Marcelo, I do not know if each of those pictures were shot at maximum lens opening, it seems so but those shots you showed us before your calibration of the Sigma what they showed to me is not front focusing but the result of the depth of field at that lens opening.
I am sure that you know that when a lens is focused it shows a depth of field of 1/3 in front of the point of focus and 2/3 behind it.
I can see that the rendition of the Nikon lenses is warmer than the Sigma and to my eyes the bokeh is not significantly different among the three lenses. To my eyes the three lenses are sharp and the contrast, unless you fixed it during editing appears reasonable for the three lenses. Minor adjustments to contrast and sharpness is what we do everyday when working with an editing program.
All in all I would dare to say that the Sigma is a great lens that competes very nicely with the other Nikon lenses that you have.
camerapapi wrote:
Marcelo, I do not know if each of those pictures were shot at maximum lens opening, it seems so but those shots you showed us before your calibration of the Sigma what they showed to me is not front focusing but the result of the depth of field at that lens opening.
I am sure that you know that when a lens is focused it shows a depth of field of 1/3 in front of the point of focus and 2/3 behind it.
I can see that the rendition of the Nikon lenses is warmer than the Sigma and to my eyes the bokeh is not significantly different among the three lenses. To my eyes the three lenses are sharp and the contrast, unless you fixed it during editing appears reasonable for the three lenses. Minor adjustments to contrast and sharpness is what we do everyday when working with an editing program.
All in all I would dare to say that the Sigma is a great lens that competes very nicely with the other Nikon lenses that you have.
All the pictures were shot wide open, 1.4 for the 105mm, 1.8 for the 135mm and 2.0 for the 200mm., I didn't use any processing on it.
Thank you for the info, initially I thought the lens was front focussing but checking on my monitor i found it was back focussing, I calibrated it in my camera with an -18.
The rendition of the two lenses are very similar (105/135) with very small differences.
eke2k6 wrote:
What's funny is that I just went to the 105 thread. The bokeh on the last few shots looks pretty bad in the foliage.
OK, but how well would lens b, c, or d have done in the same situation?
We don't know hence these comparison shots as well as other image sharing threads are useful, if only for our own self evaluation.
FWIW, I have found the occasional nervous bokeh rendition from the 105 but again, I don't know how another lens would have done in the same situation.
I also don't particular like the foreground rendition on the 105, especially when it is very busy. I don't dislike it, but it's a bit 'meh' compared to other attributes.
I do however really like the focus transition, which IMO contributes to a look but of course this only shows up if your composition contains these transition areas. When its just subject and distant background, I think focal length plays a bigger role.
I'm still forming my opinion about the Sigma 135 and I really like what I see so far.
I really don't understand why people can't accept that both the Sigma 135 as well as other lenses can be good at the same time?
eke2k6 wrote:
But horses for courses.
Of course, of course.
My comments were specifically about people trying to turn their noses up at the 135A's bokeh, yet I see relatively poor rendering in some cases from the supposedly buttery 105E.
I've said several times that the 105 is great. I've had one. I just don't get why some find the need to disparage another lens for no solid reason other than personal biases.
eke2k6 wrote:
I just don't get why some find the need to disparage another lens for no solid reason other than personal biases.
Rendering is subjective and we perceive the world differently hence we have different tastes. It's not personal, and you don't work at Sigma, so it shouldn't bother you.
hijazist wrote:
Rendering is subjective and we perceive the world differently hence we have different tastes. It's not personal, and you don't work at Sigma, so it shouldn't bother you.
Then perhaps stay out of the Sigma 135mm thread then? There's a very broad gulf between saying a lens is not suited to your taste, and calling it a turd because of some random subjective characteristic you deem unworthy.
eke2k6 wrote:
Then perhaps stay out of the Sigma 135mm thread then? There's a very broad gulf between saying a lens is not suited to your taste, and calling it a turd because of some random subjective characteristic you deem unworthy.
First of all, it's not an image thread, it's a technical test shot and comparisons thread in case you missed that. That IS the purpose of such thread, and you did not start the thread so you can't to tell people to stay out of it.
Lightsearcher wrote:
The rendition of the two lenses are very similar (105/135) with very small differences.
I completely agree and think anyone's decision should be based mainly on focal length than anything else. Yes each lens has their pro/cons but all in all they are definitely very similar and 99.9% of anyone on the receiving end of getting the output product would ever notice.
How does the Sigma 135 focus in low light? Went to a high school gymnasium to take some shots of our HS senior models, and I had to use manual focus or my old 50 1.8G, the 105 would not focus correctly in the gym. Focuses perfect outdoors. It was TERRIBLE in the gym.
agelessphotog wrote:
How does the Sigma 135 focus in low light? Went to a high school gymnasium to take some shots of our HS senior models, and I had to use manual focus or my old 50 1.8G, the 105 would not focus correctly in the gym. Focuses perfect outdoors. It was TERRIBLE in the gym.
A test of the Zeiss 135mm f/2 and the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 : Not the best test, but I was in the local camera store. The are SOOC with just some NR applied. Nothing else. Colors and lack of CA are equal in my opinion. The Zeiss vignettes noticeably more than the Sigma.... But overall sharpness and color look the same. What think ye?
The Zeiss exposes a little different, maybe a little more accurate. However this is a small adjustment in post. The Sigma looks brighter, but in RAW, that's a good thing for acquiring more digital data to reduce the signal to noise ratio.
