I bought last Friday a Sigma 135mm and doing some test shots I noticed this copy is front focussing severely. I was shooting all the pictures at f1.8 I am not sure if is something I am doing wrong or it is the lens lack of calibration the reason of it.
I am posting some pictures for all the people curios to see the rendering of this lens but I have to calibrate it and try again to make sure this baby works properly.
I was able to shoot some pictures with the Sigma 135mm f1.8 an the Nikon 200mm f2.0 to compare IQ between these lenses, I will shoot this afternoon some with the Nikon 105mm also.
Uzay wrote:
Hi Marcelo, aside from focusing issue, what's your initial thoughts?
Hi Uzay,
The lens is heavy and bulky but beautiful design and ergonomics, of course if you compare it with the Nikon 200mm f2 the Sigma 135 is so easy to handle specialty the moment you want to replace lens.
Auto focus is fast, silent and I can't say it is accurate but I will test it after my calibration.
I dint have chance to analyze the pictures yet, I just shoot the ones I posted.
I will share more pictures and my thoughts later today.
The bokeh on the upper body shot looks fantastic....the background is melted away. On the others, it appears to create a nice 3-D effect. The focus issue is par for the course with Sigma, assuming the Dock takes care of it. My copy is scheduled to arrive from B&H by Tuesday PM. Thanks for posting.
Once you get your focusing dialed, any chance you'd mind firing off a few in a nature only scene (e.g. the trees on either side of the road in the first few)? Preferably with full (such as you've done here) and 3/4 length portraits and...here's the key, backgrounds that are only 10-20ft. away.
I spend some time adjusting the focus of the 135mm f1.8 and actually it was back focussing, it was corrected with AF fine tune in camera -15.
I noticed also that using CA-F the focus is more consistent, it is weird because I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART and 85mm f1.4 non ART and never had this issues.
I shoot two sets of pictures, full body shot and close up with the 105mm, 135 and 200mm.
First I want to say thank you to Sillas for posing for my camera and to be very patient while I was changing lenses (amazing what $5 can do to a little one)
- Surprisingly I find the bokeh of the Nikon 105mm smoother than the Sigma 135mm.
- The Nikon 105mm also has more contrast than the Sigma 135mm.
- After adjusting the focus on the Sigma I can say it is very sharp.
- The Nikon 105mm AF is very slow, the AF of the Sigma is super fast, I will post some actions shots where the Sigma performed fantastic.
The upper body shot is beautiful. But you're not doing the lenses justice by photographing in such harsh lighting!
The little guy can hardly keep his eyes open!
First I want to say thank you to Sillas for posing for my camera and to be very patient while I was changing lenses (amazing what $5 can do to a little one)
- Surprisingly I find the bokeh of the Nikon 105mm smoother than the Sigma 135mm.
- The Nikon 105mm also has more congrats than the Sigma 135mm.
- After adjusting the focus on the Sigma I can say it is very sharp.
- The Nikon 105mm AF is very slow, the AF of the Sigma is super fast, I will post some actions shots where the Sigma performed fantastic.
Thanks for this comparison. I'm impressed with how well the 105mm f/1.4g performed in the bokeh department. Can't wait to see the rest of your shots.
This comparison definitely confirms that I will be keeping my 105E. Not that I planned on buying the Sigma, I now see that it's not even worth considering on buying/trying it.
It's interesting to see how the bokeh quality and size on the 105E is better/bigger than 135A.
The overall image colors is also better on the 105E, assuming you had post process synced with all images.
The only really impactful difference that "I see" in the bokeh is the 200 which, expectedly so, melts it all away and creates a true 3D effect. It matters not from my perspective since as of Tuesday I will have all three in my bag, each of which will be used for a distinct purpose.
I can't help wonder what a modern Nikkor 180mm f2.8 (FL VR?) might be like.
The biggest difference in rendering appears to be down to focal length, whilst each lens enjoys its own subtle characteristic differences.
Bokeh isn't everything, maybe to us photographers it is...but for the client, well they aren't going to notice or care. They just want clear clean images of themselves or loved ones. The main difference you will see with these lenses is compression. The bokeh differences are minimal at best. Hopefully my Sigma 135mm comes in soon.
swifty168 wrote:
I can't help wonder what a modern Nikkor 180mm f2.8 (FL VR?) might be like.
The biggest difference in rendering appears to be down to focal length, whilst each lens enjoys its own subtle characteristic differences.
Compression has a lot to do with the differences...but they're also all f/2 or faster.
ariel777 wrote:
The only really impactful difference that "I see" in the bokeh is the 200 which, expectedly so, melts it all away and creates a true 3D effect. It matters not from my perspective since as of Tuesday I will have all three in my bag, each of which will be used for a distinct purpose.
That is my assessment as well...IMHO the bokeh of the 200 is superior to the other two lenses.
However...I do not see a significant difference between the rendering of the 105 vs 135 to justify the price difference between the two. Is the bokeh and color on the 105 better than the 135?? Maybe...but is the difference worth the $800 price difference? For me the answer is no...that being said...I can respect the opinion of fellow photographers and forum members who believe otherwise.
traylorc wrote:
That is my assessment as well...IMHO the bokeh of the 200 is superior to the other two lenses.
However...I do not see a significant difference between the rendering of the 105 vs 135 to justify the price difference between the two. Is the bokeh and color on the 105 better than the 135?? Maybe...but is the difference worth the $800 price difference? For me the answer is no...that being said...I can respect the opinion of fellow photographers and forum members who believe otherwise.
The 105 E is cheaper, lighter, bokehlicious, and statistically more accurate focusing then an 85 + 135 together. More honestly, the 105 does the job of two lenses for me without any sacrifices. The 105 is also better for low light given its shorter focal length and faster aperture as compared to the 135. If I was addicted to the 85 focal length the Sigma is the obvious compliment with alien level precision and quality. Since I have a 58, the 85 is meh, and the 105 fits right in.
I think it's the other way around. Clients don't care about pixel peeping or the minute differences in resolution. However, they do care if the background is rendered nice or not, as well as lighting, composition, posing, etc. That's my experience at least. Sometimes I deliver an image that's slightly softer, but other things make up for that.
If clients only care about clear sharp images, then I would shoot my events using my phone, which takes amazingle sharp images.
Enjoy your Sigma, looks like a great lens
Todd wrote:
Bokeh isn't everything, maybe to us photographers it is...but for the client, well they aren't going to notice or care. They just want clear clean images of themselves or loved ones. The main difference you will see with these lenses is compression. The bokeh differences are minimal at best. Hopefully my Sigma 135mm comes in soon.
