Wow. I am new to Sony so I keep discovering 'new to me' lenses. This lens has a unique look that really jumps off the screen, even with low res internet postings. The physical size looks big, but if that is not a problem why would you even buy one of the many available 85mm lenses when you could get shots like these?
I love my 105mm and I have tried pretty much every 85 and 135 for Sony but the size is surely not for everyone so I can understand why many prefer to go with the 85mm lenses. For me, the 105mm is the portrait king. 😁👍 galenapass wrote:
Wow. I am new to Sony so I keep discovering 'new to me' lenses. This lens has a unique look that really jumps off the screen, even with low res internet postings. The physical size looks big, but if that is not a problem why would you even buy one of the many available 85mm lenses when you could get shots like these?
It feels like shooting with 200mm f2. In the end of my shoot, I wanted to take a few shots with my GFX. The GFX50s with 110mm f2 felt so light like I was holding the phone. Which meant I didn't get nicer pictures with it as I was at 1/125 (sync speed) and now shooting with lighter system so more shaky. I wish the foot on the Sigma was more supportive.
bobby350z wrote:
It feels like shooting with 200mm f2. In the end of my shoot, I wanted to take a few shots with my GFX. The GFX50s with 110mm f2 felt so light like I was holding the phone. Which meant I didn't get nicer pictures with it as I was at 1/125 (sync speed) and now shooting with lighter system so more shaky. I wish the foot on the Sigma was more supportive.
Is the foot fixed or are there any third party options?
The foot is part of the collar and not removable, the entire collar is removable however.If you prefer to shoot with out the foot. The lens ships with a rubber ring that can be placed on the lens barrel if you choose to remove the collar.
People say Canon/Fuji colors so much better than Sony. I don't see anything different. I barely did any processing on this image. Converted in CaptureOne Pro. I do shoot Fuji GFX mostly, in case someone is wondering.
AGeoJO wrote:
Here is a fun image taken with that lens at low setting sun on the beach
Fantastic picture! I am pretty sure that a 135mm 1.8 wouldn't have caught the scene as impressive as you did with the 105. It would have excluded to much of the background, I suppose.
zeitlos wrote: Is this to be expected anytime soon? And: Is there already a version without "built-in converter" so that one can see what it will look like?
There's no way to know, we can only speculate. My guess would be, "maybe not":
Some think Sigma has now joined in with the popular trend of making small, sensible-compromise-sized lenses given its string of most recent releases - and therefore turned its attention away from giant halo lenses like a 105mm f/1.4 must always be. I'm not sure, I think it's partly just coincidence and a matter of filling gaps they saw in the market rather than a major philosophy switch. But in any case the 105 is not the kind of lens you necessarily make many new versions of. Sales volumes for it can't be that immense, can they? Rightly or wrongly it's more of a niche lens than an 85mm f/1.4. I think Sigma often like to make lenses that will sell in high volumes to keep their big, self-owned factory busy. They might make a new version but I don't see how it would be their top priority. A less extreme example of the issue with another giant lens, the 200mm f/2 (or 1.8) from Canon and Nikon - low sales volumes, a little niche in the market, not updated frequently.
I think, with the "built in convertor" remark, that gheller is referring to the Sigma MC-11 adapter. You can buy the Sigma 105 either as a native E-mount lens or as a Canon or Nikon DSLR lens. It has a lot of spare back-focus room to make it compatible with DSLRs. If you had the Canon version, you'd need to attach the MC-11 adapter, to gobble up that spare length, to use it on a Sony body. The size and weight of the native E-mount version is basically identical to the Canon-mount version with an MC-11 attached - the E-mount version just features a metal tube as a longer, built-in feature to get the spacing right.
The MC-11 itself weighs about 125 grams and adds (as a v rough guess) about an inch and a half of length, as an example of what that spare space is adding to the resulting bulk on a mirrorless body.
But, as I think gheller is assuming/implying, a new version of the 105 would presumably be a complete optical redesign without so much spare empty back-focus space behind the last lens element. It'd be a different lens altogether, hopefully in no ways worse but potentially maybe slightly different in character. Assuming it were made, it might not be anywhere near as substantial a size reduction as was seen going from the original Sigma 85 Art design to the mirrorless Sigma 85 Art redesign. One might like to think that an optically flawless 105mm f/1.4 can be made a lot smaller on mirrorless, but it might not necessarily be so.
If you think it might be something you'd want to have but you're worried about weight or it getting replaced in the market with a new model, buy used so you'll take less of a financial hit either way on reselling it.
zeitlos wrote:
Fantastic picture! I am pretty sure that a 135mm 1.8 wouldn't have caught the scene as impressive as you did with the 105. It would have excluded to much of the background, I suppose.
The original poster of the photo will be able to say more, but it might help you to imagine the potential limitations and differences by plugging the two focal lengths into this visual aid:
As you'll see there's a difference in the field of view, but not a gigantic one. I'd suggest that a photo "somewhat like" that could still have been taken by standing back a little, albeit not quite the same.
Yes. Admittedly, however, neither of the two, being mere simplifications/simulators, can show the... how to call it... the perspective effect. How deep and far away the background feels. That is maybe part of the 'pop' of the image: not just the sharp model and the blurred background, but the sweep of the beach steadily into the background under the model's feet. A 135's added compression would make the background seem more two-dimensional and closer to the subject, to a small extent. The 105, like any wider-angle lens, lets one better appreciate a difference between near and far.
GHarris wrote:
Yes. Admittedly, however, neither of the two, being mere simplifications/simulators, can show the... how to call it... the perspective effect. How deep and far away the background feels.
No? Okay, I don’t exactly know, what you mean by “feels”. Using the simulator you can only see it. I found this quite helpful in understanding how the compression works. Especially with different backgrounds. But of course, it’s limited (well, it’s a simulation ).
Btw. I agree with your assessment for a newer version of the 105 1.4. I also think it’s not being sold in big numbers so I could imagine it to be not on top of the priority list of Sigma. My copy will arrive next week. We’ll see how it will be in comparison to the others.
Coming back to the picture mentioned. I am pretty sure (although I might be completely wrong) that a 135 would have narrowed the scene and therefore given a (more or less) completely different view of the scene. The one form above (in my mind) is just perfect. A 135 - as I see it - would have predominately focused on the model. In this picture I see both parts as equally entitled
zeitlos wrote:
Is this to be expected anytime soon? And: Is there already a version without "built-in converter" so that one can see what it will look like?
I haven't heard anything (and not in a hurry). But if you compare the 85mm f/1.4 Art vs the DG DN, you will see a *massive* difference in size and weight.
The Art series have a "built in converter" that adds considerable size and weight where as the DN (digital native) are similar to the OEM versions.
. Which meant I didn't get nicer pictures with it as I was at 1/125 (sync speed) and now shooting with lighter system so more shaky. I wish the foot on the Sigma was more supportive.
