ariel777 wrote:
If one's focus is the "artsy" look of the 58 which is also present to a lesser degree in the 105, this is not the lens to get. Nor is any lens in the Sigma lineup. If you like "sharp" Sigma wins going away, as this is its Signature via the Art line. If you shoot Artsy portrait, outdoor "Senior", the 105 is the lens; if you emphasize "sharp" and want a lens that is multi-faceted, viz, it can also do landscape, seascape, out and about, the Siggy wins hands down. In short, the 105 is one dimensional, whereas the Siggy is multi-faceted.
Well, the 105 being "one dimensional" seems to fly in the face of at least one highly respected user, Mike (anotherMike on DPR) who states in this post on DPR: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58687660
that the 105 is: "my choices would be the 105/1.4E by a more than subtle margin - it is truly a remarkable multi purpose lens that does everything one can possibly throw at it incredibly well - it's NOT a "jack of all trades master of none lens" at all, it's a true rarity - very close to a master of anything you need it to do lens".
From my use of the 105 I'd have to agree with Mike. Have you used the 105?
Now, Mike has a number of Sigma lenses in his stable. He states: So, before anyone accuses me of being pro or anti anything, my current lens selection consists of 4 Sigma arts (24-35/2 zoom, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4), a pair of Zeiss (85/1.4 Milvus, 135/2 Apo Sonnar), a Tamron (85/1.8 VC), and a few Nikon (20/1.8G, 24/1.8G, 105/1.4E, 200/2G, 24-70/2.8G). I've also shot or owned/sold other Sigma art, Zeiss and Nikon glass as well.
Apr 18, 2017 at 01:25 AM
Previous versions of Lance B's message #14004098 « Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots »
