Todd wrote:
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.
They won't notice the bokeh is a little creamier, or the colors warmer. But they might notice overall the photo just looks a little better than it would with the Sigma. My biggest issue though is so many people having AF issues with Sigma Art lenses. If it had the same track record as Nikon I would consider the lens. This is a deal breaker for me.
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.
Don't forget that I had to walk closer to the subject when shooting with the 105mm to fill the frame in the same scale, that gives an advantage to the Nikon creating an smoother bokeh.
I warranty that shooting at the same distance with both lenses the Sigma will show a creamier bokeh than the Nikon.
agelessphotog wrote:
They won't notice the bokeh is a little creamier, or the colors warmer. But they might notice overall the photo just looks a little better than it would with the Sigma. My biggest issue though is so many people having AF issues with Sigma Art lenses. If it had the same track record as Nikon I would consider the lens. This is a deal breaker for me.
RE: autofocus....
A manager at precision camera told me the story behind Sigma. I guess he spoke with one of the reps and was told that the original owner of Sigma passed away and his son took over and he rebuilt the entire factory and up graded the standards for each lens coming out of the assembly line. He says we now have maybe one or two lenses out of 100 that are bad or don't focus properly versus the numerous ones prior to the rebuild of the factory. And I can definitely see this, the new lenses like the 85 art, the 135 art we're perfect out of the box. So, I don't really think you need to worry about back focus or missed focused photographs from Sigma lens is anymore. I've never had a problem with mine. They miss just as much is my Nikon lenses do. Currently the Nikon 105E is the only auto focus Nikon lens that I have. The rest are sigma .
agelessphotog wrote:
They won't notice the bokeh is a little creamier, or the colors warmer. But they might notice overall the photo just looks a little better than it would with the Sigma. My biggest issue though is so many people having AF issues with Sigma Art lenses. If it had the same track record as Nikon I would consider the lens. This is a deal breaker for me.
You stated there are so many people having AF issues with Sigma...exactly how many people are having issues? Not meaning to attack you...just asking a question.
I don't doubt for one minute that you have heard stories of people having issues...my question is does the number of people having AF issues represent a systemic problem? For example...assume I read posts from 15 people who claim they are having AF issues with the 135mm. Those 15 people represent what percentage of customers who purchased this lens? Do they represent .01%, 10%, 25%, or 50% of Sigma customers who purchased this lens? If 25% percent of all customers who purchased this lens have AF issues...then that represents a systemic problem and a failure in Sigma's manufacturing process. Conversely if less than .05% -1% of all buyers are having AF issues...those percentages might lie within the same manufacturing failure tolerances that Nikon or Canon have for their lenses.
Look...I'm not trying to be a Sigma fanboy. I have routinely purchased Nikon and Sigma lens...if I like a lens I don't care who manufactures it. I have endured my share of AF issues with both Nikon and Sigma lenses. I just think we need to be cautious of acting or implying something is a systemic issue when we do not have the specific information to support such an assertion. We have no idea what percentage of Sigma customers are truly experiencing AF issues. You indicated you might buy this lens if it has Nikon's track record. The problem is we don't know what percentage of Sigma customers having AF problems with their lenses compared to Nikon. Personally...I purchase lenses from retailers who will allow me to return it if there are any AF problems.
traylorc wrote:
You stated there are so many people having AF issues with Sigma...exactly how many people are having issues? Not meaning to attack you...just asking a question.
I don't doubt for one minute that you have heard stories of people having issues...my question is does the number of people having AF issues represent a systemic problem? For example...assume I read posts from 15 people who claim they are having AF issues with the 135mm. Those 15 people represent what percentage of customers who purchased this lens? Do they represent .01%, 10%, 25%, or 50% of Sigma customers who purchased this lens? If 25% percent of all customers who purchased this lens have AF issues...then that represents a systemic problem and a failure in Sigma's manufacturing process. Conversely if less than .05% -1% of all buyers are having AF issues...those percentages might lie within the same manufacturing failure tolerances that Nikon or Canon have for their lenses.
Look...I'm not trying to be a Sigma fanboy. I have routinely purchased Nikon and Sigma lens...if I like a lens I don't care who manufactures it. I have endured my share of AF issues with both Nikon and Sigma lenses. I just think we need to be cautious of acting or implying something is a systemic issue when we do not have the specific information to support such an assertion. We have no idea what percentage of Sigma customers are truly experiencing AF issues. You indicated you might buy this lens if it has Nikon's track record. The problem is we don't know what percentage of Sigma customers having AF problems with their lenses compared to Nikon. Personally...I purchase lenses from retailers who will allow me to return it if there are any AF problems....Show more →
I received two, yes two, consecutive 85 Arts that couldn't hit wide open. Completely defective. Years ago I received a Sigma 35 Art with the same problem. Second 35 Art was perfect, no af tune required. Gave up on the 85 though, might try again at some point.
Just wanted to second Todd, who said his 135 needed no af tune, same here. The way it ought to be.
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I received two, yes two, consecutive 85 Arts that couldn't hit wide open. Completely defective. Years ago I received a Sigma 35 Art with the same problem. Second 35 Art was perfect, no af tune required. Gave up on the 85 though, might try again at some point.
Just wanted to second Todd, who said his 135 needed no af tune, same here. The way it ought to be.
How many Nikon 58mm lenses got sent back? I saw stories of up to 7 or 8 copies being sent back before being able to get a good one. My old 35mm 1.4G has chronic focus issues as well, besides being much slower than my current 35 art. Focus is a universally hard thing with primes. Sigma is not exempt from the norm, but it they are not the egregious offender some claim.
Nothing fancy but wanted to show a couple different backgrounds since the bokeh quality has been chatted about. These are SOOC .jpg shrunk to 1200 pix wide so overall quality really shouldn't be judged (although it's great!!)... just showing bokeh.
This lens is also spot on with crazy fast AF needing no fine tuning. I've had an 85 Art and it took more than one to get a good one.
Excellent samples. That is such a sharp at lens!!! That one is my favorite lens so far. It's sharper than my Nikon 105 F/1. 4E! Whenever I get home I will process and post a couple of casual portraits and it's amazing to see how sharp the reflections are in someone's eyeball. The Nikon 105 is a nice lens, but it can't touch the 135mm sharpness. I'm sure some of you guys will disagree on that. I'm just basing that on what I have seen with my 105 compared with my 135.
And yes that focus is lightning fast nearly twice as fast as the 105. The front element of the 135 is the same diameter as the 105 so there's a lot of light grasp and resolution there to be had! I can't wait for a clear sky to test this thing out on some Astrophotography. Stay tuned, I will post my photos in a few hours.
I received mine about an hour ago and took some some casual shots around the house. The focus is quite accurate...no dock or fine tuning appears necessary. The AF is incredibly fast and accurate. Thus far, the captures appear exceptionally sharp and accurate (probably more so than my 105 or any other lens that I have). Siggy, by my take, appears to have another Art winner, perhaps more so than any other. However, I reserve final judgment until I do an extended outdoor shoot within the next few days.
This lens may well produce the sharpest images of any lens in my bag, perhaps short only of the 200/2. It does, subject to a more extensive comparative test, surpass any of the Art series, the Nikkor 105, or any of Nikkor 1.8 selections that I have/had (24,35,50,85). Although I certainly anticipated a sharp product, my expectations have been exceeded, certainly vis-a-vis the 105 which I consider an excellent (though overpriced) lens.
ariel777 wrote:
This lens may well produce the sharpest images of any lens in my bag, perhaps short only of the 200/2. It does, subject to a more extensive comparative test, surpass any of the Art series, the Nikkor 105, or any of Nikkor 1.8 selections that I have/had (24,35,50,85). Although I certainly anticipated a sharp product, my expectations have been exceeded, certainly vis-a-vis the 105 which I consider an excellent (though overpriced) lens.
Well DXO gave the Nikon 200mm f/2 an overall score of 39. Sharpens was at 28mpx. As sharp as most people say this lens is I'm surprised that sharpness score to be that low. I'm pretty sure the sigma 135 mm F/1.8 is going to be sharper than the Nikon 200 mm F/2. As soon as DXO runs their test on this Lens, I'm pretty sure and confident that it will get a score of 50 or higher with a sharpness of 36 MPX or better. Much like the 85mm f/1.4 Art got. As nice as the 200mm F/2 is, I'm pretty sure that the sigma 135 is going to beat it in sharpness. I personally have not used or owned the 200mm F/2, but I did have at one time the 300mm F/2.8 which is nearly the same. So, I cannot speak for everyone about the Sigma lens because I have not owned the Nikon 200 mm. I guess we will have to wait and see
Roger Cicala tested the Sigma 135 Art. Sample quotes: "There is superb resolution both at lower frequencies (contrast) and higher frequencies (fine detail)." Roger also compared a single copy of the Sigma 135 Art against the Nikon 70-200/2.8E at f/2.8, concluding that the Sigma ". . . at f/2.8 it’s just completely better."
