A buddy of mine wanted me to try out his new Sigma 135 Art and see what I thought of it compared to the Nikon
105E.
Did a quick mess around photo shoot with my son Michael. From the brief shooting that I did, I found that
the Nikon has a bit smoother bokeh, but the Sigma is sharper and quicker to focus. To me they are pretty much
equal in regards to the great image quality that can be drawn from either one. I tend to prefer the 135mm focal length as compared to the 105mm.
Here is an image from the shoot.
Creative Edge wrote:
Did a quick mess around photo shoot with my son Michael. From the brief shooting that I did, I found that
the Nikon has a bit smoother bokeh, but the Sigma is sharper and quicker to focus. To me they are pretty much
equal in regards to the great image quality that can be drawn from either one.
Do you any comparison shots that show bokeh? Can you post them here or maybe in Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots thread. I have seen few in test shots thread, but I would like to see more.
I have Sigma 135 on order. One local shop offered it for a brief time with 15% discount (surprisingly) which made almost half of official local price of the Nikon 105/1.4E. But I still wonder about bokeh.
I definitely value bokeh, in fact I wrote a pretty long page about bokeh. But then my Sigma 24/1.4 (my most used lens) which is supposed to have worse bokeh than Nikon 24/1.4 (at least by opinion of people on internet; I agree somewhat, but it depends on distance at close range Sigma has smoother bokeh, at medium and far distance Nikon wins) can still get me very nice pictures with good bokeh and great sharpness (that Nikon 24/1.4 does not have wide open). I found out that it is easy to turn bokeh that is average into good one in LR with just local brush effect with sharpness set to -100 so sometimes when bokeh is busier than I like I do it. So with choice between a lens that is sharp and have average bokeh and lens that has extra smooth bokeh and worse sharpness wide open one can go either way. With smooth bokeh less sharp lens, you need to increase sharpness locally (you don't want to use global sharpness that may make bokeh worse) in processing. With sharp lens that has average bokeh, you just decrease sharpness of bokeh locally. Its a wash, unless you cannot process (video, sooc).
jtra wrote:
Do you any comparison shots that show bokeh? Can you post them here or maybe in Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots thread. I have seen few in test shots thread, but I would like to see more.
I have Sigma 135 on order. One local shop offered it for a brief time with 15% discount (surprisingly) which made almost half of official local price of the Nikon 105/1.4E. But I still wonder about bokeh.
I definitely value bokeh, in fact I wrote a pretty long page about bokeh. But then my Sigma 24/1.4 (my most used lens) which is supposed to have worse bokeh than Nikon 24/1.4 (at least by opinion of people on internet; I agree somewhat, but it depends on distance at close range Sigma has smoother bokeh, at medium and far distance Nikon wins) can still get me very nice pictures with good bokeh and great sharpness (that Nikon 24/1.4 does not have wide open). I found out that it is easy to turn bokeh that is average into good one in LR with just local brush effect with sharpness set to -100 so sometimes when bokeh is busier than I like I do it. So with choice between a lens that is sharp and have average bokeh and lens that has extra smooth bokeh and worse sharpness wide open one can go either way. With smooth bokeh less sharp lens, you need to increase sharpness locally (you don't want to use global sharpness that may make bokeh worse) in processing. With sharp lens that has average bokeh, you just decrease sharpness of bokeh locally. Its a wash, unless you cannot process (video, sooc). ...Show more →
I did not do side by side comparison, it was just a quick observation so take with a grain of salt. The difference is so subtle that one would be pressed to tell them apart. Other than the difference in focal length, both excel as portrait lenses. The Sigma is faster to focus and I found it to be extremely accurate.
Do you think the Sigma 135 is worth the addition if I already have Sigma 85 1.4 Art and Canon 70-200 II? I hear really good reviews of 135 being prefer over the Nikon 105 1.4 and even call as the poor man 200mm f2. That's alot of great praises for this lens.
level1photog wrote:
Do you think the Sigma 135 is worth the addition if I already have Sigma 85 1.4 Art and Canon 70-200 II? I hear really good reviews of 135 being prefer over the Nikon 105 1.4 and even call as the poor man 200mm f2. That's alot of great praises for this lens.
A lot of that is true. However I can only give you details based on my own experience with owning this wonderful lens. So far it has been sharper than any other lens that I have used by far, it focuses extremely fast, and I have a very high keeper rate with things being in focus also. I have never owned the 200mm F/2 but I have owned the Nikon 70-200, I'm just one of those guys that likes primes in stead of zooms. I think if you already have the 85mm, adding the 135 would be a nice touch especially if you like shooting primes. Given that there is a specific working distance with this lens, sometimes you got to step back a little ways to use it. I love using it for portrait work. I do have the Nikon 105mm F/1.4E, I do like it, it's just not as sharp as the Sigma wide open. Plus I need to send the Nikon Lens into service to get it cleaned because I have a lot of dust behind the front element which is really irritating. The dust is only visible with a bright light and I know it's not really going to interfere with image quality, but it just seems like it should be cleaner when paying that much for a lens.
level1photog wrote:
Do you think the Sigma 135 is worth the addition if I already have Sigma 85 1.4 Art and Canon 70-200 II? I hear really good reviews of 135 being prefer over the Nikon 105 1.4 and even call as the poor man 200mm f2. That's alot of great praises for this lens.
The 135 focal length is somewhat of a holy grail for me. I've long waited for a great 135 lens for the F mount, since being disappointed with the 135 DC. It's replaced my 70-200 lenses in my bag, since it takes up about half the size, and balances much better on my gripped D750. Plus the f/1.8 aperture allows for things simply not possible with the 70-200
As for the 85, the 135 gives a lot more reach. It's almost like the difference between a 50mm and an 85mm in terms of FoV. So to give you an idea, here's my current lens kit, bearing in mind that I shoot weddings.
I now have a lens for every single scenario I might come across. I had the 85 Art, but it seemed like overkill since the 135 Art spends a lot more time on my tele body (I always shoot weddings with two cameras).
"Those who have followed us over the years know that we don't easily come up with superlatives but this time it's hard to avoid them really. The Sigma lens is the best lens that we have tested so far."
I also shoot mostly wedding/engagement, and portraits. Ever since I own the Sigma 85 1.4 Art, that lens has been on my body most of the time and replaces my Canon 70-200 II as my primary portrait lens. I'm currently only using the 70-200 II during the ceremony only. Since I heard the Sigma 135 is even better than Sigma 85 1.4 Art and being called the poor man 200 F2, I want the 135 1.8 to be my primary portrait lens and perhaps replace my 70-200 that I seldom use anymore except for the ceremony. Good idea?
Update: I got the OK from the wife but I need to sell one lens to get the 135. I shoot weddings/enagement/portraits.
Tamron 15-30, Canon 24-70 II 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, Tamron 90mm 2.8 IS macro, Sigma 85 1.4 Art.
eke2k6 wrote:
The 135 focal length is somewhat of a holy grail for me. I've long waited for a great 135 lens for the F mount, since being disappointed with the 135 DC. It's replaced my 70-200 lenses in my bag, since it takes up about half the size, and balances much better on my gripped D750. Plus the f/1.8 aperture allows for things simply not possible with the 70-200
As for the 85, the 135 gives a lot more reach. It's almost like the difference between a 50mm and an 85mm in terms of FoV. So to give you an idea, here's my current lens kit, bearing in mind that I shoot weddings.
I now have a lens for every single scenario I might come across. I had the 85 Art, but it seemed like overkill since the 135 Art spends a lot more time on my tele body (I always shoot weddings with two cameras).
I'd get rid of the 85 and 70-200. You'll be using the 135 way more for portraits (trust me), so the 85 kind of loses out. Then the 70-200 gets too rarely used to justify taking up that much space and money. The macro lens kind of covers the 85-ish focal length anyway, along with macro capability that none of your other lenses have. And you'll be able to use it in a pinch in smaller venues where the 135 might be a bit too long.
You'll need the 15-35 and 24-70, so don't get rid of those.
level1photog: If possible, maybe you could buy or rent one first and after some use, there will naturally be a less useful lens that you could get rid of.
But since the FL is in the short tele range, one of the four 85Art, 135Art, 90mm macro or 70-200mm II would be the candidate.
Wondering how much you use the macro and whether you could get by with a close-up filter on one of the other three instead if you're not at 1:1 macro often.
swifty168 wrote:
level1photog: If possible, maybe you could buy or rent one first and after some use, there will naturally be a less useful lens that you could get rid of.
But since the FL is in the short tele range, one of the four 85Art, 135Art, 90mm macro or 70-200mm II would be the candidate.
Wondering how much you use the macro and whether you could get by with a close-up filter on one of the other three instead if you're not at 1:1 macro often.
I don't use the macro much. Just the occasional ring shot. That's the plan. Trying to find the best deal on Sigma 135 1.9 Art now. $1250 is the best I found thus far on Amazon.
eke2k6 wrote:
I'd get rid of the 85 and 70-200. You'll be using the 135 way more for portraits (trust me), so the 85 kind of loses out. Then the 70-200 gets too rarely used to justify taking up that much space and money. The macro lens kind of covers the 85-ish focal length anyway, along with macro capability that none of your other lenses have. And you'll be able to use it in a pinch in smaller venues where the 135 might be a bit too long.
You'll need the 15-35 and 24-70, so don't get rid of those.
I appreciate the advice. If I can get away with the 135 for ceremony portion that would great. I do like the 85 1.4 Art for getting ready shot and indoor where 135 is too long to shoot shallow DOF. Maybe if I can use a macro filter on one of them and sell the Tamron 90 as well.
