Sigma 105mm f/1.4 ?

[DGMPhotography]

Hello!

I did a search on the forum for this lens, and surprisingly very few (see: 0) results. Maybe my search criteria was wrong, but either way, I'm here asking for thoughts and experience with the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art lens. It's relatively new, so I'm assuming that's why there hasn't been much posted.

I've always been leery of the Sigma lenses, after seeing so many comparisons between Tamron and Sigma (with Tamron usually coming out on top, and with better QC), but Tamron doesn't offer a 105 f/1.4 (yet) and the only other option is the older Nikkor 105 f/1.4.

So my question is - do you have this lens? If so, what has been your experience/impression of it? Do you have experience with the Nikkor version, for comparison?

I'm mostly worried about the overall quality, and the weight.

 

[Braineack]

splurge on the new 1.4e. do it.

Watch the few comparisons between the sigma and nikon on YT.

Yeah it's cheaper, but IT'S HUGE and HEAVY. The Nikon version is already but wieldy (shot a wedding with it).

You'll probably see the same conclusions over and over: the sigma has *slightly* better bg blur, sharper throughout the frame, but doesn't have the same rendering quality as the Nikon.

Coupled with the insanely large front element and weighing almost 1 full pound more than the Nikon -- HARD PASS.


I've also seen a few accounts of it simply not focusing so well with a D850 compared to the Nikon lens, even after calibration.

 

[DGMPhotography]

splurge on the new 1.4e. do it.

Watch the few comparisons between the sigma and nikon on YT.

Yeah it's cheaper, but IT'S HUGE and HEAVY. The Nikon version is already but wieldy (shot a wedding with it).

You'll probably see the same conclusions over and over: the sigma has *slightly* better bg blur, sharper throughout the frame, but doesn't have the same rendering quality as the Nikon.

Coupled with the insanely large front element and weighing almost 1 full pound more than the Nikon -- HARD PASS.


I've also seen a few accounts of it simply not focusing so well with a D850 compared to the Nikon lens, even after calibration.

I really wish Tamron offered something in this range. It'd be no question!

As for the reviews... everything I've watched/read so far praises the Sigma over the Nikon for both image quality, sharpness, and bokeh. I am not a fan of the Nikon's cat eye bokeh. The main disadvantage being the weight/size (which I'm not too worried about. Weighs less than my 70-200 which I use all the time). What exactly do you mean by the rendering?

The focusing would be an issue for sure if it doesn't want to cooperate with my D750. But I tried one out at B&H, and while slower than the Nikon, seemed accurate.

 

[Braineack]

You gotta remember it's extreme pixel peeping to determine this. The huge front element of the Sigma is what gives it the better edge-to-edge sharpness and vignetting -- but it's really only in the extra corners where the sharpness is better and vignetting is easily correctable.

The super clinical sharpness of the Sigma is what some photographers do not prefer about the Sigma -- it lacks character. My 58mm is the softest lens I've own, but the way it renders is amazing. It has a real dreamy almost water-colored feel to it and gives the images a lot of character.

Nikon spends a lot of their R&D into getting this quality out of their glass, Sigma on the other-hand spends a lot of their R&D getting the best sharpness and CA corner to corner.

Both are sharp, and side-by-side you're really going to have a hard time telling which is which in that regard. But that super-ultra sharpness of the Sigma also affects the OOF portions and in comparisons some people say it's a bit harsh looking -- in comparison.

So that really leaves you with the Bokeh balls -- I could care less personally if bokeh balls weren't circles throughout the frame. 1. I hardly shoot images with bokeh balls. 2. I personally think they add more interest. 3. In comparisons I've seen, the Sigma will still cat-eye. so this is a moot point.

But you cannot underestimate the size and weight difference. The Sigma is so heavy and large it comes with a freaking tripod mount. Neither lens has VR/IS so wielding such a heavy lens can be a big factor here. it weighs MORE than your 70-200 at 1,650g vs 1,485g of the Tamron. In the on location tests I've watched people complain heavily about holding it and shooting with it.

One thing I was reading about the Sigma is that it doesn't fare well in back-light shots -- it really flares/washes out poorly. This is a very big downside to me as I love back-lighting.

I don't think you can go wrong with either. the 105mm 1.4e is on my wish-list, I was considering the Sigma myself as an alternative, but I really dislike the size/weight of it and the other cons I mentioned above. The price makes it really tempting, but I have seen used Nikons get below ~$1700 -- they just go fast. I rented one, I liked it, still want it -- just felt like an oversized version of my 85mm. I used to be all about the sharp lens, now I'm all about the lens that gives you the best character -- I'd love to trade my Tamrons in for Nikon counterparts.

Either way you decide to go, your portraits are going to be insane.

 

[DGMPhotography]

You gotta remember it's extreme pixel peeping to determine this. The huge front element of the Sigma is what gives it the better edge-to-edge sharpness and vignetting -- but it's really only in the extra corners where the sharpness is better and vignetting is easily correctable.

The super clinical sharpness of the Sigma is what some photographers do not prefer about the Sigma -- it lacks character. My 58mm is the softest lens I've own, but the way it renders is amazing. It has a real dreamy almost water-colored feel to it and gives the images a lot of character.

Nikon spends a lot of their R&D into getting this quality out of their glass, Sigma on the other-hand spends a lot of their R&D getting the best sharpness and CA corner to corner.

Both are sharp, and side-by-side you're really going to have a hard time telling which is which in that regard. But that super-ultra sharpness of the Sigma also affects the OOF portions and in comparisons some people say it's a bit harsh looking -- in comparison.

So that really leaves you with the Bokeh balls -- I could care less personally if bokeh balls weren't circles throughout the frame. 1. I hardly shoot images with bokeh balls. 2. I personally think they add more interest. 3. In comparisons I've seen, the Sigma will still cat-eye. so this is a moot point.

But you cannot underestimate the size and weight difference. The Sigma is so heavy and large it comes with a freaking tripod mount. Neither lens has VR/IS so wielding such a heavy lens can be a big factor here. it weighs MORE than your 70-200 at 1,650g vs 1,485g of the Tamron. In the on location tests I've watched people complain heavily about holding it and shooting with it.

One thing I was reading about the Sigma is that it doesn't fare well in back-light shots -- it really flares/washes out poorly. This is a very big downside to me as I love back-lighting.

I don't think you can go wrong with either. the 105mm 1.4e is on my wish-list, I was considering the Sigma myself as an alternative, but I really dislike the size/weight of it and the other cons I mentioned above. The price makes it really tempting, but I have seen used Nikons get below ~$1700 -- they just go fast. I rented one, I liked it, still want it -- just felt like an oversized version of my 85mm. I used to be all about the sharp lens, now I'm all about the lens that gives you the best character -- I'd love to trade my Tamrons in for Nikon counterparts.

Either way you decide to go, your portraits are going to be insane.

Thanks for the input! You make some good points here. I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on Tamron? They filed a patent for a 115mm f/1.4. If that ever sees the light of day, it might be worth waiting for.

But I'm also wondering if a 135 would be better than the 105.

 

[Braineack]

Would have to see how it performs. I'm not opposed to any brand.

 

[Derrel]

But I'm also wondering if a 135 would be better than the 105.

Use your 70-200 set to 105mm and to 135mm to aid in deciding.

 

[DGMPhotography]

But I'm also wondering if a 135 would be better than the 105.

Use your 70-200 set to 105mm and to 135mm to aid in deciding.

Good idea. I actually did try that and I didn't feel too strongly either way. Might need to do some more testing in different situations. The big factor I can't test though is the ultra wide aperture those lenses have.

 

[Strodav]

I don't think I saw you post what you were going to use the lens for. One usually buys a prime for speed and sharpness. A 105mm is a portrait lens. If that's the case, the highest rated lens is a Sigma 85mm f1.4. Very good for head and head and shoulder shots and it is one of the sharpest lenses made (period). Another really good lens is the Tamron 85mm f1.8. I bought this one. Check them out on DxOMark.com, which is one of the more reputable camera and lens test sites out there.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I don't think I saw you post what you were going to use the lens for. One usually buys a prime for speed and sharpness. A 105mm is a portrait lens. If that's the case, the highest rated lens is a Sigma 85mm f1.4. Very good for head and head and shoulder shots and it is one of the sharpest lenses made (period). Another really good lens is the Tamron 85mm f1.8. I bought this one. Check them out on DxOMark.com, which is one of the more reputable camera and lens test sites out there.

Sharpness is not the only thing to consider when getting a lens. Some lenses aren't as sharp, but have a lot more character.

I think I've decided against the Sigma for now, due to its clerical like rendering, and weight, and Sigma's reputation for poor quality control.

I'm mostly considering the Nikon now, or waiting for a Tamron offering.