For ones with Sony E mount Craig Yannuzzi wrote:
Is it just me or did pre-orders for this lens state "mid June availability" and now B&H is saying November?
My 105 Art for Canon Mount arrived yesterday.
Mounted it on Canon 1DX2. New bigma meets
its match. Worked well. Responsive. Sharp pix
Would be rather conspicuous for street photography
JMcDonald84 wrote:
Man thats crazy we are waiting that long.... they should of just released when their stock was already up.
Historically, third party lens makers (if there is lag time between release of different mounts) have released the mounts for the big guys (Canon and Nikon) first. These lenses that Sigma is releasing for FE mount also all seem to be DSLR first designs as well. Combine this with the fact that stock of the Canon EF mount version isn't even available, it's not surprising that the FE mount will be a while.
Being the antsy pants kind of person I am, I had to get mine off eBay since no one had any idea of when they'd be getting more of these things (Canon EF mount). Even on eBay, there was only one vendor offering them at the time of ordering.
, you are absolutely right. I should've and could've except I wouldn't have had an excuse to buy and play with the new lens.
In all honesty, I could probably get away with all of my shooting with just the 40 and maybe two other lenses. lol.
This 105 will have to get shelved soon too since I've had a newly arrived Canon 300/2.8 sitting here for a few days being neglected. Yes, even less useful for the type of stuff I normally shoot. But play time though....
KarmaKramer wrote:
You should've saved your money and just take these with your CV40/1.2.
Tested one out at Midwest Photo today. Very sharp. I think I'd prefer the smaller and lighter 135/1.8, which has very similar IQ (and perhaps slightly nicer bokeh), but it's a very good lens. Frickin huge, though.
level1photog wrote:
Sigma 105 1.4 or Sigma 135 1.8?
Depends on what your needs and preferences are. YMMV
Personally, I have have a list of factors of importance that I usually go by.
In order of importance (for me):
1. Focal length preference
2. Max aperture/light gathering needed relative to optical performance/look (clumped together for me)
3. AF performance
4. Size/weight/ergo
5. Cost
I like 105 since 85 always feels a tad short and 135 a tad long. 105 gives me the actual look of tele but a better working distance for my uses.
I am a sucker for fast glass that performs well at or near wide open.
I appreciate smaller and lighter when possible. But this is usually tied into some type of sacrifice in other areas I value. So when it comes to looking at something I’m buying for maximum performance, size isn’t an issue as I have separate options for light and compact already.
With regard to the size differences between the two lenses in question, the 105 is a monster and will more than likely require additional logistics to be accounted for when bringing it out (basically a slightly smaller super tele prime). The 135, while still not small, fits into most average bags/carry solutions.
Then the other factors don’t really need expounding on.
All that being said, I for one dumped the 135 and kept the 105 as when I need something in that range, I want the best and fastest regardless of size. I still have other options for smaller and slower 135s when needed (but hardly ever).
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Depends on what your needs and preferences are. YMMV
Personally, I have have a list of factors of importance that I usually go by.
In order of importance (for me):
1. Focal length preference
2. Max aperture/light gathering needed relative to optical performance/look (clumped together for me)
3. AF performance
4. Size/weight/ergo
5. Cost
I like 105 since 85 always feels a tad short and 135 a tad long. 105 gives me the actual look of tele but a better working distance for my uses.
I am a sucker for fast glass that performs well at or near wide open.
I appreciate smaller and lighter when possible. But this is usually tied into some type of sacrifice in other areas I value. So when it comes to looking at something I’m buying for maximum performance, size isn’t an issue as I have separate options for light and compact already.
With regard to the size differences between the two lenses in question, the 105 is a monster and will more than likely require additional logistics to be accounted for when bringing it out (basically a slightly smaller super tele prime). The 135, while still not small, fits into most average bags/carry solutions.
Then the other factors don’t really need expounding on.
All that being said, I for one dumped the 135 and kept the 105 as when I need something in that range, I want the best and fastest regardless of size. I still have other options for smaller and slower 135s when needed (but hardly ever). ...Show more →
Would the 105 1.4 fit inside the Lowepro 450AW or most average bag?
I don't mind the size and weight. I figure it's my poor man mini 200 F2.
105 1.4 would be a nice working for inside portrait shot and environmental portraits.
level1photog wrote:
Would the 105 1.4 fit inside the Lowepro 450AW or most average bag?
I don't mind the size and weight. I figure it's my poor man mini 200 F2.
105 1.4 would be a nice working for inside portrait shot and environmental portraits.
That's actually my daily backpack I take to work. With some divider modification, it would fit albeit not super well.
The problem is the filter thread/front half of the lens and hood. It's pretty darn wide so I personally carry it in the tamrac sling I used to pack my Canon 200/2.0 in when taking it out.
I no longer have the 200 but can still give somewhat of a comparison for size with the 300 as shown below.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
That's actually my daily backpack I take to work. With some divider modification, it would fit albeit not super well.
The problem is the filter thread/front half of the lens and hood. It's pretty darn wide so I personally carry it in the tamrac sling I used to pack my Canon 200/2.0 in when taking it out.
I no longer have the 200 but can still give somewhat of a comparison for size with the 300 as shown below.
level1photog wrote:
What if I don't use the hood? Would it fit perfectly? Any regret picking 105 over 135?
I would say it would still bulge out the center section a bit but could work. I’ll test when I get home.
No regrets about the final decision on my end. The 135 just didn’t see much use since I’m just not a fan of 135 primes for FL. The 105 is much more usable for how I shoot.
Nice! This 105 will be available for E-mount soon, I see you have an adapter for yours. Is the E-mount lens the same as the other non e-mount lenses? I’m wondering how sigma is doing this. Is it just a built on adapter with the data contacts on the end of it, or are there optics extending to the end of the mount? Since you use the adapter, I was wondering why you didn’t wait on the e-mount for your Sony camera...
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
I have both the Sigma Art 105mm and 135mm lenses. I gravitate towards the 105mm more often than not.
Todd wrote:
Nice! This 105 will be available for E-mount soon, I see you have an adapter for yours. Is the E-mount lens the same as the other non e-mount lenses? I’m wondering how sigma is doing this. Is it just a built on adapter with the data contacts on the end of it, or are there optics extending to the end of the mount? Since you use the adapter, I was wondering why you didn’t wait on the e-mount for your Sony camera...
Can’t speak for Ken, but I went with the EF mount with adapter since reports were that it worked really well. That combined with the fact that we didn’t actually have a projected release date at the time for the FE version and the deal was sealed for me.
Going with the EF mount, I’ve been able to shoot with it since the first half of July. Also, I’ve been able to use it with both Sony and canon bodies. As soon as my adapter for Fuji gets a firmware update, I’ll be able to use it across three systems. The FE would have made it much less fluid with regard to my uses.
Todd wrote:
Nice! This 105 will be available for E-mount soon, I see you have an adapter for yours. Is the E-mount lens the same as the other non e-mount lenses? I’m wondering how sigma is doing this. Is it just a built on adapter with the data contacts on the end of it, or are there optics extending to the end of the mount? Since you use the adapter, I was wondering why you didn’t wait on the e-mount for your Sony camera...
Having used the Art 24mm f1.4 Sony mount and being unhappy with how it focused I cancelled my Sony mount 105mm f1.4 for the Canon mount. I also use it with the Metabones adapter as it works better for me than my MC11. Basically the Sony mount Art lenses focus like they have a MC11 attached and I hate how the MC11 adapter focuses.
, you are absolutely right. I should've and could've except I wouldn't have had an excuse to buy and play with the new lens. 
