Sorry if it's already posted, but the weight of the lens is a tad shy of 1.7kg, yes that's right not 1.2 or 1.3 kg, 1.7kg. And it seems the absurd lens size is just to mitigate vignetting of all things and yet it still looks bad according to the MTF's wide open. 135 f/1.8 looks a lot more appealing now.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry if it's already posted, but the weight of the lens is a tad shy of 1.7kg, yes that's right not 1.2 or 1.3 kg, 1.7kg. And it seems the absurd lens size is just to mitigate vignetting of all things and yet it still looks bad according to the MTF's wide open. 135 f/1.8 looks a lot more appealing now.
Whoa...! I have lost complete interest now I was expecting 1.1 kg but not 1.7kg. The Nikon 105E is 985 gms almost half the weight. (58%)
charles.K wrote:
Whoa...! I have lost complete interest now I was expecting 1.1 kg but not 1.7kg. The Nikon 105E is 985 gms almost half the weight. (58%)
Indeed, it's a nuclear arms race to build the heaviest lens it seems. We've just had a 50mm announced that weighs 1.3kg, there's an Otus 28 f/1.4 that also weighs similar, nearly all the Art series announced in the last 2 years or so are 1.1-1.2kg now we at 1.7kg for a mere 105mm prime.
Can we expect a 4kg 300 f/2.8 soon.
I'll wait and see if Sony or someone else releases a 135 f/1.8(2.0) at no more than 1kg. My lowly Sony 85 f 1.8 weighing a whopping 535g will keep me going nicely until then.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry if it's already posted, but the weight of the lens is a tad shy of 1.7kg, yes that's right not 1.2 or 1.3 kg, 1.7kg. And it seems the absurd lens size is just to mitigate vignetting of all things and yet it still looks bad according to the MTF's wide open. 135 f/1.8 looks a lot more appealing now.
MTF looks stellar to me for a 1.4!
And I think the size is not so much about vignetting as mechanical vignetting, to prevent cats eyes and swirl.
I can see film makers and some other folk adoring it; but the 1.7 kg is too much for me to enjoy. That’s only 600g less than my FD 2.8/300 that I use very rarely because of the weight.
I know all the buzz lately has been about the 105/1.4, but the co-announced 70 macro just got a whole lot less appealing because it appears to be non-HSM, a first for the Art series. And extending like the original, so I think we can just about count on the "DC coreless motor" driving it being slow and noisy like the original 70/2.8 macro (and the other old macros).
Snopchenko wrote:
I know all the buzz lately has been about the 105/1.4, but the co-announced 70 macro just got a whole lot less appealing because it appears to be non-HSM, a first for the Art series. And extending like the original, so I think we can just about count on the "DC coreless motor" driving it being slow and noisy like the original 70/2.8 macro (and the other old macros).
(Sincerely yours, Corporal Obvious)
It is also the first focus by wire of the ART series.
dgpfotografia wrote:
It is also the first focus by wire of the ART series.
On the other hand the fact that it extends suggests it might still be 70mm at clos focus, when ch makes it a competitor to the 90 Macro GFE which is down to 70mm at close focus...
And I think the size is not so much about vignetting as mechanical vignetting, to prevent cats eyes and swirl.
I can see film makers and some other folk adoring it; but the 1.7 kg is too much for me to enjoy. That’s only 600g less than my FD 2.8/300 that I use very rarely because of the weight.
My initial enthusiasm over an FE 105/1.4 is indeed waning. I was expecting heavy, but 1.7kg / 3.7 pounds might be a tad more than I was envisioning
LBJ2 wrote:
My initial enthusiasm over an FE 105/1.4 is indeed waning. I was expecting heavy, but 1.7kg / 3.7 pounds might be a tad more than I was envisioning
Dunno, it is not that much heavier than my GM 100-400 I might drop my Zeiss APO 135/2 for this; don't dig MF that much anymore and as of late I often find the 135 a tad long. And as I live in Finland during long winter even F/2 sometimes seems too slow, gotta get all the photons I can get.
tn1krr wrote:
Dunno, it is not that much heavier than my GM 100-400 I might drop my Zeiss APO 135/2 for this; don't dig MF that much anymore and as of late I often find the 135 a tad long. And as I live in Finland during long winter even F/2 sometimes seems too slow, gotta get all the photons I can get.
Putting aside, size and weight, chances are this lens will sing at 1.4 I haven't seen the MTFs yet, but from what others are commenting in this thread IQ may indeed be worth the heft.
LBJ2 wrote:
Putting aside, size and weight, chances are this lens will sing at 1.4 I haven't seen the MTFs yet, but from what others are commenting in this thread IQ may indeed be worth the heft.
I'm quite positive that this lens is optically excellent from from F/1.4 since all the portrait length primes in Sigma Art series are. More interested how the AF functions outside center, how reliable the AF is (one does get occasional "false positive" with MC-11) and if the AF performance overall is decent. All my AF lenses are currently native with excellent/silent AF due to them having electromagnetic linear motors in them. I can give away a little speed, but reliability & coverage are not negotiable to me.
Feb 27, 2018 at 07:30 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
tn1krr wrote:
I'm quite positive that this lens is optically excellent from from F/1.4 since all the portrait length primes in Sigma Art series are. More interested how the AF functions outside center, how reliable the AF is (one does get occasional "false positive" with MC-11) and if the AF performance overall is decent. All my AF lenses are currently native with excellent/silent AF due to them having electromagnetic linear motors in them. I can give away a little speed, but reliability & coverage are not negotiable to me.
Sigma claims it will have better AF than their Canon lenses with the MC-11. We will see. If you have the Canon version of the lens, it seems Sigma is offering a mount conversion, so if the E mount has better performance you should be able to switch your lens to E mount. Now let's see is Sigma is really on the ball and does that mount conversion for free.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Steve,
Sigma's mount conversion has, historically, not been free. For instance, if you moved from Canon to Nikon, they charged for the conversion.
Yeah, I know, but I think it would be a smart move in this case. I doubt they will do it, however.
I was expecting 1.1 kg but not 1.7kg. The Nikon 105E is 985 gms almost half the weight. (58%)
I might drop my Zeiss APO 135/2 for this; don't dig MF that much anymore and as of late I often find the 135 a tad long. And as I live in Finland during long winter even F/2 sometimes seems too slow, gotta get all the photons I can get.