Leaked: Sigma 105mm f/1.4 HSM Art

[jolyonralph]

I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.

 

[magarity]

Starting at 1.4 means with a pair of doublers it can be a 420mm 5.6. hah!

 

[danski0224]

That represents almost the entire non-white L prime lineup -- including fringe-ier items like 20mm and 105mm -- knocked out in less than 6 years.

I'm sure that Sigma has used their existing lenses as a base for improvement, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some design similarities between the 135 and 105, for example.

Some of these have probably been in the works since the pre-Global Vision lens series were released.

That 105mm might be similar to the Canon 200 f/2 in size and weight.

 

[Isaacheus]

I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.

I'll pay for shipping to me if you're giving it away

Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on? I've always wondered if that made a difference, or if it was the lens itself

 

[jolyonralph]

Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on? I've always wondered if that made a difference, or if it was the lens itself

On the 5DSR and the 5D Mark III it was hopeless. Performs much better (as you'd expect) on a mirrorless camera (eg Sony A7RII with metabones, or on the M5) but still not stellar.

I'm hoping a future Canon FF mirrorless will make the lens worth keeping.

 

[Don Haines]

I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.

Interesting.....

Are you on the latest firmware for the lens?

 

[The Fat Fish]

Another case for IBIS.

 

[zim]

CR?
Or click bait?

 

[Joules]

And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.

I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?

My 35mm Art showed inconsistent focus before I calibrated it. Sometimes it would back focus, sometimes it would hit perfectly, sometimes it would front focus. After spending a good amount of time with the dock, this inconsitency is gone and it hits perfectly in the close range on an 80D. My correction value for infinity isn't quite right, so for distances around 2m I still get front focus, but it is consistent.

But I'm sure there are actually bad copies out there and maybe you have one.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.

You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?

Introducing aspherical lenses, special dispersion glasses and maybe some exotic materials like the blue refractive material are methods to (1) reduce the number of lenses and/or (2) enhance correction a little bit and for LOCA only and/or (3) make room (see (1)) for more movement of lens groups to reduce the close focus distance and (4) make room for an IS group (see (1) too).

The existing EF 100 2.0 is a very very good lens except LOCA at f/2.0. If it gets 10mm in length, 10mm in diameter and 200g more of weight it would be a very flexible toy for those who like a longer focal length as general purpose lens.

 

[Mistral75]

Judging by the size of that front element relative of the mount, that is going to have one big filter diameter. 86mm? 95mm maybe?

If you look closely at the lens name in the image in the original post (http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma105artnok.jpg), it says 105mm diameter.

It's even easier to read it when looking at the image originally published by Nokishita Camera:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItzQiQl2rgI/WpKsVvzTcEI/AAAAAAAAFKQ/-dATE7SgFRg9ZNZuNwNqgVbgrdVRxL7dgCLcBGAs/s1600/sigma.jpg

 

[9VIII]

A Fast Aperture Portrait Lens with a Tripod Foot!
“Angelic Chorus Echoes Across The Land”

 

[9VIII]

I wondered if some third party would release this, when Nikon released theirs a while back. It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2, fits into a Nikon lens mount throat diameter. I’ve been told that their smaller mount makes some very specific lenses difficult, such as an 85mm 1.2

Edit:
I think it’s quite telling of the shift the market has taken over the last few years that nowadays when a fast prime is released that we even ask whether it has IS. Go back 10 years and there were no stabilized anythings 1.8 or faster.

The fact it’s made to work on Nikon also means it should avoid most (if not all) shutter box Bokeh clipping issues that people have with the 85f1.2.

 

[HarryFilm]

Nice. Just last week I was lamenting still using the 100/2 while Nikon has the 105/1.4.

I don't trust Sigma's AF, though—every single one I've owned, rented, or borrowed has had such horrifically inconsistent, vague AF that I've had to resort to just focusing manually—and they're not well-made for manual focus, either. All their lenses of this type lacking sealing, as well.

Fingers crossed they've had some kind of breakthrough in AF and they've stopped being stingey gits and have built a premium lens with an actual pro-quality focus ring and sealing. If they have, this is the most obvious, no-brainer, instant buy for me. (And hopefully they then put out a 28mm to match it.)

My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.

You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?

---

Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!

 

[Hector1970]

It's an interesting lens.
Sigma are really hard at it bringing out lens.
I wonder is the strategy working for them.
It must be very expensive developing specialized lens like this.

I don't know if it has weather sealing or not but I think when lens get expensive weather sealing is important.
They are not waterproof but you can continue in a light drizzle. No sealing would make me nervous.

I'd need IS I think. It looks heavy might be difficult to keep steady.
Bokeh will be interesting, it's the only thing that I'd pay for this type of wide aperture.
The Canon 100mm L Macro is a very sharp lens already with a good bokeh.
1.4 would allow very low light photography and might be useful for concerts but it looks like a very big lens.
I don't think it will be on my shopping list but maybe it will have amazing reviews.
Hopefully Sigma won't bankrupt itself with all these new limited market lens.

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?

Yes - and buying the sigma dock was another waste of money. And a high res calibration card to use for focus testing (ok, that's not so much of a waste because that's been useful for my other lenses).

Number of my canon L lenses that have needed micro-adjustment = zero

The sigma was all over the place. I would adjust it fine, and the very next shot it'd be focusing somewhere else.

Sigma refused to look at it because I bought it online from a dealer who fulfilled from Ireland (which I had no idea of at the time). So much for a single market...

So screw Sigma, I'll never buy another of their products again.

 

[mjg79]

If this matches the quality of their other Art lenses it will be very tempting.

In a funny way Sigma are making it far less tempting to ever switch to Nikon. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 and 105/1.4 were two lenses Canon has no direct answer to and yet it seems quite likely now we will have two either comparable or possibly even better lenses in the EF mount and for good prices.

When one adds in the 20mm 1.4, 14mm 1.8 and 24-35 2.0 one really has to tip one's hat to Sigma. 20-30 years ago that kind of aggressive, push-the-boundaries approach was part of Canon's approach, with lenses like the 50mm 1.0, 85mm 1.2 and 200mm 1.8. And years before that Nikon had had their own glory years with the Nikon "Noct" 58mm 1.2 as well as some amazing wide angle lenses like the 13mm 5.6 "Holy Grail".

I admit I am a little sad that Canon has become conservative in some respects but a company can only push in so many directions and Canon's relentless pursuit of build quality, good ergonomics and ceaseless refinement of the great whites and 2.8 zooms has been a perhaps less "exciting" focus but a reasonable focus nonetheless. Read Lensrental's tear down of the 35mm 1.4L II and see a level of engineering no other manufacturer comes close to. So I'm not trying to bash Canon but gosh I do think they could give us a few more exotics, even if they are compromised as they tend to inevitably be. It also makes business sense; keep giving photographers a reason to stick with the EF mount, something they can't find anywhere else.

 

[Isaacheus]

I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?

Yes - and buying the sigma dock was another waste of money. And a high res calibration card to use for focus testing (ok, that's not so much of a waste because that's been useful for my other lenses).

Number of my canon L lenses that have needed micro-adjustment = zero

The sigma was all over the place. I would adjust it fine, and the very next shot it'd be focusing somewhere else.

Sigma refused to look at it because I bought it online from a dealer who fulfilled from Ireland (which I had no idea of at the time). So much for a single market...

So screw Sigma, I'll never buy another of their products again.

Yeah, sounds like you've had a raw deal on that.
For what it's worth, using the 35mm copy i have, the 20mm and the 150-600 c on the mirrorless system has been good, so fingers crossed you have a similar outcome if you try yours on that at some point

 

[aceflibble]

It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2,

This is a misuse of the term "bokeh"; "bokeh" is the quality of the out-of-focus rendering, not the amount of blur as you imply.

However, for the record, 105mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 work out to have exactly the same depth of field and amount of background blur when they are framed the same with your subject 1/3rd of the way into the scene. If you are working from the exact same distance, so the 105mm ends up tighter, you get much more background blur out of the 105mm as well as a shallower depth of field. If you are working so the subject is closer to you than the 1/3rd mark (e.g. a background so far away it's essentially at the infinity point) then the 105mm can have slightly greater depth of field but still more background blur than 85mm f/1.2 can.

I think if more people realised how much focal length matters to background blur and subject/background separation, they wouldn't get so hung up on things like f/1.2. (Or even f/1.4mm for that matter)

I can’t believe there is a huge market for such lenses. As said above 85,135 and now this. How do they make a profit on such small production runs? I would prefer lighter f2 versions with IS.

Nikon has 105mm f/1.4 and it's been a big seller for them. Canon's own 100mm f/2 has sold fairly well for nearly three decades, while the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is one of the best-selling prime lenses Canon has ever had; if you ever ask a Canon rep about it, they'll gladly tell you the company puts most of the sales down to portraiture, rather than anything demanding the macro functionality.

Then you've got Sony putting out things like the 100mm STF, Laowa do their version, and 100-110mm equivalents have been the go-to portrait length for medium format systems since the 1940s.

Sigma's primes have been doing very well for them; throwing in another popular (and in the case of Canon, long-requested) length and aperture combination is a very safe play for them. They can be sure to sell enough to make a solid profit if it's up to the standard of their past primes. If they take this opportunity to also improve their horrific AF (yes, it really is horrific) then this isn't just a safe profit for them; this is the 85mm f/1.2 killer, this is the 100mm f/2.8L killer, this is the 135mm f/2 killer. Putting out lenses like this is how lens manufacturers take over the market. Canon did it themselves with the original 85mm f/1.2, taking the spotlight from the then-more-popular 100mm primes of the day.

 

[aceflibble]

Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!

Grip isn't the issue. The problem with Sigmas and manual focus is the rings aren't very tightly connected to the gearing at the extreme ends, causing the ring to 'slip', giving an almost by-wire feeling of lag. On top of that they have a more limited throw than first-party Canon, Nikon, and Sony lenses, as well as being far shorter-throw than Tamron lenses, resulting in far less precision.

(And, personally, I can't exactly turn up with bits of rubber taped to my lenses. My clients are rather too high-class to tolerate that. Which is another annoyance, because the Sigmas are the classiest-looking lenses out there and would fit right in, if only any kind of focus worked consistently for them.)