It seems that sharpness is very important to you Todd The 200/2 is sharp alright, but it's not the main reason why I (or dare I say anyone) buy it.
Todd wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Sharpness isn't the most important thing to me, I do like it for sure, I was just using my research test results there as an example that's all. I'm sure the 200mm F/2 is a fantastic lens but I've never used one. I did at one time own a 300mm F/2.8 and it was heavy to carry around and definitely was not a grab and go lens for sure. So therefore I know that the 200mm was or is just as heavy and cumbersome as well. I do realize that DXO test results only show what's good on paper, I guess the real determination is what you see on the screen. So I guess I really shouldn't rely so much on their testing versus what I see on my monitor.
hijazist wrote:
It seems that sharpness is very important to you Todd The 200/2 is sharp alright, but it's not the main reason why I (or dare I say anyone) buy it.
Lightsearcher wrote:
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.
That would be very interesting to compare if you had the chance to get shots from the two lens from the same distance at their respective widest aperture.
Since at least theoretically, if you cropped the 105 wide open shot to the same framing as the 135 shot, you should get almost identical images in terms of DOF (except the 105 shot would have less resolution after cropping of course). But you could then compare the bokeh characteristics more directly.
Bruce_T wrote:
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."
Roger, I hope I have not mis-characterized your views. I greatly appreciate your doing such careful testing and posting your results so quickly.
Thanks for the heads up. It looks like Roger's tests are confirming what we're seeing. The Sigma 135 is sharper than the 105, especially at the higher frequency details. The centre sharpness is almost Otus 85 levels and on par with Zeiss 135 but it extends further towards the edge.
From what I seen the Sigma is sharper, the 105 has creamier bokeh and warmer colors. Since the 105 is very sharp though and probably has better AF consistency, i'll stick with the 105. The rendering is a little more important to me than being a little sharper than the 105, which is already very sharp.
agelessphotog wrote:
From what I seen the Sigma is sharper, the 105 has creamier bokeh and warmer colors.
I've used a 105 a lot and while certain scenes it might have nicer bokeh, as a whole, it's not even close. The 135 is much creamier in the majority of scenes hands down. At this point the only thing the 105 has going for it over the 135 is strictly the wider focal length and yes it is warmer but all Art lenses have slightly cool tones so this is nothing new. When I first tried the 105 I thought nothing could ever top it but both the 85 and 135 Art bests it in the creamy bokeh department. Obviously the 85 Art doesn't have as much compression but the bokeh is also smoother and more refined.
I read that you guys say that the Nikon is warmer and the Sigma is cooler, what difference really does that make? Any warmth or tones can be adjusted and processing. You guys are acting like the first image in the camera is the final shot. If you think the Sigma is cooler, add some warmth. Easy as that.
Todd wrote:
I read that you guys say that the Nikon is warmer and the Sigma is cooler, what difference really does that make? Any warmth or tones can be adjusted and processing. You guys are acting like the first image in the camera is the final shot. If you think the Sigma is cooler, add some warmth. Easy as that.
Completely agreed. It's a moot point for me but many bring it up all the time. If you shoot a whole lot of images it can save time having a lens that shoots warmer if you tend to prefer it that way.
T_Gordon wrote:
I've used a 105 a lot and while certain scenes it might have nicer bokeh, as a whole, it's not even close. The 135 is much creamier in the majority of scenes hands down. At this point the only thing the 105 has going for it over the 135 is strictly the wider focal length and yes it is warmer but all Art lenses have slightly cool tones so this is nothing new. When I first tried the 105 I thought nothing could ever top it but both the 85 and 135 Art bests it in the creamy bokeh department. Obviously the 85 Art doesn't have as much compression but the bokeh is also smoother and more refined. ...Show more →
I'm not seeing it. Every comparison shot I have seen I have liked the 105 bokeh slightly better. The Camera labs review and comparison showed the same thing. Also iv'e seen too many people go through 2-3 copies of an 85 Art and still can't get consistent focus.
Todd wrote:
I read that you guys say that the Nikon is warmer and the Sigma is cooler, what difference really does that make? Any warmth or tones can be adjusted and processing. You guys are acting like the first image in the camera is the final shot. If you think the Sigma is cooler, add some warmth. Easy as that.
There is a reason the 105 is more. You get what you pay for.
"Nobody can refute the value and image quality that Sigma is offering in their new Art and Sports series lenses. However, I think it’s important to note that over time I have experienced significant Auto-Focus drifting in Art series lenses. Far more than I would notice in Canon and Nikon Professional lenses.
Over time, Sigma Art lenses simply don’t maintain their consistency in AF and my hit rates would drop dramatically compared to when the lens was brand new. In my experience, Sigma Art Lenses require more AF micro adjustments via the USB dock, as well as more factory servicing to maintain focus consistency than that of a Canon or Nikon professional series lens."
"Nobody can refute the value and image quality that Sigma is offering in their new Art and Sports series lenses. However, I think it’s important to note that over time I have experienced significant Auto-Focus drifting in Art series lenses. Far more than I would notice in Canon and Nikon Professional lenses.
Over time, Sigma Art lenses simply don’t maintain their consistency in AF and my hit rates would drop dramatically compared to when the lens was brand new. In my experience, Sigma Art Lenses require more AF micro adjustments via the USB dock, as well as more factory servicing to maintain focus consistency than that of a Canon or Nikon professional series lens."...Show more →
You get what you pay for? Well in many cases that is true however I'm not sure exactly how sigma can sell their lenses so cheaply versus Nikon, and so far the Sigma is outperforming the Nikon. the conclusion that I have made is that it doesn't cost either one of those companies to make a lens, it just depends on which one marked it up the highest! The Sigma 135mm F/1.8 sells for $1399, the Nikon 105mm sells for $2199. I doubt that Nikon paid more than $600 or $700 to make that 105. I guess I can kind of compare it to the Apple iPhone. It costs apple only $230 to build the iPhone, yet they sell it for nearly $1000.
It's no doubt they are both good companies, if Nikon is going to sell their lenses much higher, then I Think that they should improve the shortness wide open, Corner shortness etc. to match sigma. Both companies lenses are made in Japan. But I'm guessing we can sit here and dispute the differences all day long, I have chosen the Sigma route because I like their build quality and image quality and the Nikon 105mm is a nice lens and it's the only Nikon auto focus lens that I have, The rest or Sigma.
"Auto-Focus drifting" that's a new one honestly I've had Sigma lenses for a long time and I've never experienced such thing. I honestly had more Nikon AF motors fail on me than Sigma, but I am not representative of all users.
Another thing that might be causing all these 'focus issues' is that some people do not know how to adjust distance values using the dock.
On the other hand, the 105 rendering is nicer judging by the samples I've seen. This whole argument reminds me of the 58 1.4 vs. the 50 1.4 ART.
Todd wrote:
You get what you pay for? Well in many cases that is true however I'm not sure exactly how sigma can sell their lenses so cheaply versus Nikon, and so far the Sigma is outperforming the Nikon. the conclusion that I have made is that it doesn't cost either one of those companies to make a lens, it just depends on which one marked it up the highest! The Sigma 135mm F/1.8 sells for $1399, the Nikon 105mm sells for $2199. I doubt that Nikon paid more than $600 or $700 to make that 105. I guess I can kind of compare it to the Apple iPhone. It costs apple only $230 to build the iPhone, yet they sell it for nearly $1000.
It's no doubt they are both good companies, if Nikon is going to sell their lenses much higher, then I Think that they should improve the shortness wide open, Corner shortness etc. to match sigma. Both companies lenses are made in Japan. But I'm guessing we can sit here and dispute the differences all day long, I have chosen the Sigma route because I like their build quality and image quality and the Nikon 105mm is a nice lens and it's the only Nikon auto focus lens that I have, The rest or Sigma. ...Show more →
swifty168 wrote:
That would be very interesting to compare if you had the chance to get shots from the two lens from the same distance at their respective widest aperture.
Since at least theoretically, if you cropped the 105 wide open shot to the same framing as the 135 shot, you should get almost identical images in terms of DOF (except the 105 shot would have less resolution after cropping of course). But you could then compare the bokeh characteristics more directly.
Now that my Sigma 135mm is perfectly calibrated I will do a more detailed test this weekend again with the Nikon 105mm and 200mm f2, provably I should add the 70-200mm f2.8 some people is asking for comparison shots.
I predict the findings will be very similar of what I already observed, the performance of all these lenses are outstanding and very similar the variation is mainly AF speed, weigh and of course price.
Hi Everyone,
First post here and I've enjoyed reading the many posts in this thread and others. My 135 came Monday and after some test shots, I was surprised the accuracy of focus was spot on. I was surprised because I had recently purchased a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art that needed focus calibration by using the dock. However, I need to test further the 135mm focus and if need be use the dock. If you haven't seen it Lenstip has a gallery taken with the 135 (http://www.lenstip.com/2230-news-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_-_sample_gallery.html).
Love this site,
Sam
Quite interesting.....the negative comments as to The 135 follow the same pattern as those threads referencing other Sigma lenses, e.g., any of the earlier Art lenses. Nonetheless, the Art series continues to be well received, reliable, well-priced and with stunning IQ over a period spanning 5 years or so. Negative comments persist and always will as to Sigma, as many have had poor results with the products attributable to the pre-Art product line. So be it. Of course problems will arise, They always do....with any product line.....even those that bear the Nikon logo.
The 200/2 is sharp alright, but it's not the main reason why I (or dare I say anyone) buy it.
I've had Sigma lenses for a long time and I've never experienced such thing. I honestly had more Nikon AF motors fail on me than Sigma, but I am not representative of all users.