After hearing about so many people having AF issues with the Sigma 85 and 135 I think i'm sticking with my Nikon 105 1.4E. I was debating picking up the Sigma 135. Also the bokeh on the 105 looks way smoother to me. The 135 looks more harsh to me. The 105 bokeh is just super smooth, reminds of me the DC lenses. But with all the bad things fixed, like being soft and lots of CA.
d831 wrote:
Compression has a lot to do with the differences...but they're also all f/2 or faster.
True. But there's really not that much in it between a 105mm @f1.4, 135mm @1.8 and 180mm @2.8 but if you really wanted to equalise the entrance pupil diameter then ok, a 180mm @ f2.4.
But I was really just thinking from the POV of an alternative lens near 200mm that would be smaller than the 200mm f2 or 70-200mm f2.8 options since focal length seems to be the bigger differentiator.
swifty168 wrote:
True. But there's really not that much in it between a 105mm @f1.4@, 135mm @1.8 and 180mm @2.8 but if you really wanted to equalise the entrance pupil diameter then ok, a 180mm @ f2.4.
But I was really just thinking from the POV of an alternative lens near 200mm that would be smaller than the 200mm f2 or 70-200mm f2.8 options since focal length seems to be the bigger differentiator.
Hi swifty, I'm not sure I follow. In the tests done here in this thread, the biggest differentiator is compression - but we only get to say that because each of these lenses have very large maximum apertures and offer some of the best background blur for their focal lengths. An f/2.8 lens (at 200mm or less), or even more to the point, these very lenses shot at f/2.8 would yield a night and day difference.
Also, with closer backgrounds (subject to background distance), the differences between these three lenses would become much more apparent.
I'm with you on smaller/lighter though...but for the time being, a 135mm 1.8/2 is the alternative lens.
d831 wrote:
Hi swifty, I'm not sure I follow. In the tests done here in this thread, the biggest differentiator is compression - but we only get to say that because each of these lenses have very large maximum apertures and offer some of the best background blur for their focal lengths. An f/2.8 lens (at 200mm or less), or even more to the point, these very lenses shot at f/2.8 would yield a night and day difference.
Also, with closer backgrounds (subject to background distance), the differences between these three lenses would become much more apparent.
I'm with you on smaller/lighter though...but for the time being, a 135mm 1.8/2 is the alternative lens.
Hi D831,
Maybe my understanding's a bit fuzzy but my isnt compression a function of the FOV and not aperture.
And since there are no format changes, effectively the only thing changing FOV is the focal length. Which affects camera to subject distance for the same framing.
Hence my suspicion a longer focal length lens, even if it's a bit slower would yield similar results due the compression it affords even if there's less isolation due to a slightly deeper DOF so I'm not sure there would be a huge difference. In the other Sigma 135 thread where a 70-200/2.8 lens is compared, the difference is not as big as I'd expect.
Maybe Marcelo has a shot from the 200/f2 @ f2.8 which should show the compression but less isolation but still coming from a lens with exceptional bokeh characteristics.
Thanks for taking the time to do this and post. It is pretty obvious the only meaningful difference in bokeh is compression from the focal length which is exactly as expected. I'm sure the blur obsessives will see what they want to though and brand the sigma all sorts.
Whenever you have the chance, can you compare their flare resistance in strong back lighting condition? My experience with the Sigma 35 Art wasn't good. I am curious if Sigma has improved its lens coating and how it fares against Nikon's.
Lightsearcher wrote:
My thoughts:
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.
swifty168 wrote:
Hi D831,
Maybe my understanding's a bit fuzzy but my isnt compression a function of the FOV and not aperture.
And since there are no format changes, effectively the only thing changing FOV is the focal length. Which affects camera to subject distance for the same framing.
Hence my suspicion a longer focal length lens, even if it's a bit slower would yield similar results due the compression it affords even if there's less isolation due to a slightly deeper DOF so I'm not sure there would be a huge difference. In the other Sigma 135 thread where a 70-200/2.8 lens is compared, the difference is not as big as I'd expect.
Maybe Marcelo has a shot from the 200/f2 @ f2.8 which should show the compression but less isolation but still coming from a lens with exceptional bokeh characteristics.
Anyways, apologies for going a bit off topic. ...Show more →
Close. Compression is strictly a function of distance to subject. A subject further from the camera has the appearance of having larger background elements, and a subject closer to the camera appears larger than the background. Longer lenses are associated with use further from the subject, thus people tend to associate them with compression. If you shoot the 200 and 135 from the same point and crop the 135 image, compression will be identical. DOF will vary, however.
Thanks for these shots. I'm afraid it just makes me want either a 200/2 or a 105/1.4 though, I was super stoked for this 135 but it's not scratching the itch
Elisha82 wrote:
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!
It was shot at sunset, the light was very warm and soft, Sillas has some sensitivity to the direct light.
---------------------------------------------
charles.K wrote:
Thank you for the test comparisons!
Now I know why I like the 105/1.4G so much
I would love to see a comparison with the 135 Art and the 70-200 f2.8E FL. The AF with the new 70-200E is very fast and accurate
You are welcome, unfortunately I have only the 70-200mm VR I but I can try this week some test shots.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Elijah wrote:
Thanks for these shots Marcelo!
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.
You are welcome, the pictures are OOC and just applied some sharpening.
---------------------------------------------
d831 wrote:
Forgot to say, thanks again Marcelo!
You are very welcome, I am glad the post is useful for all the people with interest in this lens.
---------------------------------------------
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.
I totally agree with your statement the 200mm f2 still the king, also about the difference of rendering between the 105 and 135 is just minimal but the strong points of the Sigma 135mm are price and focus speed, I could say it is very similar to the 200mm f2.
khoido77 wrote:
Whenever you have the chance, can you compare their flare resistance in strong back lighting condition? My experience with the Sigma 35 Art wasn't good. I am curious if Sigma has improved its lens coating and how it fares against Nikon's.
I shoot some pictures and I didn't notice flare.
I'll do more test shots during the week and I'll update this thread.
---------------------------------------------
Vcook wrote:
Thanks for these shots. I'm afraid it just makes me want either a 200/2 or a 105/1.4 though, I was super stoked for this 135 but it's not scratching the itch
You are welcome,
The 200mm f2 is an amazing lens and the results are unique but this is not an all occasions lens, I am doing a few weddings this year and I am looking for a lighter alternative to the 200mm and my debate was between the 105 and 135, the bokeh rendering of the 105 is just a little better than the 135 but price, sharpness and focus speed makes the Sigma 135mm the winner for me.
Also everything depends of your lens configuration, I have the Sigma 35mm and 85mm so makes more sense to go with the Sigma 135mm than the Nikon 105mm.
Very little flare with the 135 Art, it's a heavily corrected lens.
This thread only confirms what we all know - nothing will ever come close to the 200. It's the greatest lens of all time and sadly too big for most photographers 😢
OMG! I just picked up my sigma 135mm F/1.8 and I have to tell you, that is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen. It's sharper than the Nikon 105 F/1 .4, appears to be just a sharp or sharper than a Carl Zeiss 135 F2! I was testing the lens out at the camera store here in town, there is no chromatic aberration that I can see, no flare when photographing bright LED lights, and very little vignetting if any. As one poster made a comment that it is a very well corrected lens, he is correct. The focus is fast and quite accurate and I am using my Nikon D810, no AF fine-tuning was required, and it is just razor sharp. I don't normally shoot wide open, but I think I might start doing that with this lens. I can't wait to put this thing on my AstroTrac and get some really good amazing shots of the Milky Way. The lens also handles high contrast very well. The employees over at Precision Camera wear black shirts and using this Sigma lens, it did not overexpose that black color of the T-shirt and handled the contrast very well.
I will soon post some imagery to the forum showing what I can get and do with this lens. For those of you that are on the fence, it's time to get off of the fence and get one. Sigma has really stepped up their game and they are outperforming many of the name brand lenses.
Todd, thank you for the update. I now look forward even more to Mr Brown's delivery tomorrow PM, as well as to your imagery. As an aside, the "Sigma bashers" will examine the "four corners" to find whatever shortcoming, real or imagined, one can find. It is incomprehensible to some that a company with such a checkered history could produce an excellent product. But since the advent of the Art line, it's been a different company.
Thanks for the comparison, Lightsearcher. Interesting to see comments from people in this thread saying that the 105 rendering is so much better. I've pixel peeped and viewed the overall image for 10 minutes, and see no real difference in rendering.
The MAJOR thing I'm seeing is that the Sigma appears to let in significantly more light than the 105, even with its smaller aperture. The 105 seems to be closer to t-2, not t-1.4.
2. The 105's bokeh is not that smooth. I see heavier outlining on the left-side car's bokeh, even with the sigma's additional compression.
3. the Sigma is much sharper it seems.
4. The Sigma's much faster AF will be better suited for me.
PLEASE keep bashing Sigma. It frees up the market for the rest of us. I now shoot all Sigma glass. The 20mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, and now this incredible 135mm.
I'm looking at the comparison photos. The 105's bokeh is much more smoother on the tree, car, everywhere. The Sigma looks more nervous to me, harsher and no where near as smooth or creamy. It's not even close.
agelessphotog wrote:
I'm looking at the comparison photos. The 105's bokeh is much more smoother on the tree, car, everywhere. The Sigma looks more nervous to me, harsher and no where near as smooth or creamy. It's not even close.
Your customers (if you have any) will not notice the difference. Take that into consideration. The bokeh is close... it's just a compression difference. Usually the closer your subject is to the camera, the softer the background gets.
Ok maybe I'll keep my 200 f2 a little longer. These shots saved it from the chopping block and will be reevaluated again when I need to look for synergies
The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is pretty much the same width and height of the 105mm f/1.4. I found that interesting. Nice lens, the Sigma is! Very sharp, haven't seen "any" CA yet.
