Sarnia wrote:
While I wanted a 105 1.4 over the 85 1.4, the weight of this means it would likely sit unused. Re-ordered the 85 1.4 GM.
I have the 85mm 1.4 GM and it's fantastic. I was thinking about selling it for the Sigma 105 1.4 because I have the Planar T 50mm 1.4 and it would almost make more sense with the gap from the 50, but the GM 85 and the Planar 50 are both spectacular and I do find myself using both of them for different things.
The Sigma 105 1.4 would be a no brainer over the STM 100 for me if I were looking for something in that length and didn't mind carrying a beast of a lens because I like to shoot more in low light...but I don't think we're having that conversation.
The 135 is still on my list, but I need to figure out if I want to shell out twice the cash for the G Master version if it ever arrives or just get the monster Sigma 135 1.4.
saxguy wrote:
I have the 85mm 1.4 GM and it's fantastic. I was thinking about selling it for the Sigma 105 1.4 because I have the Planar T 50mm 1.4 and it would almost make more sense with the gap from the 50, but the GM 85 and the Planar 50 are both spectacular and I do find myself using both of them for different things.
The Sigma 105 1.4 would be a no brainer over the STM 100 for me if I were looking for something in that length and didn't mind carrying a beast of a lens because I like to shoot more in low light...but I don't think we're having that conversation.
The 135 is still on my list, but I need to figure out if I want to shell out twice the cash for the G Master version if it ever arrives or just get the monster Sigma 135 1.4.
My problem is I can’t buy rumors. I buy what’s available . Waiting for the GM 135 is wasted on not getting images. In your case the 50 /105 would be a nice gap but this sucker is heavy. Seriously for this weight it should be a 200 f2. I had thoughts on this 105 as well but this is a monopod lens and not sure I want this weight anymore .
pasblues wrote:
I wonder if the weight of the 105 lens is with or without the tripod collar?
Damn thing is going to weigh about the same as a half gallon of water. Not sure the tripod collar weight is going to make it desirable or undesirable either way.
That said, I'd guess that the tripod collar weight is not included in the spec weight since it's removable.
Jonathan Brady wrote:
Damn thing is going to weigh about the same as a half gallon of water. Not sure the tripod collar weight is going to make it desirable or undesirable either way.
That said, I'd guess that the tripod collar weight is not included in the spec weight since it's removable.
Usually official weight for lenses is measured without hood, caps and tripod collar. (if removable)
I keep looking at that second image and playing on a loop in my head is... "Whaaaaat theeeeeee f**************?!?!" And just think, the Sony version will be heavier, still. Throw in the lens hood and he tripod foot and it's 4.5 lbs... Insane...
Jonathan Brady wrote:
I keep looking at that second image and playing on a loop in my head is... "Whaaaaat theeeeeee f**************?!?!" And just think, the Sony version will be heavier, still. Throw in the lens hood and he tripod foot and it's 4.5 lbs... Insane...
You might as well just go for an adapted Canon 200/2L.
According to dpreview text, this was designed by an Astrophotographer as Sigma, to compete against the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO. I’m guessing this lens is going to be incredibly well corrected. Probably not ideal do portraits (the 85 and 135 sigmas are better suited I’d imagine), but looks like it might be Sigma’s version of an Otus
trogdon wrote:
According to dpreview text, this was designed by an Astrophotographer as Sigma, to compete against the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO. I’m guessing this lens is going to be incredibly well corrected. Probably not ideal do portraits (the 85 and 135 sigmas are better suited I’d imagine), but looks like it might be Sigma’s version of an Otus
Why not ideal for portraits? I think it is exactly fantastic for portraits.
As far as size and weight, I couldnt care less about that as long as it translates into stunning IQ. I will remove that tripod mount for sure 90% of the time like with any of my other lenses including the 300mm 2.8 where it just gets on the way. That is unless I was doing some sports event where I would use it for a monopod of course
