Download the sample files at www.mattgranger.com/sigma105 The Sigma is $1,600 and you can see it at B&H Photo here: bhpho.to/2IPLFAx & Amazon: geni.us/BokehMaster The Nikkor Lens: geni.us/Nikkor10514 / bhpho.to/2lRSwk3
I don't think the Sigma is missing white balance. But it's more of the Sigma renders images cooler and the Nikkor renders warmer. I even noticed the warmer tones of the Nikon 105mm when i compared it to my Nikon 85mm f1.8. Great job though. More videos like this Matt!
Photo-Me-Ike off topic. Is nikkor 35mm f/1.8g dx a dx lens if put on dx body like nikon d5600 become 52.5mm because of 1.5 crop factor or will it stay at 35mm because its a dx lens?
She's a good model, the outdoor stuff was cute. Looks give off a Whitney Houston vibe. For the lenses that extra pound is lot. I'm still happy with the 105 DC.
Veteran fan here Matt. Been following your channel since I first figured out the exposure triangle 😂 Still love looking back through the archive! You do fantastic reviews.
Hi Matt. The studio pictures are the same, quality wise. The real difference is on one side the prize, and on the other the weight. It was nice watching your video, thanks! Nick, Moraira, Spain
Between the two, I would choose the sigma. The lower cost along with the higher light transmission are what would seal the deal for me. I prefer hand holding and natural light so any extra natural brightness is very welcome. I normally use my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 handheld for portraits so the weight of this would not bother me.
I own a lot of Tamron and Sigma lenses and I love them all. In this case though I would instantly spend 600$ more and go for the nikon just because of the weight difference.
I really can't see a winner here. I'd like to see more tests showing bokeh at various distances and how highlights are handled. I'd also like to see more about light fall off and corner sharpness. This was a quick and dirty test. Both lenses are obviously excellent. Sigma wins for value by delivering exotic lens IQ at a lower price. Nikon wins for building a great lens smaller and lighter. But I'd like to see a more detailed test. This seemed very rushed.
Mine arrived yesterday, 105mm filter fits the 150-600mm sport... so I bought the sigma 105mm cpl filter as well and still have $300 extra compared the the nikkor, when the nikkor was first announced I was contemplating on using an adapter but glad I waited out for the sigma. For me, it's a no brainer to go with the sigma. Weight is not an issue for me since I'm used to shooting with the 1dx and 200L 2.0.
10:45, you didn't mention the bokeh balls, which is the main reason for that font element. No cats eyes! I would have liked to have seen an f1.4 rather than f4 IQ comparison in the video, as you are paying for the wide open performance, although I am sure your downloads have some. Thanks for the video!
@@DamiensTreasure Just look at it. While one is circular, it's not smooth. Half the circle is blurry. I thought I also preferred circular bokeh balls, but to be honest, I'm not sure I'm all that bothered by the rendition of the other. I keep teetering from one to the other. The background blur of the Sigma seems more pleasing though. Ahhh, I can't decide! Maybe I'll buy both and try them myself. At this price, I should.
@@edwardphilipmarianafzger9800 It's not a little different is quite different. And not only that he has issues with the. 105 Nikkor. I don't know what it is: 1. Matt got a so so copy of the sigma, 2. Jared got a supreme one, Jaren got a so so copy of the Nikkor, Matt got a supreme one.
@@jaimeduncan6167 That's pretty much my observation too. Even with nikon glass you can get a so so copy. I tested the nikon 105 1.4 and sigma 105 1.4 in camera store myself for a while and I liked the bokeh more on the sigma. and the sigma just looked a little sharper. Plus I wasn't to crazy to shell out extra $600 anyway and I really happen to love some of the art lenses sigma has been releasing lately. They've been getting better and better. Also Dustin Abbot really loved the sigma 105 1.4 so much that he wanted to get one for himself (not sure if he did). All shots I've taken with the sigma 105 1.4 have been just incredible in every way. Also the sigma mount conversion is one HUGE reason to go with sigma in case you want to go sony and have your sigma lenses be converted to be native sony (not that I have any interest in mirrorless anyway). You guys should check out the latest sigma 40 1.4 art. It's SUCH an awesome lens. B&H had it on sale for $995 and I snagged one. First copy i got had internal scratches on the optics so I immediately exchanged it and got a perfect copy. No usb dock adjustments necessary perfect focus and super fast. Totally love these damn sigma arts lately. They really are improving drastically.
Night photography is great for showing what the lens' bokeh looks like. More isolated light sources to point at. Lenses render point light sources different. Read up a bit on the Noct 58 1.2
No, most don't know this. Sadly. Nearly all my shots are during the day. Nice round balls of light at night are great, but my goodness. I belong to a lens group on Facebook and the only pictures some people care about taking is literally out of focus lights that are their intended subject. Then there's the Helios crowd that constantly post the same old swirled background shots, over and over again. Flower in the middle. Tornado in the background. ;) Love your reviews and love your tutorials!
As you say Matt it seems very close (and close enough that most of us would be very happy with either.) Though these have close and very satisfactory performance I preferred the apparently warmer tones of the Nikkor. When you revealed which were which and noted greater detail in the Nikkor I could not reliably see the difference but tone is enough.
It's great but nearly all the other Art lenses have been disappointing on some level.... The 50 art is too clinical; the 85 art is too heavy; the 24-105 art has awful distortion and vignetting; the 24 art has no magic about it, etc.
Great review Matt! These are the types of reviews I really enjoy. However I'd really like to see a "bokeh off" challenge in different situations comparing the bokeh shapes and patterns with lights and other objects since Sigma calls it the Bokeh Master.
I bought the Sigma and only just getting a few images. So far I like what I'm seeing. Somewhere on the web I read that the head designer of the Sigma is into astro photography and optimized the lens for that - not my strong point but I intend to give it a whirl at some point. When mounted on a GEM (german equatorial mount) you don't need stabilization - and you don't give a damn about the weight; and getting pin sharp stars right to the edge is a much tougher job for a lens than landscapes. In any event, I was quite keen on seeing what your thoughts on the lens were.
I have to admit to being bias owning the Nikkor 105mm but generally the Nikkor 105mm looks better, though with the photos with Tina, the 2 head shots I presume were taken with each lens and 1 had a noticeable cats eye bokah. Now I know the Nikkor does suffer from cats eyes at f/1.4, so I am presuming that that image was taken with the Nikkor? (Please tell me if I am wrong). Personally I would probably go with the Nikkor every time and the weight saving verses the money saving is worth it (especially as I suffer from photographers elbow). Also by the time you add the 105mm polarizer and ND filter, I doubt their will be a considerable difference in price.
I did some research, because it is very important difference for me, and I've found this image: c1.staticflickr.com/9/8894/28502630262_0f1a0f18a2_o.jpg so I would say it is impossible to get circular bokeh on Tina shot with Nikon lens.
It is an issue but I would just stop it down a little, which will improve the circular bokah. The vast majority of time though I am not going to be shooting, at night so it doesn't bother me as much as it does others.
You're right about the bokeh. You need the larger front element to round out the bokeh at the edges. It's also indicative of vignetting, if the edges of the frame can't see the entire circle of the front aperture, they'll be getting less light, causing vignetting. This can also cause the bokeh "swirl" effect that some love and some hate. Nikon clearly made their lens as compact as possible, while Sigma decided to not make that compromise.
I can tell that my Nikon primes benefit from more light at the same f stop than my other lenses (Nikon zooms, tamron and sigma). I haven’t looked at t stop numbers but I’m sure it’s close to a full stop difference.
Matt, Thanks so much for this review...question for you. How would you compare this to toe Sigma Art 135? I ask because I own an 85mm and thinking of getting either the Art 105 or art 135? Thanks!
Head over to DPreview and there are a few folks with both lenses. Their impressions: The Nikon is far easier to handle. The Sigma is slightly sharper wide open and has better bokeh in highlights in the BG. The Sigma feels much better built. The Nikon feels like a 500 dollar lens. Not sure which way to go yet, but I think the Sigma 135 ART 1.8 is a better portrait lens than both.
can u help me . im confuse between canon 80d and nikon d5600 .. what should i buy ?? or what will you prefer ?? for photo (70%) and little bit of video (30%) .
5:23 The reason for the chimneys in the background seeming to disappear in the sky might be due to the Nikkor to be a little bit brighter than the Sigma, according to Froknowsphoto at least.
Matt, can you write here which picture of Tina is shot with which lens? I'm interested like Michael. The bokeh shape is the main difference I can see - IQ is on other shots really close to each other.
Seems like your detail comparison may have been slight focus issue, (which Sigma has a problem with at times). I'd like to shoot with it but I don't think it will be a purchase for me.
Wow, I was able to download the RAW files and I must say, the Sigma 105 is a beast of a lens! Great hands on review, it will take me forever to own one but I shall, images are great.
I plan to test this lens with a black pro mist diffusion ... I'm wondering if the 105mm diameter is going to work with a front element diffusion - which I believe is essential for my clients viewing pleasure. Thoughts? I also like that my clients in my studio can see themselves in a big wide lens like this. Comforting ... I want to test the Nikkor and the Sigma side by side ... I really like the IDEA of the Sigma ... I own the 50mm ART which is terrific. So any thoughts from pros would be great. I'd use this with my monopod a lot so not worried about image stablization.
Hi Matt, always enjoy your reviews, I've just downloaded the sample images and opened them up in C1Pro and have noticed in the exif info that the studio shots (_MGP0950 and _MGP0961) are both shot on the Nikkor lens, have you accidentally labelled the info incorrectly, or were they both indeed on the Nikkor lens. Also, when shooting comparisons it maybe a good idea to set the WB manually to say a basic daylight setting, that way we can see the colour differences more in the videos, keep up the good work!
Great to see Tina again, however briefly. Alexis is gorgeous. Love the flip-flop technique. However, as a Canon/Sony shooter, worthless video. Kidding! All the Sigma information totally transferable to other systems. Well done comparison.
After watching numerous reviews, I still can't decide. Just bought both of them to decide for myself. The Sigma appears to have better bokeh. The backgrounds are less distracting and the bokeh balls are rounder. But I need to see how many keepers I can get out of each lens. Using the lens myself on my own camera is the only way to figure that out.
The Nikon is the way to go as a long term investment. There's a reason the art lenses come with software to correct focusing errors something easily corrected in camera on the nikon with nikon glass. Which lens did you decide on?
I think in the minute 10 you made a mistake selecting the images for comparison in a different order and the Sigma was the sharper. Please check it. Thank you for sharing I love your reviews !
I looked at your rating. The weight aspect seems very important. Most of the videos were made with other cameras. But the lack of a stabilizer plays a big role for me. With the Sigma the photos shake without a tripod. Thanks for your detailed explanations.
Dear Matt, Thank you for putting in so much effort; but if possible for you, kindly do another review and consider following: For both lenses: - Low Light Focusing - Focusing Speed (Day Light, Indoor & Night Street Light) - Focusing accuracy of Sigma vs Nikon (Center Point vs Other Points) Does Sigma 105 F 1.4 offers focusing speed of same league as of 70-200 ? Nikon 85mm F 1.4 Focusing is slower in comparison of Sigma 85 F 1.4 (But not in league of 70-200 or 200 F2) Kind Regards, Rizwan
I like the bokeh ball of the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 better than the Nikon cat eyes. To me, something as evident as that is much more important than sharpness zoomed in 100% on a 45mp camera.
My Nikon 105mm 1.4 is GINORMOUS. I couldn't imagine having to carry the Sigma version. I'd like to have seen the new Nikon 70-200 fl in this shootout. That lens is AMAZING! Nikon for the win! 📸
its not like the nikkor is a feather either, ans the build quality is not indicative of $2200. i agree with the other person that there was not enough of a bokeh test on both lenses, since i dont think the sharpness is the number one reason one would purchase this lens
RIght, if the Nikkor sold for $1299 it might be worth it since it is a mostly plastic lens body with a LOT of elements that "challenge" the transmission and rendition of light finally getting to the sensor...
The color / white balance looks a lot different eg 3:343:37 and I much prefer the Nikkor overall, the Sigma is too Magenta for my taste, might be possible to completely fix with white balance but it’s always nice if they come out of the Camera closer to your preferences.
I was holding off on the nikon 105 for this sigma, i think i will go Nikon, the weight, and size of a 70-200 with not much difference in the images, i dont want that on a long day tbh. The price difference in the UK between the two is £200, but thanks for the testing, yours on top of the others i seen, I can now order 105 nikon now, cheers Matt.
I've been a subscriber for awhile now. I like most of what you do but I don't like the shots you get with this model. I like what you could get with her in between scenes, she becomes animated, comes alive (her facial expressions become a lot more flattering) but when you gear up to compose the shot and fire, the look all changes.
If you look at the model's right eye (her right) the Sigma is clearly sharper. However, is that what you want in a portrait lens? Instead of excruciating detail, don't we want the skin rendered as being smoother without every wrinkle and makeup defect revealed?
Wow, hi Tina! Be great if you did a photo shoot of Tina and Steph together! I love that Sigma despite the size! Kinda wish it has Image Stabilization if I were a Nikon or Canon shooter but being a Sony shooter, I’m pretty much forced into this Sigma lens category esp now that they’re releasing their Sony line of lenses (unless I get a Canon with my MC-11). But, me already having a 70-200 Sigma 2.8 (great for portraits thanks to you) as well as a Sony 85 mm 1.8, i don’t think need a lens like this! Your thoughts.??
The sigma showed nicer softer. more tasteful transitions between light and dark in the indoor portrait, but the Nikkor was obviously much sharper in the extreme close up and conveyed a lot more texture detail of the skin than the sigma (but the sigma was probably good enough). Pisses me off beceause Nikkor isn't a lens option for me.
It might be atmosphere but so far the Sigma at F1.4 is the sharpest lens ever i've seen for infinities at Cameralabs.com. The nikon doesn't even come close. If the sigma can 'compete' at portraits, but slam the nikon in landscape images, then the Sigma is worth it. I would love to have some ppl post their sharpest infinity shots they have of the nikon 105mm, so far i haven't seen any that compete with 70-200mm F4.
These lenses are really made for professional photographers and if I would be a pro I would definitely pick up the Nikon. In my opinion, the Nikon looks waaaay better, it's more practical and the 105mm filter thread looks a little bit awkward and could make the model feel uncomfortable. For "only" 600$ more the Nikon is the obvious choice for pros, when they are shooting Nikon, for Sony or Canon users it could be a great choice :)
Daniel Muehlbachler well said. The Sigma is not a practical lens. Probably can live in a studio. I don't even think it will easily fit in most gear bags.
Zero bokeh comparison. It’s called the bokeh master and you didn’t even mention the bokeh minus the introduction. Come on man...more to lenses than sharpness comparison. I like your content, but this was lazy.
Mate., getting someone to do a half decent test with this lens has been a pain. This one is TERRIBLE as well with no real comparison showing similar setups and horrible lighting. Then there is Miguel Quiles who did even worst by shooting IN STUDIO and stopped down..what a joke! Why Sigma does not provide REAL intelligent reviewers with a copy?
^^^Truth!^^^ Do we really need someone to tell us what we can see with our own eyes? Some people just want to be led around by the nose, I guess. LOL! Best post award goes to you.
The photo on the right was sharper and had better focus. If you look at the single strand of hair over her right eye in both photos the hair is more in focus with the Sigma.
I get that you're a portrait photographer but it's not very helpful only concerning sharpness in the centre of the lens. Most lenses are quite sharp in the centre. What I care about is edge to edge performance, and that is where I think the Sigma would have some advantage. It already has an advantage in light transmission and I disagreed with your assessment that the Nikon was sharper.
It's enormous and heavy. It weights about as much as my 70-200|2.8; I think that the images it renders are superior to the Nikon, better bokeh (but I'd need to see many more images to say that for sure) it does seem that Bokeh transition is better but, is that just me? I'm not a pro, just an amateur that likes photography. I'd love either for family portraits and an all purpose medium telephoto for landscapes. I just don't know how the size and weight would work as an all purpose, travel lens. Perhaps a lightly used Nikon would be in the same price bracket and work well for me. Having said all that, if the AF accuracy in the real world is the same as the Nikon, its the Sigma I'd want. Between that and a wish list of a Nikkor 20, Tamron 24-70, Sig Art 35, 50 and a purchase planned for this year, its a good problem to have! Don't know how I'll chose between the Nikon and Sigma 105 if it comes down to it.
You need to be the ultimate nit picker to make a choice. I’ll keep my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro with VR. VR makes the difference for me. It’s extremely sharp, great color and costs $850. Beautiful Macro and Portrait lens.
Another reason for a large front element is to let glass of lesser quality (keeping cost down), transmit the same amount of light throug, as a lens with better glass. We see this all the time in the world of rifle scopes.
I noticed something more important, at least to me. The first sample photos look not natural, but more like after exaggerated processing, I mean the model's face. Nikon for me in the transitions is more subtle and the photos are closer to nature.
So bigger and more glass does not always translate to more expensive. Companies dictate the price not necessarily based on cost to create but rather where their lens sits in the lineup. Nikon is too expensive with some of their lenses.
What about VC? Why did they leave it out. If price is not a problem. I would go with the Nikon. After a while the weight is a big factor. Think of using the Sigma for over 2-3 hours. I see very little difference in sharpness and unless you are looking into the pixels . No difference.
i thought the sigma colour looked a bit better in the comparison. didnt notice a detail difference on a 4k tv but my eyes arent 20/20 either. To me it seems like a $ to kg question seeing they both smashed the quality.
Download the sample files at www.mattgranger.com/sigma105
The Sigma is $1,600 and you can see it at B&H Photo here: bhpho.to/2IPLFAx & Amazon: geni.us/BokehMaster
The Nikkor Lens: geni.us/Nikkor10514 / bhpho.to/2lRSwk3
Matt Granger maybe some more contast on the nikkon and definition on the dark sides
Matt Granger can we use the lens with Nikon D4 and Nikon d3x
I don't think the Sigma is missing white balance. But it's more of the Sigma renders images cooler and the Nikkor renders warmer. I even noticed the warmer tones of the Nikon 105mm when i compared it to my Nikon 85mm f1.8. Great job though. More videos like this Matt!
The Nikon was setting a cooler temp for the sigma in auto wb
White balance is easily fixed in lightroom to what you desire providing you shoot raw
if a lens is cooler that is actually a good thing since the blue channel is usually the first one to crap out (think tungsten...)
samyang also stands out, atleast they did...
Photo-Me-Ike off topic. Is nikkor 35mm f/1.8g dx a dx lens if put on dx body like nikon d5600 become 52.5mm because of 1.5 crop factor or will it stay at 35mm because its a dx lens?
She's a good model, the outdoor stuff was cute. Looks give off a Whitney Houston vibe.
For the lenses that extra pound is lot. I'm still happy with the 105 DC.
I prefer the vintage Nikkor 105 F2 DC over both and the Sigma Art 85 F1.4 is mind blowing 😊
Shhhh don't let people find out about it. I have to replace me DC 135 because of lens fungus (I live in southeast Asia)
That SIGMA is just...BIG...but being $600 less does make it a viable option. That being said, the NIKKOR would be my first choice.
why?
So pay more for less IQ? Not wise
Veteran fan here Matt. Been following your channel since I first figured out the exposure triangle 😂 Still love looking back through the archive! You do fantastic reviews.
This vs Sigma 135 f1.8.The world is waiting! lol. Thanks Matt :)
Hi Matt. The studio pictures are the same, quality wise. The real difference is on one side the prize, and on the other the weight. It was nice watching your video, thanks! Nick, Moraira, Spain
Between the two, I would choose the sigma. The lower cost along with the higher light transmission are what would seal the deal for me. I prefer hand holding and natural light so any extra natural brightness is very welcome. I normally use my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 handheld for portraits so the weight of this would not bother me.
I own a lot of Tamron and Sigma lenses and I love them all. In this case though I would instantly spend 600$ more and go for the nikon just because of the weight difference.
I really can't see a winner here. I'd like to see more tests showing bokeh at various distances and how highlights are handled. I'd also like to see more about light fall off and corner sharpness. This was a quick and dirty test. Both lenses are obviously excellent. Sigma wins for value by delivering exotic lens IQ at a lower price. Nikon wins for building a great lens smaller and lighter. But I'd like to see a more detailed test. This seemed very rushed.
Mine arrived yesterday, 105mm filter fits the 150-600mm sport... so I bought the sigma 105mm cpl filter as well and still have $300 extra compared the the nikkor, when the nikkor was first announced I was contemplating on using an adapter but glad I waited out for the sigma. For me, it's a no brainer to go with the sigma. Weight is not an issue for me since I'm used to shooting with the 1dx and 200L 2.0.
i will just keep using my Nikon 105 1.8 ais..I would like to compare that to this sigma. Far less glass in my Nikon and it was under $400.00
I've got the Sigma on my R5, love it!
Her hair helps balancing the diffusor - brilliant 😆 Amazing video!
10:45, you didn't mention the bokeh balls, which is the main reason for that font element. No cats eyes! I would have liked to have seen an f1.4 rather than f4 IQ comparison in the video, as you are paying for the wide open performance, although I am sure your downloads have some. Thanks for the video!
There is an other review out from Jared Polin he thinks it a little different than Matt but both are great .
Which one is which?
Is the cat eye one the Sigma, or Nikon?
I prefer the perfect circle bokeh.
@@DamiensTreasure Just look at it. While one is circular, it's not smooth. Half the circle is blurry. I thought I also preferred circular bokeh balls, but to be honest, I'm not sure I'm all that bothered by the rendition of the other. I keep teetering from one to the other. The background blur of the Sigma seems more pleasing though. Ahhh, I can't decide! Maybe I'll buy both and try them myself. At this price, I should.
@@edwardphilipmarianafzger9800 It's not a little different is quite different. And not only that he has issues with the. 105 Nikkor. I don't know what it is: 1. Matt got a so so copy of the sigma, 2. Jared got a supreme one, Jaren got a so so copy of the Nikkor, Matt got a supreme one.
@@jaimeduncan6167 That's pretty much my observation too. Even with nikon glass you can get a so so copy. I tested the nikon 105 1.4 and sigma 105 1.4 in camera store myself for a while and I liked the bokeh more on the sigma. and the sigma just looked a little sharper. Plus I wasn't to crazy to shell out extra $600 anyway and I really happen to love some of the art lenses sigma has been releasing lately. They've been getting better and better. Also Dustin Abbot really loved the sigma 105 1.4 so much that he wanted to get one for himself (not sure if he did). All shots I've taken with the sigma 105 1.4 have been just incredible in every way. Also the sigma mount conversion is one HUGE reason to go with sigma in case you want to go sony and have your sigma lenses be converted to be native sony (not that I have any interest in mirrorless anyway). You guys should check out the latest sigma 40 1.4 art. It's SUCH an awesome lens. B&H had it on sale for $995 and I snagged one. First copy i got had internal scratches on the optics so I immediately exchanged it and got a perfect copy. No usb dock adjustments necessary perfect focus and super fast. Totally love these damn sigma arts lately. They really are improving drastically.
The right side looks better in contrast quality.
Great review..that model has natural beauty...you always get the beautiful models...
For a bokeh master lens a nighttime bokeh test should be mandatory...
You know what bokeh is right? The out of focus areas. So ... check every outdoor shot included.
Dayum! Clap back Mr. Granger..... Indeed i will check.
Night photography is great for showing what the lens' bokeh looks like. More isolated light sources to point at. Lenses render point light sources different.
Read up a bit on the Noct 58 1.2
No, most don't know this. Sadly. Nearly all my shots are during the day. Nice round balls of light at night are great, but my goodness. I belong to a lens group on Facebook and the only pictures some people care about taking is literally out of focus lights that are their intended subject. Then there's the Helios crowd that constantly post the same old swirled background shots, over and over again. Flower in the middle. Tornado in the background. ;) Love your reviews and love your tutorials!
As you say Matt it seems very close (and close enough that most of us would be very happy with either.) Though these have close and very satisfactory performance I preferred the apparently warmer tones of the Nikkor. When you revealed which were which and noted greater detail in the Nikkor I could not reliably see the difference but tone is enough.
Nikon is a clear winner when Sigma's weight is included in the calculation!
You always have the most beautiful models. They can make any lens look good. I would be happy with either one.
I have the 35mm art and it's just phenomenal
It's great but nearly all the other Art lenses have been disappointing on some level.... The 50 art is too clinical; the 85 art is too heavy; the 24-105 art has awful distortion and vignetting; the 24 art has no magic about it, etc.
the 135 has messy bokeh from what onliners said, this one it seems to be the horrible weight.
Great review Matt! These are the types of reviews I really enjoy. However I'd really like to see a "bokeh off" challenge in different situations comparing the bokeh shapes and patterns with lights and other objects since Sigma calls it the Bokeh Master.
I bought the Sigma and only just getting a few images. So far I like what I'm seeing. Somewhere on the web I read that the head designer of the Sigma is into astro photography and optimized the lens for that - not my strong point but I intend to give it a whirl at some point. When mounted on a GEM (german equatorial mount) you don't need stabilization - and you don't give a damn about the weight; and getting pin sharp stars right to the edge is a much tougher job for a lens than landscapes. In any event, I was quite keen on seeing what your thoughts on the lens were.
I never thought about using it for Astro photography, I need to give that a try!
Link to the model?
I have to admit to being bias owning the Nikkor 105mm but generally the Nikkor 105mm looks better, though with the photos with Tina, the 2 head shots I presume were taken with each lens and 1 had a noticeable cats eye bokah. Now I know the Nikkor does suffer from cats eyes at f/1.4, so I am presuming that that image was taken with the Nikkor? (Please tell me if I am wrong).
Personally I would probably go with the Nikkor every time and the weight saving verses the money saving is worth it (especially as I suffer from photographers elbow). Also by the time you add the 105mm polarizer and ND filter, I doubt their will be a considerable difference in price.
I did some research, because it is very important difference for me, and I've found this image: c1.staticflickr.com/9/8894/28502630262_0f1a0f18a2_o.jpg so I would say it is impossible to get circular bokeh on Tina shot with Nikon lens.
It is an issue but I would just stop it down a little, which will improve the circular bokah. The vast majority of time though I am not going to be shooting, at night so it doesn't bother me as much as it does others.
You're right about the bokeh. You need the larger front element to round out the bokeh at the edges. It's also indicative of vignetting, if the edges of the frame can't see the entire circle of the front aperture, they'll be getting less light, causing vignetting. This can also cause the bokeh "swirl" effect that some love and some hate. Nikon clearly made their lens as compact as possible, while Sigma decided to not make that compromise.
I can tell that my Nikon primes benefit from more light at the same f stop than my other lenses (Nikon zooms, tamron and sigma). I haven’t looked at t stop numbers but I’m sure it’s close to a full stop difference.
Matt, Thanks so much for this review...question for you. How would you compare this to toe Sigma Art 135? I ask because I own an 85mm and thinking of getting either the Art 105 or art 135? Thanks!
love your reviews Matt always consistent and really informative
hey Matt Did you feel that either of the lenses are better a tracking focus.
Matt, how accurate is autofocus and how fast is it? Cheers!
I’m working on building my photography but currently have a cropped sensor D7200. Would this lens do well on that body?
Head over to DPreview and there are a few folks with both lenses. Their impressions: The Nikon is far easier to handle. The Sigma is slightly sharper wide open and has better bokeh in highlights in the BG. The Sigma feels much better built. The Nikon feels like a 500 dollar lens. Not sure which way to go yet, but I think the Sigma 135 ART 1.8 is a better portrait lens than both.
Of the two Tina portraits I much prefer the colour rendering of _MGP0693 to _MGP0684.
But which lens were they taken on?
can u help me . im confuse between canon 80d and nikon d5600 .. what should i buy ?? or what will you prefer ?? for photo (70%) and little bit of video (30%) .
5:23
The reason for the chimneys in the background seeming to disappear in the sky might be due to the Nikkor to be a little bit brighter than the Sigma, according to Froknowsphoto at least.
Matt, can you write here which picture of Tina is shot with which lens? I'm interested like Michael. The bokeh shape is the main difference I can see - IQ is on other shots really close to each other.
Do You think this lens Will work good with New Z mount? I bought the Z7 and I dont have much options
Thank you for Test and Raw Images !
Mario
Seems like your detail comparison may have been slight focus issue, (which Sigma has a problem with at times). I'd like to shoot with it but I don't think it will be a purchase for me.
Wow, I was able to download the RAW files and I must say, the Sigma 105 is a beast of a lens! Great hands on review, it will take me forever to own one but I shall, images are great.
I plan to test this lens with a black pro mist diffusion ... I'm wondering if the 105mm diameter is going to work with a front element diffusion - which I believe is essential for my clients viewing pleasure. Thoughts? I also like that my clients in my studio can see themselves in a big wide lens like this. Comforting ...
I want to test the Nikkor and the Sigma side by side ... I really like the IDEA of the Sigma ... I own the 50mm ART which is terrific.
So any thoughts from pros would be great. I'd use this with my monopod a lot so not worried about image stablization.
Hi Matt, always enjoy your reviews, I've just downloaded the sample images and opened them up in C1Pro and have noticed in the exif info that the studio shots (_MGP0950 and _MGP0961) are both shot on the Nikkor lens, have you accidentally labelled the info incorrectly, or were they both indeed on the Nikkor lens. Also, when shooting comparisons it maybe a good idea to set the WB manually to say a basic daylight setting, that way we can see the colour differences more in the videos, keep up the good work!
Oh, and it would have been nice to throw your 85mm Otus into the mix too ;-)
Great to see Tina again, however briefly. Alexis is gorgeous. Love the flip-flop technique. However, as a Canon/Sony shooter, worthless video. Kidding! All the Sigma information totally transferable to other systems. Well done comparison.
After watching numerous reviews, I still can't decide. Just bought both of them to decide for myself. The Sigma appears to have better bokeh. The backgrounds are less distracting and the bokeh balls are rounder. But I need to see how many keepers I can get out of each lens. Using the lens myself on my own camera is the only way to figure that out.
The Nikon is the way to go as a long term investment. There's a reason the art lenses come with software to correct focusing errors something easily corrected in camera on the nikon with nikon glass. Which lens did you decide on?
Any chance for the 105 STM from Sony?
If you're having issues with meta data. Open the images in Preview. In the Image info there's EXIF data there and should say the lens name there.
it doesnt
Nice review so far. Do you still do part two to compare AF in low light? Like others I'd also hole to see bokeh balls compared.
I think in the minute 10 you made a mistake selecting the images for comparison in a different order and the Sigma was the sharper. Please check it. Thank you for sharing I love your reviews !
Love the "Luddite" dig :) Nikon and Canon will catch up soon enough maybe a few years.
Man I just can't chose between these and the Sigma 135 F1.8. Matt you should do a shoot out between all three.
Thanks for the honest review Matt, it is really helpful.
I looked at your rating. The weight aspect seems very important. Most of the videos were made with other cameras. But the lack of a stabilizer plays a big role for me. With the Sigma the photos shake without a tripod. Thanks for your detailed explanations.
Idk if you need stabilization at 1.4 on a sunny day... I think you need to stop buying camera gear and get a gym membership.
can you put this on a Sony a6500?
compare to otus f1.4 , which one is better ?
Dear Matt,
Thank you for putting in so much effort; but if possible for you, kindly do another review and consider following:
For both lenses:
- Low Light Focusing
- Focusing Speed (Day Light, Indoor & Night Street Light)
- Focusing accuracy of Sigma vs Nikon (Center Point vs Other Points)
Does Sigma 105 F 1.4 offers focusing speed of same league as of 70-200 ?
Nikon 85mm F 1.4 Focusing is slower in comparison of Sigma 85 F 1.4 (But not in league of 70-200 or 200 F2)
Kind Regards,
Rizwan
Thanks for thé great review Matt !
Almost impractical to handhold,huge 105 filter,lower resale value;for me it’s non-brainer that Nikon is the obvious choice.
Almost impractical but doable for the ones use to hand hold the 200 f2
Umm no, you'd lose more trying to sell the Nikon. Sigma's go for around 80% of their value when new around here. You'll lose a grand on the Nikon.
I like the bokeh ball of the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 better than the Nikon cat eyes. To me, something as evident as that is much more important than sharpness zoomed in 100% on a 45mp camera.
What is with Asians and Bokeh? It's like crack-cocaine to Asians.
Crack cocaine is banned in Asia, so we have to be addicted to Bokeh instead!
Would like to see comparison of these lenses and bokeh in low light scenarios like back ground street lights etc..
yeah, finally someone who noticed, he really didn't do it justice by doing only one full body shot and even that was vertical smh -_-
touche!
My Nikon 105mm 1.4 is GINORMOUS. I couldn't imagine having to carry the Sigma version. I'd like to have seen the new Nikon 70-200 fl in this shootout. That lens is AMAZING! Nikon for the win! 📸
its not like the nikkor is a feather either, ans the build quality is not indicative of $2200. i agree with the other person that there was not enough of a bokeh test on both lenses, since i dont think the sharpness is the number one reason one would purchase this lens
RIght, if the Nikkor sold for $1299 it might be worth it since it is a mostly plastic lens body with a LOT of elements that "challenge" the transmission and rendition of light finally getting to the sensor...
The color / white balance looks a lot different eg 3:34 3:37 and I much prefer the Nikkor overall, the Sigma is too Magenta for my taste, might be possible to completely fix with white balance but it’s always nice if they come out of the Camera closer to your preferences.
Sigma 85mm 1.4 vs 105mm 1.4 who is Bast...?
Please review Sigma Art 135mm for Nikon
AF speed and accuracy, how do they compare?
I was holding off on the nikon 105 for this sigma, i think i will go Nikon, the weight, and size of a 70-200 with not much difference in the images, i dont want that on a long day tbh. The price difference in the UK between the two is £200, but thanks for the testing, yours on top of the others i seen, I can now order 105 nikon now, cheers Matt.
I've been a subscriber for awhile now. I like most of what you do but I don't like the shots you get with this model. I like what you could get with her in between scenes, she becomes animated, comes alive (her facial expressions become a lot more flattering) but when you gear up to compose the shot and fire, the look all changes.
If you look at the model's right eye (her right) the Sigma is clearly sharper. However, is that what you want in a portrait lens? Instead of excruciating detail, don't we want the skin rendered as being smoother without every wrinkle and makeup defect revealed?
105 1.4 or 135 1.4 thet is are better?
Wow, hi Tina! Be great if you did a photo shoot of Tina and Steph together!
I love that Sigma despite the size! Kinda wish it has Image Stabilization if I were a Nikon or Canon shooter but being a Sony shooter, I’m pretty much forced into this Sigma lens category esp now that they’re releasing their Sony line of lenses (unless I get a Canon with my MC-11). But, me already having a 70-200 Sigma 2.8 (great for portraits thanks to you) as well as a Sony 85 mm 1.8, i don’t think need a lens like this! Your thoughts.??
The sigma showed nicer softer. more tasteful transitions between light and dark in the indoor portrait, but the Nikkor was obviously much sharper in the extreme close up and conveyed a lot more texture detail of the skin than the sigma (but the sigma was probably good enough). Pisses me off beceause Nikkor isn't a lens option for me.
It might be atmosphere but so far the Sigma at F1.4 is the sharpest lens ever i've seen for infinities at Cameralabs.com. The nikon doesn't even come close. If the sigma can 'compete' at portraits, but slam the nikon in landscape images, then the Sigma is worth it. I would love to have some ppl post their sharpest infinity shots they have of the nikon 105mm, so far i haven't seen any that compete with 70-200mm F4.
Deosn't seem to be offered in L-mount
Would have been ideal for the Panasonic S1R
These lenses are really made for professional photographers and if I would be a pro I would definitely pick up the Nikon. In my opinion, the Nikon looks waaaay better, it's more practical and the 105mm filter thread looks a little bit awkward and could make the model feel uncomfortable. For "only" 600$ more the Nikon is the obvious choice for pros, when they are shooting Nikon, for Sony or Canon users it could be a great choice :)
Daniel Muehlbachler well said. The Sigma is not a practical lens. Probably can live in a studio. I don't even think it will easily fit in most gear bags.
why would you want a 1.4 lens to live in a studio.....
The Nikon with the Nikon D750 would be the way to go for me and many others, I suspect.
would love to see this on a sony body when the e-mount version is out with a comparison to their 100mm 2.8 G master
i don t know about the nikon, but the sigma works pretty well on the gfx50s, with adapter of course.
Zero bokeh comparison. It’s called the bokeh master and you didn’t even mention the bokeh minus the introduction. Come on man...more to lenses than sharpness comparison. I like your content, but this was lazy.
Mate., getting someone to do a half decent test with this lens has been a pain. This one is TERRIBLE as well with no real comparison showing similar setups and horrible lighting.
Then there is Miguel Quiles who did even worst by shooting IN STUDIO and stopped down..what a joke! Why Sigma does not provide REAL intelligent reviewers with a copy?
LOL. Sigma needs to give me one. I got 10k IG followers and know a lot of people in Philadelphia
There are lots of example large aperture photos in the video. You can easily look at them and judge the quality of oof yourself.
Didnt Matt say the bokeh and background separation is nearly identical...? Plus bokeh master is the title used by Sigma, not by Matt.
^^^Truth!^^^ Do we really need someone to tell us what we can see with our own eyes? Some people just want to be led around by the nose, I guess. LOL! Best post award goes to you.
Think I'd like one of these just for the heck of it.
The photo on the right was sharper and had better focus. If you look at the single strand of hair over her right eye in both photos the hair is more in focus with the Sigma.
Matt give us a shoot out between the A7RIII+FE Sigma 105 against the Nikon when you can.
Great video Matt! Can you do a comparison video between the 105 1.4 vs the 70-200 FL at 105. Both at 2.8 and focus speeds. Thanks
The 70-200 focuses faster for sure
Matt Granger I’m interested in render & bokeh and colors
i like the rendering of the nikkor more, it has some depths in the image i missing with the sigma, but i´s very subtle
I get that you're a portrait photographer but it's not very helpful only concerning sharpness in the centre of the lens. Most lenses are quite sharp in the centre. What I care about is edge to edge performance, and that is where I think the Sigma would have some advantage. It already has an advantage in light transmission and I disagreed with your assessment that the Nikon was sharper.
It's enormous and heavy. It weights about as much as my 70-200|2.8; I think that the images it renders are superior to the Nikon, better bokeh (but I'd need to see many more images to say that for sure) it does seem that Bokeh transition is better but, is that just me? I'm not a pro, just an amateur that likes photography. I'd love either for family portraits and an all purpose medium telephoto for landscapes. I just don't know how the size and weight would work as an all purpose, travel lens. Perhaps a lightly used Nikon would be in the same price bracket and work well for me. Having said all that, if the AF accuracy in the real world is the same as the Nikon, its the Sigma I'd want. Between that and a wish list of a Nikkor 20, Tamron 24-70, Sig Art 35, 50 and a purchase planned for this year, its a good problem to have!
Don't know how I'll chose between the Nikon and Sigma 105 if it comes down to it.
You need to be the ultimate nit picker to make a choice. I’ll keep my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro with VR. VR makes the difference for me. It’s extremely sharp, great color and costs $850. Beautiful Macro and Portrait lens.
Another reason for a large front element is to let glass of lesser quality (keeping cost down), transmit the same amount of light throug, as a lens with better glass. We see this all the time in the world of rifle scopes.
I noticed something more important, at least to me. The first sample photos look not natural, but more like after exaggerated processing, I mean the model's face. Nikon for me in the transitions is more subtle and the photos are closer to nature.
is the Sigma 105mm a macro lens
There is the Sigma 105 mm F2,8 EX Makro DG OS and Sigma Art 1,4 / 105 mm DG HSM. In that case the Review is for the later.
So bigger and more glass does not always translate to more expensive. Companies dictate the price not necessarily based on cost to create but rather where their lens sits in the lineup. Nikon is too expensive with some of their lenses.
Enjoyed this one, well done.
What about VC? Why did they leave it out. If price is not a problem. I would go with the Nikon. After a while the weight is a big factor. Think of using the Sigma for over 2-3 hours. I see very little difference in sharpness and unless you are looking into the pixels . No difference.
i discuss that at length. Neither have stabilisation
Great video, thank's Matt.
Hi Matt!
I would have loved to see a comparison with the real Bokeh-Master, the Leica 75mm f1.25 Noctilux you tested a couple of months ago.
;-)
I test the sigma for a while, just amazing !!
I got my Nikon 105/1.4E new in Hong Kong for about $1700. It is now worth more in such a compact package.
I’m just glad you give up your time for us to produce these excellent reviews, fluent and articulate with a smattering of humour, love it!
Can we use the lens with Nikon D4 and Nikon D3X
Yes, both can command the electromagnetic diaphragm (which both lenses use), but you'll need to perform a firmware update in advance.
Just bought the Sigma for my EOS R5, much happier paying £1199 for it rather than £2800 for the RF 85 1.2, no brainer really.
i thought the sigma colour looked a bit better in the comparison. didnt notice a detail difference on a 4k tv but my eyes arent 20/20 either. To me it seems like a $ to kg question seeing they both smashed the quality.
Test this on the Hasselblad X1D!