Awesome comparison. I'm getting the new Tamron 70-200mm G2 today. It's supposed to be on another level of sharpness and quality from the previous generation. I'll be directly comparing the two to see if the IQ quality is close enough to warrant gaining some versatility from the 70-200.
swifty168 wrote:
Hi Marcello, Thank you very much for the new samples. I've been waiting to see these.
I'm on my phone and can only eyeball it but since you have the original files, can you do me one more favour and crop the 105/1.4 to the same framing as the 135/1.8 shot in the series where they are shot from the same distance.
Then repost the cropped 105/1.4 image at the same size as the uncropped 135/1.8 image.
I have a feeling they are going to look very similar.
OK, here are pictures with the Sigma 135 mm first and follow the crops of the Nikon 105 mm
As promised, here's a quick and dirty comparison between the Siggy and the new Tamron. The Tamron is at 135mm, f/2.8. All of these are completely SOOC with absolutely no edits applied.
Quick notes...the sharpness on both is basically a wash. The Tamron is simply impeccable. Surprisingly, there's not much in weight savings. The Sigma is a heavy bastard, weighing only a couple hundred grams less than the Tamron, but what can you expect from such a heavily corrected exotic?
I'd label the photos, but I think you'll be able to tell pretty easily which is which. My next test will hopefully be with the Tamron at 200mm.
Thanks for those. I think they more or less confirm the equivalence theory. DOF is very similar and the bokeh is also very similar in these sample pairs. In some areas I think the Sigma is smoother and others, the Nikkor. Small subtle differences in the transition area with the Sigma better for isolation and the Nikkor better for focus transition IMO. At the same subject distance, personally I think the bokeh is equally as good between the Sigma and the Nikkor.
I must admit I did play with your samples myself when I got home last night and that was my conclusion even from the small sized jpegs.
For those who are interested, from this thread I noticed there appears to be a small difference in metering with the Sigma often metering about 1/3 stops brighter comparatively. Equalising brightness and looking at the exposures, it would suggests the Sigma and Nikkor are about 1 T-stops apart (1/3 more than the F-stop difference). But this assumes lighting conditions were absolutely identical which can't be taken for granted as passing clouds may make some difference. And we're only talking 1/3 stops anyways.
Man the Sigma and the Nikon look close. I see the small differences. But they are small. Amazes me how just cropping the 105 gives you basically the same perspective.
agelessphotog wrote:
Man the Sigma and the Nikon look close. I see the small differences. But they are small. Amazes me how just cropping the 105 gives you basically the same perspective.
...but I thought you said the Sigma had hideous bokeh, compared to the buttery smoothness of the 105E.
agelessphotog wrote:
You busted on the Sigma as much as I did. If you like the Sigma as much as the 105, when are you buying one?
Huh? Who said I'm buying a Stigma? I never said that because I'll never buy a sigma... remember, I'm a hardcore Nikon fan even if the sigma is better than Nikon, I'll still find something negative about it just because it's sigma
Well I'm looking for "The Magic." Most agree that the 200mm F2.0 has it although it is not the sharpest lens (and that specs don't tell it's tale). So the discussion, here, is about whether the Nikon 105 F1.4 and Sigma 135 F1.8 have it too.
I take pictures of fast moving dancers under dim light so I need AF (so no Zeiss). I have both FLs covered with my excellent 70-200 FL. So it's about the lens speed and (fixed) FL-for me.
I have the, very expensive 105 Nikkor on my bench just waiting for my next event. For some reason the 85mm F1.4 didn't impress me in my usual venue-I really don't know why but for certain no Magic there-for me-got to sell it.
The 70-200 FL Is very sharp although two or so stops slower. Waiting to use the Nikor to see if it has the Magic (I doubt I will buy the Sigma too). Otherwise, I will return the Nikkor and order and test the Sigma, I am a little creeped out about the AF thing but, nevertheless, I will look for my Magic.
SoundHound wrote:
Well I'm looking for "The Magic." Most agree that the 200mm F2.0 has it although it is not the sharpest lens (and that specs don't tell it's tale). So the discussion, here, is about whether the Nikon 105 F1.4 and Sigma 135 F1.8 have it too.
I take pictures of fast moving dancers under dim light so I need AF (so no Zeiss). I have both FLs covered with my excellent 70-200 FL. So it's about the lens speed and (fixed) FL-for me.
I have the, very expensive 105 Nikkor on my bench just waiting for my next event. For some reason the 85mm F1.4 didn't impress me in my usual venue-I really don't know why but for certain no Magic there-for me-got to sell it.
The 70-200 FL Is very sharp although two or so stops slower. Waiting to use the Nikor to see if it has the Magic (I doubt I will buy the Sigma too). Otherwise, I will return the Nikkor and order and test the Sigma, I am a little creeped out about the AF thing but, nevertheless, I will look for my Magic....Show more →
Don't get creeped out by the focus... the Sigma 135 has snappy and accurate focus. At least twice as fast as the nikon 105. I have both, I prefer the sigma because of the FL and due to the fact that it's twice as sharp as the Nikon 105. Sigma lenses didn't work too well on my Nikon D800, it was a camera with issues of its own. The D810 works perfectly with Sigma. You should rent the Sigma 135mm and try it out.
.