Yes, I was SHOCKED by the results of this vs's video, were you? If you haven't download the sample RAW files to see for yourself, you can do so right here as well as read more of the lens review at froknowsphoto.com/105vs105/
Jared actually I have my D500 and buy an used Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART, and I had the same feeling like you, in the Sigma the DOF is "larger" at same f number vs others lens. That was my first impression of my Sigma when I test it at f/1.8 (sorry my english, but it´s not my native languaje)
Jared, Sigma is killing it, the 85mm f1.4, the 135mm f1.8 and their 35mm or 50mm at 1.4 are all beautiful. I just purchased a used copy of the 18-35mm 1.8 for my D500 and it is incredible, possibly the best lens along with the 50-100 for the dx market. This is not the Sigma of old. Did you purchase the 105mm?
Hi, I’m 68 and dodery, but after trying the Nikon 105mm and then purchasing the sigma 105mm f1.4 and putting through it’s passers hand held, you are right the sigma not only delivers excellent sharpness wide open, but is consistent too. I shot over 800 in a four hour session with 100% success in sharpness ...... unheard of!! I own 18 Nikon lenses and one sigma the (105mm f 1.4). I too was Gobsmacked at the results. TonyH
@@eduardocortes-dv4lo i owned also sigma art and it,s diffrent wedding od studio shooting.....i lost a lot off pictures with sigma and nikon is better in focussing....for me is more important
This video reminds me of the days before mirrorless, where lenses always struggled to nail focus wide open. Front focus, back focus, unreliable even when the camera says perfect focus.
I wasn’t really surprised by these results. Increasingly Sigma is producing lenses that went from “it is a lower cost option that will do the job” to “it is a lower cost option that is giving me better quality than my name brand lenses”. More and more I am finding Sigma out performs my Nikon lenses. Not all of them yet, and they have a way to go, but I am starting to own more Sigma than Nikon lenses.
I agree. My wife uses a Sigma 17-50 f 2.8 on a entry level DX Nikon for event photography and the images are amazing even with high iso. I too am starting to consider Sigma lenses for paid work. A.,
Sigma makes some crazy sharp lenses. Although for BIF on a budget I prefer tamron's 150-600 G2 over Sigma's C or S version Considering buying a macro lens atm tho and it seems Sigma is better value for money and overall quality than Tamron or Nikon, do correct me if im wrong though
Except the Sigma is not as bright, not as long, yet is way bigger. That along with the AF issues reported with SOME Sigma lenses was enough to make me pay the extra money for the Nikon. Size was actually also a factor, when it usually never is for me. I already have some huge lenses in my bag and the company I prefer for my photo backpack, does make a larger size. I already have to leave one lens at home in order the bring the 105mm f/1.4E lens. Since I already have a D5 and D850 attached to a Nikon 500mm f/4E VR FL and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL, I only have room for a 24-70mm f/2.8E VR or the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E and I absolutely hate to bring a second bag with me. I'd rather just leave two lenses at home than bring secondary bags with me, I prefer having one bag, a backpack bag that I can carry with me. The Sigma just won't fit, but thats the last reason I didn't buy it. I'm a Nikon snob, I do love Nikon and all of my lenses have blown me away, which is why I own them and spent so much money on them. I could have a much nicer car if I didn't have all this gear, but I love Nikon and I need it to do my job, as a photojournalist. The Sigma does seem sharper in most of the reviews and comparisons I watched, for sure. I'll give it that, it's definitely noticeably sharper.
I'd highly disagree about the smoothness of the focus rings, the heavy dampening of the art lenses make them smoother in my experience then the native glass from either Nikon or Canon. That dampening as a video shooter is one of the HUGE selling points for the Art for me.
Just bought the Sigma and your review was one of the primary reasons. For me, ultimate image quality is paramount. And if it means a larger, heavier lens, so be it. So far, after a couple of days shooting and a little micro adjustment tweaking, so good! I like it. Thank you!
Try using continuous AF with a single point since the DOF is so shallow that any movement from the model or person holding the camera, will cause the focus to be off slightly.
Thank you for allowing me, after years of incessant irritation, in finding a cheeky Irish reviewer I’m pleased to watch. I hope you review every professional photographic equipment on earth! Yes, it’s hard not be jealous of the PN, the “Load Warrior”
You can use the sharpness slider, which doesn't help a lot, I know. Other things you can not fix with filters: Micro contrast and the quality of unsharp areas, i.e. bokeh or falloff. But shure: with high mp sensors, sharpness or the lack thereoff becomes more aparent.
When I first tried the Nikon 105, the shocking thing was that it WAS in focus all the time on the D5. Part of that is the D5's magic but even now it still seems like it should have been just about impossible for a DSLR. I never even needed micro-adjustment for it.
Christopher O'Grady no, could be a stronger vignette in the center too.. but seems like the T-stop of the nikon is a bit better, would be logical because the sigma have 3 elements more and the nikon coatings are really good
I think the reason he’s not sure as he threw up the DXO mark page for the Nikon but they haven’t tested the sigma yet so he couldn’t categorically say.
W N That is an incorrect assumption - it does not work like that. The body could be back focussing and the sigma front focussing to the same extent thus cancelling each other out thus giving a perfect result. That is by the camera body allows different AF fine tuning for different lenses.
M. Dietrich if you trust his expertise in general, why doubt his experience now? Either way I assume he’s covered all bases with his Nikon 105/1.4 and I doubt he’s picked up a less than stellar copy of the lens. I don’t buy Sigma because I don’t trust their backward engineering and autofocus reliability in the long run, although they seem to be improving reliability. Their optical performance is pretty impressive and based on that alone I would have bought quite a number of their fast primes.
both of my art lenses were way off focus when i first bought them so i got the dock that sigma sells. now they are razor sharp wide open. unless sigma has gotten better with their focus accuracy out of the box i would say that he got lucky with that 105. but that still doesnt mean that the nikon shouldnt be micro adjusted. i dont get it. someone that pixel peeps an image to find the tiniest sharpness differences, yet wont spend the time to adjust the lenses focus on their camera. something seems backwards.
M. Dietrich you are shifting this discussion, I have not questioned the need nor usefulness of AF adjust, it beats sending your lenses and bodies in for adjustment. But that does not mean that it is perfectly acceptable to have large tolerances in the latest high end bodies and lenses - that I agree with.
What about AF speed and consistency? I was comparing Canon 85 1.4 L to Sigma 85 1.4 ART and found that Canon had better AF results. More pictures were in focus and AF was faster locking in lover light situations.
I’ve found the 105 art to be really jumpy/twitchy on my 5Diii. Almost like it’s to quick to move in continuous focus mode. With subjects at a bit of a distance it can miss by a fraction as it jumps to focus.
gameshoes Not really I have sigma 14-24 2.8 ART and I am very happy with this lens. I have got Canon 16-35 lll but the vignetting was enormous so decided to give it back and got sigma 14-24 ART and have to say AF is fast and precise.
Try the Canon at shorter distance... it's hit and miss. Tested 3 samples of the 85/1.4L vs 2 samples of the Sigma 85Art on a 1DX2 and 5D4 and the Sigma was more consistent at close focus distance. At lower light, the Canon also hunted more. I work at a photography gear shop btw. I have the Sigma 135mm myself and I think it's the best of all the portraitlenses (if the focal length suits you).
Two points: Is it possible Sigma hand picked an extremely good copy of this lens, since they knew it was going to be used in a public review? And what about color, character, and overall rendering?
Even though the Sigma is sharper. The Nikon is plenty sharp and I personally like the way Nikon renders the skin tones better @12:42. If money was no object I'd still get the Nikon lens cause I also appreciate the smaller size. But on paper that Sigma is just as good and probably a better buy than the Nikon considering the $600 savings. Thanks for the comparison Jared!
It's def a tough choice. I'm not sure I will sell the Nikon since we do use it on video. But it was driving me crazy shooting at 1.4 on the nikon and never hitting.
@Herman I will quote myself - "If money was no object I'd still get the Nikon lens" - this means if money is a factor then "on paper that Sigma is just as good and probably a better buy than the Nikon considering the $600 savings" Why would I still get the Nikon over the Sigma if I could? Because I am a portrait photographer who loves how Nikons (cameras and glass) render skin tones for portraits. Anyone that has been shooting professionally for a good amount of time knows that the better image you can get out of camera the easier and faster you can edit to your own personal preference.
In that extreme close up of the eye I think the Nikon focused a little closer, you can see the eyebrow is sharper and the Sigma was spot on on the pupil.
Not surprised the Sigma is sharper. Sigma primes are pretty tight when it comes to sharpness. They tend to lack AF performance in certain scenarios (continuous focus, low light), but it's their zooms that suffer more from that. The primes are looking more and more appealing. I think my next lens will be the 50mm F1.4 Art.
this lens focuses very good on my canon. I was surprised and amazed when i zoomed in on a 1.4 and didnt see a lack of sharpness thatr I am used to with my other 1.4/1.2 lenses. Except the 35mm II which is crazy sharp too.
I've got the 20mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f1.8 and love them all. The 50mm is probably the pick of the bunch though. I'm actually amazed at how far Sigma have come since their global mission started. I have an older 70-200 f2.8 APO which quite honestly is outstanding, but have owned other Sigma EX lenses that were nothing more than paper weights. After the disaster that was their 50mm f1.4 EX which had wandering focus I swore that I'd never buy another, until I used a friends 50mm Art. The big bonus is my 3 Art primes cost combined, roughly what my 24-70 G Master zoom cost.
Thanks for the fascinating comparison! This is very helpful. Question: Did you do microfocus adjustment on either lens? The difference in sharpness is so slight that it could reflect a slight need for microfocus adjustment of the Nikon. Thank you.
I bought that Peter North last year June wile visiting the US of A and also visiting very short time Philadelphia . Yes I can confirm it is super sharp and the Bokeh is out of this world
I wasn't really surprised, I've found that the same thing is the case with the Sigma 85mm 1.4 against Nikon's own 85mm 1.4. The Sigma Art line up is just sharp AF.
Focus breathing. Of your subject was further back both lenses would be 105mm but with closer subject a lens that suffer from focus breathing will do that. Also why the F would you shoot a portrait at 105mm f1.4 and end up with the nose out of focus ...
One of my favorite of your reviews. Your approach is thorough and unbiased, in fact i think you would make a very good scientist (i am one). You raised some very good questions. I own the Sigma 105mm and the Sigma 85mm the latter on DxO mark ranks the top. iIve shot thousands of photos of models with both lenses and although the 85mm is my workhorse, the 105mm i take out for those really special shots...there's a kind of magic that happens with this lens well beyond the performance of the 85mm and it's hard to describe but all my models notice it too. Sadly DxO mark hadn't reviewed or tested the Sigma 105 and i fail to see why. It's a very special lens. Thanks again.
Focal length and field of view aren’t strictly tied to each other. You can have similar focal length (I.e. the measures amount light is redirected at) but different field of view.
The focal length holds only at infinity. When you focus closer it can change depending on the lens design. Essentially a lens can focus either by moving farther from the sensor or by shortening the focal length.
Hi Jared, did you make sure both lenses were calibrated in your D5? I know from my own experience I’ve been frustrated countless times with both Nikon lenses and Sigma lenses missing focus and not being sharp...95% of the time it’s because they need calibration. Once I calibrated all my lenses they all perform amazingly and are sharp and accurate. It’s like I got all brand new lenses! The DoF at 1.4 is so tiny even the smallest amount of front focus or back focus makes it seem like it’s not as sharp! Hey maybe the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon but I would make sure they are both calibrated at their peak performance because I know you’d like to give your viewers the most accurate information as possible. Thanks for your time and I enjoy your content!
The reason for you missing focus on the eyes is pretty simple: you didn't do AF micro adjustment with the Nikon lens. It was constantly back-focused.. I would strongly suggest to get that done first, if you often shoot the lens at f/1.4 and a certain distance. Secondly, when I shoot portraits wide open, I always use AF-C single point, so that any movement by me or my subject doesn't interfere with the acquired focus.
Wow... thanks for this review. I've been having trouble with my Nikon 105 1.4E wide open as well.... trouble nailing focus, even stopped down to 2.5 or 2.8. I think I am going to go with the Sigma.
It's likely that what we're seeing with the Sigma lens is some focus-breathing, which most Nikon shooters know was a serious problem with the some of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lenses. The Sigma might have a wider field of view when focusing at close distances, but might even out with the Nikon at the infinity range (I understand that there is also usually some variation in focal-length reporting with lenses, too). It would be interesting to see how the images compare when you shoot full-body shots, for example.
Hey Jared, you should pick and review that $200 wonder lens, the Kamlan 50mm f1.1 Mark II. I am blown away by it's build quality, smoothest aperture and focus adjustments, and amazing image quality/bokeh.
I used to have difficulty nailing the focus on eyes in wide aperture headshots with my 5D4. So I switched to Sony with eye AF and it's all better now :)
XD Been shooting professionally full time for 10 years. I also calibrate lenses as a side business for other pros and know intimately about the deficiencies in Canon's autofocus system. I've cumulatively taken millions of photos using every generation of 5D camera. Canon currently cannot compete with Sony's autofocus.
F1.4 is very good to get full body shots, but as you get closer to subject it can be good to close the iris a little to get more depth of field. As your subject fills more and more of the frame the visible bokeh area shrinks. For a pure head shot I don't really see the point in going below F2.8 except for very special effects. Of course most of the shots with a beast like this will be at F1.4 because you can, but you must keep in mind that stopping down adds a lot of security to the shots, you should do at least one or two shots stopped down to secure things. The same for astronomy where you get much more pin point stars by working at F2 or 2.8. At least that's true with my 85mm.
All in all a comprehensive and thorough comparison of two very good lenses. I could really have done without the wind tunnel test and the sniff test. Are you serious? come on. get real.
Thanks for the vid, after seeing this I went to work the Nikkor 105 f/1.4e on the D850, I used the Live View focus shots and then made tweaks with Focus Adjustments on view finder shots and now quite satisfied with sharp in-focus eyes. Now I have sharp images with that dreamy bokeh that I enjoy from Nikon lenses. The Sigma is pretty sharp, it's so sharp the Bokeh balls almost look photoshopped in.
Thanks for your review. I have exactly the same issue with the 85 1.4 from Nikon when compared to the Sigma ART lens. The only thing is that the Nikon G lens had a better bokeh.
Here is what I ascertain from your side-by-side images: 1. The Nikon lens has a slightly longer focal length. 2. The Nikon lens opens to a wider aperture at f/1.4. 3. The Nikon lens has greater contrast. #1 above results in a slightly shorter depth of field, which is clear in your images. #2 above results in a slightly shorter depth of field, which is clear in your images. It also makes for brighter images. #3 above results in more dynamic range, and more 3D looking photos. Since the Sigma lens has a smaller aperture at f/1.4, it is by definition stopped down by comparison to the Nikon lens. If the point of using these lenses is to achieve a very shallow depth of field, then the Nikon wins hands down. If the point of using a 105mm lens is to achieve very sharp photos with minimal distortion and vignetting, then you should choose any 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. Bottom Line: Purely subjective reviews don’t change the laws of physics.
I don't own any primo glass, but if you can make the Sigma fit? I'd say the fact that it lets you get what you want outweighs the compromises you might need to make to get it in your bag or lug it around.
Wow. I’m very pleased you tested these together although I’m not interested in the Nikon, I was debating against the canon 85mm 1.2 (old is what’s put me off that one ) the reviews on this Sigma are all good so far..apart from a new one I read need to be prefocused to my canon , that sucks I want to just put it on a shoot..
Jared Polin do you calibrate your lenses? I assume so, but some people don't, I'm not judging either way. just curious as the N105 seems like it should be tack sharp, and I have seen other reviews where it appeared to be tack sharp. Your photos also look excellent but we are pixel peeping here in a comparison. Some lenses, even within the same line are at the edge of allowable tolerance and are either front or rear focus leaning, which makes it less likely that your AF will perfectly stop and catch focus right in the middle of the depth of field. For wide aperture telephotos this effect is the most prominent and noticeable. Databyter
I have two sigma lenses, neither are Art lenses, but I am very happy with both. They are both niche lenses so I use them in very specific situations, but when used for what they are designed they nail it!
Also color and microcontrast look better to me for Sigma, and sharpness is way better. What about comparing Sigma art 135 with Plena(no f mount Nikon autofocus lens available as I know)??? I would also like to know which one is better from the 3 Sigma art lenses-85, 105, 135??? I know this is an old video and you are now in a Safari trip, but these questions are actual in out days too, so do that when you are back pls.
GO native - if you want accurate and consistent tracking auto-focus. GO sigma - if you are shooting inanimate objects or still portraits. The difference is subtle, I feel like the Nikon has better saturation and contrast but the sigma is way sharper.
@@froknowsphoto Hopefully someone like you that is something of an industry insider (at least in comparison to the average photographer) but I would imagine that those companies would keep their technology and business practices under well kept secrecy.
No point in using UV with digital Jared, works with film but no point with digital sensors. Protection filters are used but we take filters off before a shoot!
I'm just stoked to hear that it's even comparable to the Nikon, much less seemingly better. I shot Nikon for a year 2 years ago and had picked up the 105 when it came out and it quickly became my favorite lens. It renders like no other 135 or 85 out there. Now I shoot Sony with all Sigma FE mount primes, so when this finally arrives for the Sony mount, my big question will be whether I get rid of the 85 or the 135 (or neither.)
Just received my 300mm f/2.8 VR1 yesterday and apparently on my D800 it requires -14mm focus correction. I used FoCal software to determine that. My point being is that at this stage of optical perfection game the differences we see between lenses may be as much due to need and lack of focus adjustment as they are with actual lens quality. Most of my lenses require some focus adjustment to attain peak sharpness.
I'm loving my Sigma on my Canon 5DIV - especially in the studio for products and portraits.....but when I'm hitting the road there have been times already where I leave it at home because of the size. I expected to use it a bit more for events but unless I really need that kind of quality it stays on the shelf. All this to say - this lens is giant - really consider how you like to set up your bag before you purchase - and better yet go handle it at a store.
Hi Fro! Was the Nikon properly calibrated for the close range shots? Maybe it’s missing the focus by a tiny hair and thats the reason. I would like to see the 135mm 1.8 from Sigma how it would stack up against those two. Cheers from Slovakia
1600g for a lens? Oh my goodness. I own Nikon 105 1.4, do have trouble nailing down the focus in some photos but overall it's just fantastic. Apart from sharpness there are a lot more to think about, weight, focus speed, size. For a photography lover who would back pack a 2kg lens for travel??? However for professional Sigma might be a better choice based on the review.
Have you done the brick test in A mode or with auto- ISO? Then the photos of the lens with more vignetting will appear brighter in the center. The matrix measuring will simply overcompensate the center for the darker corners. According to other test the Nikon has a stronger vignette. If it was brighter the photos at f8 should be brighter. Are they?
I picked Nikon over thr Sigma for its rendering, size, weight, contrast and resistance to flare. The only thing that Sigma has over the Nikon is a little bit sharper bit I found the Nikon at 1.4 is too sharp for most portraits i have done. I had to dial down and smooth it out for most of the work to look more pleasant. If sigma is even sharper, I will do even more work... Hmm
I saw your video the 14th of August 2018 and was impressed also by some others on the net and youtube next April I am going with my family on vacation to the States and shall get it trade in my 120-300 OS still happy with it but changing my thoughts and shooting etc and thinking about the 150-600 OS C version for B.I.F. and aviation .Many thanks for this honest review and BTW keep doing the sniff and wind tunnel tests . I am not yet for the LLLLL mount alliance stay by the old F mount alliance team .Z mount still no pro body or at least a BATT Pack with Fully function buttons !
Well finally this year 2021 we went to the US of A and I bought it for a great price at Adorama B&H didn't had it on stock for weeks and got it for a super price open box model at 21st of June and I do not regret getting it . For my next tele lens ok no more 120-300 OS was great and sharp but want more reach for birding and aviation and sports.
For portraits, making a case for sharpness? Can you make a video on the character of the lens such as portraits in backlight, in the twilight etc. the minor difference in sharpness that you are highlighting is not a correct representation.
Jared, you didnt do anything wrong. Lensrental MTF measurements proved that the Sigma is WAY superior in sharpness to the Nikon. Your results were accurate.
I wonder if that overly bright feature of the Nikon exists through out their product line? I have the D500 and I notice that no matter what Nikon lens I throw on it, the highlights are overblown. When I try to compensate, I tend to lose fill-light. It could also be that I just haven't found the right combination of settings, as I am still learning the camera, but that point your brought up hit close to home.
Maybe very stupid question from my side but are the focus calibrations for both lenses on your Nikon D5 with the same outcome results? , with a F @ 1,4 a mm makes a huge difference.
which do you prefer 105 or 135? I like to shoot full body with very nice blur background... l like my 70-200 2.8 and shoot at 200mm a lot.... thinking of the 135 1.8 but the 105 is 1.4...so i am not sure which to get... also what external hard drive do you use? looking for 8 tb or 10tb thanks
Not really surprised. Sigma has been doing a great job with the A line of lenses. It does make you question why would you spend the extra $$$ for the Nikon though.
On the second comparison at 9:24 it confirmed what I thought might be what caused the perception of one being wider than the other. You are shooting a pretty tight portrait and while the camera was on a tripod for the first comparison, the subject isn't on a tripod and he WILL definitely be rocking back and forth ever so slightly between shots. It's gonna be hard to get an accurate comparison without shooting a still subject with the camera on a tripod. For the second shot, of course, you are shooting handheld which doubles the chances of slight movement between shots, giving the perception of different focal lengths. At 9:24 the Nikon shot actually looks a bit wider to me as the subject's face looks a tad bit smaller than the Sigma shot. Also, look at the hairline. The Sigma seems to go in closer to cut off the hairline, giving the perception of more reach (opposite to the earlier perception), however that may just be the camera positioned a bit lower for that shot than the Nikon shot as I can see slightly more beard in the Sigma shot. Just doing a bit more microscopic analysis of that particular aspect of the comparison. Great review and comparison. Sigma looks like a better bang here (except when you are ready for filters).
Sigma is sharp from edge to edge but the bokeh from the wide aperture is almost gone since it is corrected too much with aspherical elements. There is two types of bokeh, one from compression and the other from wide aperture. Nikon has both so as sony. Out of focus area of sigma lens is very sharp also and contrasted. There is no natural melting bokeh. That is trade off for lens sharpness in this case. it’s sharpness like aperture 2.8 so as background. There is no dream lens that handle both side, sharpness and natural bokeh. If you are studio pro, you are good with sigma. if you do a lot of nature background portrait, you should consider Nikon.
