dont suffer from it.

It okay to feel bad about spending so much more on the GM and not been justified.

@orim: if the incentive was financial they would be singing the praises of the more expensive lens. Your comment implies a bias that there is no evidence for.

@Bob Janes: Sellouts will praise whoever gives them the most kickbacks, regardless of what customers pay. Ask any influencer, they'll praise a turd sandwich if the price is right.

Guys what sell out the review is great and the lens is also quite good....

@KjellRS: that seems like a pretty vile suggestion with no evidence at all to back it up. The Sigma has been getting good reviews from a number of different people and I've yet to hear anything bad.

GM has sharper corners and better bokeh. Art is unbeatable for its price.
Regards

No suggestion about DPReview or Sigma was intended, just pointing out that your argument that "they would be singing the praises of the more expensive lens" is nonsense. Plenty examples where it's the cheaper product getting pushed. But if you don't believe me, I have a cell phone that's half as good as the Arri Alexa. You can have it for half the price...

It all seems a little silly with all this bias and such. The GM and the Sigma are some of the very sharpest 85's out there and yet we're throwing fellow commenters who appreciate not having to pay an extra 500 dollars under the bus because they are not getting the absolute best? What kind of job does absolutely anybody have that it would ruin you to own the slightly inferior lens (apparently the sigma??). Oh well.