I don't know why some people get so offended and bent out of shape because some of us like the creamier smoother bokeh and rendering of the 105. The warmer colors also the 105 has. I think it's safe to say Nikon has a little bit better track record of not having quite as many AF issues with lens needing fine tune adjustment. Which sucks because sometimes it needs more than the camera can compensate for. Clearly both of the lenses have their advantages and disadvantages.
Wow.. one of the very few that has to AF fine tuned beyond camera settings. I remember the first 85mm Art I tested at precision camera was off by -18. The rest however have been spot on. I hope you get a replacement quickly
fetopher wrote:
Got my copy on Friday and I've had some time to test it out. When it hits, it's a stunner. Sharp as everyone is saying and I find the OOF areas quite pleasing. See attached examples.
But...
I noticed quite a few shots had missed focus so I ran it through FoCal. Turns out, my copy needs AF fine tune adjustments of between -17 and -24 (out of range). The USB dock can fix many things, but not -24. I will be returning it to the retailer in the coming days.
My other Sigma lenses are all awesome (35mm Art and 50mm Art) and the USB dock in invaluable, but my copy of the 135 Art just isn't close enough to fix....Show more →
agelessphotog wrote:
I don't know why some people get so offended and bent out of shape because some of us like the creamier smoother bokeh and rendering of the 105. The warmer colors also the 105 has.
Because often there is no meaningful difference and it is just prejudice against 3rd party lenses.
Mark_L wrote:
Because often there is no meaningful difference and it is just prejudice against 3rd party lenses.
Totally subjective and the same can be said for sharpness. I love my Sigma 35mm & 150-600mm Sport but imo the rendering is definitely not as good as some of the nikon equiv.
Meaningful or not, almost all of the Sigma global line aims for maximum sharpness at the expense of rendering/bokeh. Great for us photographers! The pixel peepers get their lens and the bokeh whores get theirs!!
I Think the difference between the 105e and 135 art are the same as the 58 vs 50 art. The nikon whores, myself included, label imperfections as "character" and as much as I am aware its fully interpretive I still prefer my nikons over the sigmas.
Well, it looks like most of you guys are NEVER going to be satisfied. Better start looking for a new hobby. Those that mention that the Bokeh looks to nervous on the Sigma 135mm, I really don't think your clients will notice and that they have never heard of the word bokeh. Need to stop nit-picking the lens character and just enjoy the lens. If "nervous bokeh" ruins your day and you can't carry on.... well you have more issues than a news stand!!!
Actually I think the bokeh on the Sigma 135 looks just fine.
What I have noticed is the focus transition is quicker on the 135 and ART lenses in general, but more gradual on the Nikon 105 (and 58 for that matter).
Not saying one is better over the other as I've heard at least one comment for preferring a really sharp zone that quickly drops off outside of the zone. I think this helps with subject isolation actually.
We're talking arguably the best ART lens vs arguably the best non-exotic Nikkor here. Any differences won't be night and day between the two as they've both reached performance levels well beyond what most people consider good.
BTW, thanks Marcelo and those who've contributed samples to this thread.
If one's focus is the "artsy" look of the 58 which is also present to a lesser degree in the 105, this is not the lens to get. Nor is any lens in the Sigma lineup. If you like "sharp" Sigma wins going away, as this is its Signature via the Art line. If you shoot Artsy portrait, outdoor "Senior", the 105 is the lens; if you emphasize "sharp" and want a lens that is multi-faceted, viz, it can also do landscape, seascape, out and about, the Siggy wins hands down. In short, the 105 is one dimensional, whereas the Siggy is multi-faceted.
Ermm.. the 105 is one dimensional because it's artsy whilst the Sigma's multifaceted because it is sharper
I'll just have to disagree and repeat what I said earlier.
We're talking arguably the best ART lens vs arguably the best non-exotic Nikkor here. Any differences won't be night and day between the two as they've both reached performance levels well beyond what most people consider good.
They are both very good at doing a lot of things. There's nothing one-dimensional about either lenses.
I guess because I'm passionate about the lens being so sharp and useful for my needs. I'm also excited about the fact that I don't have to overpay for a lens that's sharper and better than the Nikon models. This forum is supposed to be dedicated to Sigma test shots and nothing else other than Sigma discussion. Not comparisons with Nikon. I will enjoy my Sigma. I'm sorry you don't like the Bokeh as much, I guess I'm just getting irritated with looking at everybody argue, complain and scorn each other about their optics. This forum used to be a great place to learn, grow, and get constructive criticism. But now, I just see a bunch of immaturity and hostile feedback. Also I'm not sure exactly why a lot of you don't like the Bokeh of the Sigma 135. Why is it so disliked? I have the Nikon 105E and comparing the two in my opinion, they both look great. Yes one of them may not be as soft as the other, but the background is still blurred out isolating your subject. Anyway, everybody has a right to their own opinion and believe me they are expressing it heavily here on this forum.
I understand that most of you don't like the out of focus areas of the Sigma 135mm, if that's the case, don't buy it. The photos I took with mine this past weekend were thoroughly enjoyed by the family that I took them for. They didn't say "the background isn't creamy enough! can you find another lens to photograph me with please?"
T
Desertcruiser wrote:
Todd, why are you defending YOUR lens that much? Why do you care about the comments?
Be happy with your Sigma.
Wow. Reading all the other posts that I missed, there's a lot of childish negativity there. I think that I might go start another thread. Those of you who do not like the Sigma, you're unworthy! Wait I already did, it's called the sigma 135mm image thread. I think we've seen enough test shots, now lets start posting photos in the thread that I started, thank you! (Sigma lens owners only)! You guys just do what you like. This may very well be the last post that I make in this particular thread.
ariel777 wrote:
If one's focus is the "artsy" look of the 58 which is also present to a lesser degree in the 105, this is not the lens to get. Nor is any lens in the Sigma lineup. If you like "sharp" Sigma wins going away, as this is its Signature via the Art line. If you shoot Artsy portrait, outdoor "Senior", the 105 is the lens; if you emphasize "sharp" and want a lens that is multi-faceted, viz, it can also do landscape, seascape, out and about, the Siggy wins hands down. In short, the 105 is one dimensional, whereas the Siggy is multi-faceted....Show more →
Well, the 105 being "one dimensional" seems to fly in the face of at least one highly respected user, Mike (anotherMike on DPR) who states in this post on DPR: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58687660
that the 105 is: "my choices would be the 105/1.4E by a more than subtle margin - it is truly a remarkable multi purpose lens that does everything one can possibly throw at it incredibly well - it's NOT a "jack of all trades master of none lens" at all, it's a true rarity - very close to a master of anything you need it to do lens".
I should add that Mike does *a lot* of landscape work with the 105 as well as his other lenses and also studio work with those same lenses.
From my use of the 105 I'd have to agree with Mike. Have you used the 105?
Now, Mike has a number of Sigma lenses in his stable. He states: So, before anyone accuses me of being pro or anti anything, my current lens selection consists of 4 Sigma arts (24-35/2 zoom, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4), a pair of Zeiss (85/1.4 Milvus, 135/2 Apo Sonnar), a Tamron (85/1.8 VC), and a few Nikon (20/1.8G, 24/1.8G, 105/1.4E, 200/2G, 24-70/2.8G). I've also shot or owned/sold other Sigma art, Zeiss and Nikon glass as well.
Todd wrote:
Wow. Reading all the other posts that I missed, there's a lot of childish negativity there. I think that I might go start another thread. Those of you who do not like the Sigma, you're unworthy! Wait I already did, it's called the sigma 135mm image thread. I think we've seen enough test shots, now lets start posting photos in the thread that I started, thank you! (Sigma lens owners only)! You guys just do what you like. This may very well be the last post that I make in this particular thread.
Wow, reading your post calling people who don't like the Sigma 'unworthy' just because they have a different opinion, while scolding negative attitude as childish, is surprising to say the least.
It's a technical discussion thread of test shots. Of course you'll find different opinions, converging and diverging ones. It should always be civil, and if someone is not, block them. Majority (if not all) of members here are civil, and no one offended anyone personally until calling others 'unworthy' just because they don't like a certain lens.
No one owns a share in Nikon nor Sigma, so everyone should get over any criticism.
I was under the impression this thread was more a comparison thread than an image sharing thread. So unless Marcelo decides comparisons are not for discussion in this thread, I think it is perfectly on-topic to discuss the relative attributes of the Sigma 135 especially when compared to other lens samples that the OP posted.
