Blakehfreeman wrote:
If the Nikon 70-200 2.8E wasn't so good I would own this lens! As it stands I can't justify owning the Nikon 105mm 1.4, Sigma 135mm AND 70-200 2.8E.
it's hard to justify the 105 and 70-200E
but they are both that good
and I suppose there is a purpose for both, since one is a prime and one is a zoom, duh. but still, quite a bit of coin wrapped up in two tele.
but you nailed it, def no need for a 105, 135, and a 70-200 that is as good as the Nikon E!
I still can't get over the zoom. how light and perfect it is!
I like sigma a lot, If it is Leica, I am sure it will labeled as APO lens. And it is the most reliable AF lens I have used from any glass include gold ring Nikkor.(similar to f2.8 trinity stuff) A tool simply works. I do think 105E has very slightly more special rendering, but I applaud sigma can achieve this at less than 2/3 of price. With it, I have no desire to get 105E as I really also enjoy manual focus that Sigma is mile ahead of any Nikkor.
I agree the Art lenses are proving to be superb and great alternative for Nikon D750/D850. Much of the past issues with AF, QC seem to be disappearing although I have changed a few Art lenses thanks to my friends at the stores. This is no different with the sample variations that seem to affect all manufacturers now with the high MP bodies.
As you said if it was Leica or Zeiss the cost would be double or more. I am tempted by the 135 Art and the 14 Art is meant to be superb also.
What amazes more is how the 135 Art gels with the Df
The 135 Art reminds of the ZA 135/1.8 in some ways.
......yet.
