Record-breaking resolution, excellent coma and bokeh, good CA control, and accurate autofocus. Still not hearing anything discouraging . . .
Well, I'm a little discouraged I can't find one to buy right now. Whoever owns the Circuit City name claims to have them on Ebay, but I don't know anything about them and their ads give off a whiff of fly-by-nightness, so I'm keeping my credit card in my wallet. And this is Passover and the two legitimate outlets that have them in stock are closed for Passover - Adorama and B&H. Have to wait a week, always painful when you have GAS.
I actually last night took my sigma 135mm out on my AstroTrac which is a tracking device for the stars and did a star test with the lens and at F/1.8, all of the stars were pinpoint all the way to the corners. There is no chromatic aberration around any of the stars... it was fantastic. I realize that a star test probably doesn't mean much to any of you guys, seeing tiny points of light in the sky on a photograph. However that's really one of the best ways that I can check and test the quality of the optics by seeing how it produces or renders the tiny points of light in the sky. There was also very little vignetting in the image and F/1.8 and by F/2.8 the vignetting is gone and the image quality is improved more. So by using that test, I can tell that this is going to be one heck of a Astro photography lens. Can't wait to photograph the Milky Way using this lens!!! Anyway I just figured I would share how well corrected this new Sigma lens is.
Todd wrote:
Most excellent work. I really like that last image the most, however I can't see her right hand so it looks like she doesn't have a right arm.
Speaking about right hand ... I guess you see no legs as well?
Received my Sigma 135 ART for Nikon from MPEX yesterday, April 13 and so far it's been lucky. Backfocused enough to require -15 AF Tune (I have to open the USB Dock package next, prefer to adjust that way).
I had just owned a Zeiss 135/2 ZF2 and while I never had both lenses at the same moment to compare shot for shot, the images feel very similar. I suspect the Zeiss is slightly sharper and warmer overall but I can't fault the Sigma.
The best part is that the AF on the Sigma is fast, like a pro telephoto and not like a Nikon f/1.4 or 1.8 prime. Sigma put a real motor into the thing, it tracks like my 300/2.8... no doubt the wide aperture helps too. This is a real deal winner for me because I've either been shooting the fast telephoto or manual focusing with Zeiss normals. Now it's Made AF Great Again!
~
Amendment: Now that I've had it five days I do have a concern that the lenshade bayonet is not particularly sturdy, a slight twist and the shade could flying and it feels the kind of plastic prone to cracking. It's definitely not as solid as the Zeiss in this department. I may preemptively order a spare shade and experiment with some tape to make it a bit snugger. If you remove the shade to store the lens I fear it will get looser over time.
Also my Sigma USB Dock focus adjustment, with 0 on the camera, was something like -6, -15, -17, -13 which seems pretty extreme to me especially since other lenses I've used never needed more than 3-4 points either way.
Otherwise so far so good but I'm not running out to buy a couple more Sigmas right away, the more compact 35/2 Milvius is relieved.
It seems like the steady flow of positive comments and stunning captures from actual users of this excellent lens have stemmed the flow of negative discourse.
ariel777 wrote:
It seems like the steady flow of positive comments and stunning captures from actual users of this excellent lens have stemmed the flow of diehard Nikon fans.
ariel777 wrote:
It seems like the steady flow of positive comments and stunning captures from actual users of this excellent lens have stemmed the flow of the diehard haters.
Corrected again
Side note: despite the fact that nearly every working wedding photographer listed on shotkit uses some form of Sigma's new Art lenses, some here feel the need to bash the company as not being ready for prime time.
I'm starting to feel like the practice of returning lenses with faulty AF leads to the recycling of these same lenses, where another person buys them. How about, if you get a lens that doesn't AF properly, send it to the actual company (Sigma) so they can repair it or put it out of commission. I've owned 3 35 Art lenses, and one of them had an AF issue. I sent it in, and had it back in working condition within 5 business days (shipping included). It's not that hard.
From todays Lenstip review of a new Sigma 135mm f2.0 ...
"... The cult Canon EF 135 mm f2L USM in the frame centre was able to reach 43.2 lpmm at most. The Sigma A 135 mm f/1.8 DG HSM reached 44.1 lpmm on the edge of full frame ..."
Sounds frustrating and inspiring at the same time.
frankpetronio wrote:
The best part is that the AF on the Sigma is fast, like a pro telephoto and not like a Nikon f/1.4 or 1.8 prime.
I've been following Nikon for years, and I've yet to see them actually put a ring USM motor in a non-telephoto prime, pro-grade or otherwise. Even the drool-inducing 105/1.4E got micro-USM instead, contrasting with Canon putting ring USM in a number of their film-era non-pro primes (20/2.8, 28/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 Macro) as well as all of their L primes, and those longer two lenses are still desirable for their focus speed despite aging optics relative to Nikon equivalents.
Of course, if Sigma were to sway Canon shooters, fast AF is certainly one less thing they'll have to give up if taking the Art over the 135/2L. That lens has been prized for snappy AF and decent wide-open IQ for a film-era prime, and that focus speed is something that Canon shooters take advantage of in using it as a lightweight 70-200/2.8 backup/compact alternative for sport shooting in addition to portraiture.
And the best part is that Nikon shooters now have a fast, fast-focusing 135mm prime!
eke2k6 wrote:
The 105E is a fantastic lens, but the Sigma is better all around (AF, sharpness, contrast) while still being $800 (!) cheaper. I hate people who go out of their way to bash another product simply to defend their own.
You "hate" people who go out of their way to bash another product to defend their own? Wow. Are they really going out of their way? Are they really all doing it just to "defend their own purchase"? Hmm, you mean like "the Sigma is better all round"? The Sigma 135 is better for some, the 105E is better for, others. The same applies to the Sigma 85, better for some, the 105E better for others due to the very same reasons. It's not a "one size fits all policy". You cannot categorically say "the Sigma is better all round", that is just for you it is better, not for everyone. Horses for courses. I love my 105E, it is superb, but I see that the Sigma is also a superb lens and have give a "like" many of the samples given here. I think you need to lighten up and not take it to heart so much.
I agree with Lance here. Kudos to Nikon and Sigma as there some superb lenses now. The 105G, 70-200 f/2.8E FL, 85 Art and 135 Art. In essence we have choices to suit and in all honesty they are all amazing. I have the 70-200 f2.8E and 105/1.4 G and these are truly a superb combo.
So far I love the shots with the 135 Art but I have had 135mm FL lenses I find them limiting in that it is either too long for indoor shots or not far enough to compress for outdoors shots. I find it a specialist lens which superb when I use it but it is typically about 10% of the time unless it is for a dedicated shoot.
I have the 20 Art, 24 Art, 35 Art, 50 Art, 58G, 85/1.4G, 105G and 70-200E FL which are great for portraits and large groups.
That said I will also look at the 135 Art to add to my Art series. The look with the Art series is unique and are very sharp and tend to have higher micro contrast. Sometimes for portraits they can be too harsh as I prefer lenses that have less micro contrast.
Lance B wrote:
You "hate" people who go out of their way to bash another product to defend their own? Wow. Are they really going out of their way? Are they really all doing it just to "defend their own purchase"? Hmm, you mean like "the Sigma is better all round"? The Sigma 135 is better for some, the 105E is better for, others. The same applies to the Sigma 85, better for some, the 105E better for others due to the very same reasons. It's not a "one size fits all policy". You cannot categorically say "the Sigma is better all round", that is just for you it is better, not for everyone. Horses for courses. I love my 105E, it is superb, but I see that the Sigma is also a superb lens and have give a "like" many of the samples given here. I think you need to lighten up and not take it to heart so much. ...Show more →
Please take your strawman argument elsewhere. I pointed out exactly where the Sigma is better, as well as its value proposition.
I was referring specifically to people nay-saying the Sigma brand as a whole.
