Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG ART lens review with samples (Full-frame & APS-C) 

The only thing that I would criticize is that he doesn´t share RAW Files.

Agreed

I agree, he goes further in depth than anyone else, imo.

100%

Definatly agreed

Specifically, which 2x Lenses, maybe useful for others to know. 👍🏻

Yeah, Chris' reviews are great. Check out Dustin Abbott as well though, he also usually shows some critical comparisons, but he doesn't do it in as systematic of a way, so it's harder to compare across all his lens reviews.

Horses for courses :-)

Manny Ortiz has one

105mm bokeh cannot be touched. I sold 85mm and 135mm after getting the 105mm. I just need a sigma 200mm f2 now

He said the 135 was slightly sharper.

@@rockapejv yes, he did say 135 is a bit sharper but splitting hair emphasized here.

Interesting, I'll look into that :-)

www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses/ This article is quite interesting to read. It addresses the impact of the glass thickness over the sensor. Not the glass of the lens but a small piece a few mm thick directly over the sensor. The lens designers take this into consideration and when you adapt a lens designed for one sensor (e.g. canon), it sometimes performs worse on a different sensor stack (e.g. sony).

Such a nice lens, the 18-35

Such a nice lens, the 18-35

Do you use this lens on Crop sensor??

I'm going to see if I can borrow one soon

Well the 104mm will give you slightly blurrier backgrounds, just slightly

Thank you Chris... Godbless you always brother🙏🏼🙏🏼👍🏻👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I have the 50 1.4, but not sure which one to hit. 85 1.2 Nikon Z or this. Massive price difference...

I do hope to test that sometime soon :-)

I wish I could afford one of these babies ;-)

hahaha. that wicked girl will come after you

Humongous what????

HOW DARE YOU YOU CISGENDER MISOGYNISTIC NEANDERTHAL PATRIARCHAL OBJECTIFYING etc etc ;-)

@@christopherfrost wow i love you even more LMAO

Rakesh Lokegaonkar he's already made a video on this topic

Oops! Well-spotted - I got my camera systems confused. The APS-C test was on my EOS M3 - NOT the a5100.

@@christopherfrost that's alright both r aps-c... BTW great review and I've been following u since years... Thank u so much

Great review, as always. I wonder if you'd be prepared to answer a question for me, as you DO own a Sony A5100? How well does it auto focus when combined with an adapted Canon lens?

Yes, I own an a5100 - I use it for testing Sony (and other mirrorless) lenses. As for AF, it depends on the adaptor and the lens, I'm afraid. I've had the most luck with my Sigma MC-11 adaptor, and some lenses work better than others

@@christopherfrost Many thanks.

sadly, it isn't compatible with any tele converters.

That depends on if you're shooting in the shade and what the max shutter speed of your camera is. On 6D: probably. On a 5D: maybe not. Since this is an EF lens, I'd suggesting getting the RF adapter with the built in ND filter (and/or cpl) so that the filter is between the lens and camera body and then you never need to worry about it again.

I'm covering up ID stickers from the lens hire company, as I'm not sponsored by them.

I see, thanks. I really appreciate your videos. Your "highly recommended" has determined my purchase decision several times. When will you test the SONY E 4/10-18 OSS (SEL1018) lens? I am curious whether you, a wide-angle enthusiast, will like it and you will recommend it. Best regards A.

I bought one copy for testing but its optics were misaligned, so I sent it back. In a few months I will try again

The 105mm IMO although its very close - it's worth noting that they'll give you different kinds of 'blurry backgrounds' due to the different perspective

Christopher Frost Photography thank you very much. Keep up the good work

The 85mm 1.2 is very soft wide open and bokeh is not as smooth at least compared to the much better Sony 85mm 1.4 GM. So I would vote for the 105mm 1.4

shaolin95 thank you for the information sir... Godbless you😊

Dunno about video AF, but with my R6 the lens is working like a charm (of course via the proper adapter), AF is snappy and precise both in Single and Servo AF

It'll be a start but you'll probably get on better with the 135mm

I don't even know where to start with all that

eBay, Amazon etc.

For ND I suggest the firecrest filter. For polarizer I live the breakthrough photography x4

I already do a flaring test in front of an extremely bright LED light, in the darkness. That's a far better standardized way of testing

@@christopherfrost Tnx for the reply Chris; if you do such a test why do you not show us or report about it? Several lenses (e.g. Sigma 120-300, 135, 85, Canon 135) you reviewed have very little to non-commentary to that effect. And since I have your ear is there a lens you found that is better/best for shooting against bright lights? Maybe an idea for a future vide; e.g. instead or in addition to your usual sharpest/best IQ lenses video, you could do one for better flair handing lenses and/or fastest auto-focusing lenses. I think we are entering an era where most lenses are relatively sharp so other attributes (like flair handling, AF speed) are becoming as, if not more, important. Tnx in advance for your your answer and superb works.

@@dimitristsagdis7340 I do 'report about it': 06:26. I checked the other videos you mentioned, and they all talk about the lens's performance against bright light too, except the Sigma 120-300.

@@christopherfrost tnx Chris since you mentioned the 105 I'll take it as an example: the section about direct light occupies 10 seconds. Sharpness is almost 3.5 minutes and distortion close to a minute. Passing the lens in front of a strong artificial light in the night with brief commentary (how many words can you fit in 10 sec) gives less than an inkling about how this lens performs in direct sunlight or with backlit subjects. In some of your other reviews there is a bit more (e.g. some backlight photo) and in others like the 120-300 you also mention there is none as you agreed. So my point was to also include the performance of a lens in direct sunlight because that is an equally important part; give it at least as much space as distortion and make that as consistent and thorough as you do with your other aspects of IQ testing. In my mind how a lens handles direct light is a much more important characteristic than distortion (unless one is talking about architectural lenses). As one can fix distortion relatively easy in post and or while shooting; but flaring, ghosting, veiling, rainbow rays... are much harder to fix in post and/or control while shooting. Keep up the good work.

@@dimitristsagdis7340 Thank you for your feedback. To be honest, you're the only person to ever ask that I spend more time talking about work against bright lights - I think the short section about it in my reviews is enough. All the best

The 85mm is marred by color fringing albeit it is correctible by post..

If you get the Nikon version, yes

@@christopherfrost Thank you so much! Yes I got Nikon D500 body. Saving money for this lens🤩

@@christopherfrost Thank you so much for answering my questions 🙏

Don't know I'm afraid, haven't tested

?

@@christopherfrost I can't be the only one here who watches both channels!

Definitely the Sigma

@@christopherfrost thankyou

At least two of those are coming at some stage

They're both absolutely fantastic

It's my own secret recipe I'm afraid :-)

I chose the 17-50 f2.8 OS. It is much cheaper and has a wider zoom range. 35mm is just not enough as an allround lens for me.

It depends on your shooting style. I would go back to your photos to see which focal range you have been using the most. As an "all round lens" then it is the Sigma f2.8 zoom. Also, the 18-35mm f1.8 is huge. It gets a bit front heavy if you use a smaller camera.

Almost as good