Leaked: Sigma 105mm f/1.4 HSM Art

[Don Haines]

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.
T
(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.)

I have noticed this as well. A sigma lens focuses over about 90 degrees of rotation, and the Canons and Tamrons around 135 degrees.

 

[hne]

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.

All f/1.4 lenses I've looked at on Nikon cameras show mirror box clipped bokeh balls.

 

[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.

All f/1.4 lenses I've looked at on Nikon cameras show mirror box clipped bokeh balls.

Yes, but the question is, what does a Nikon lens look like on a Canon body?
The size of the EF mount is still one of the best decisions Canon has ever made. It’s a shame Sigma doesn’t have a Full Frame Quattro (the SA mount is very similar to the EF mount).

If nothing else any Sony FF body would be guaranteed not to have that problem.
If Canon ever makes a Mirrorless EF mount hopefully they take care to minimize this problem, trouble is on the 85f1.2 the electronic contacts are on the rear lens element and will always affect the Bokeh, the 105f1.4 definitely avoids that.

 

[Ah-Keong]

Hope Canon would release a EF105mm f/1,4L IS Macro!

 

[Pukanina]

A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...

 

[slclick]

A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...

Once again.... the older Generation Sigma Arts had different af motors and systems than the newer lenses in the past couple years.

 

[Viggo]

A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...

Once again.... the older Generation Sigma Arts had different af motors and systems than the newer lenses in the past couple years.

They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.

I have ZERO confidence that any Sigma will ever focus properly. So while I can except that some people have working versions, I don't believe for a second I could buy one that works...

 

[bokehmon22]

I think people are questioning why Sigma make this lens don't understand Sigma's philosophy. Their Art lens have been trying to create the best optic despite the weight and size (see Sigma 85 & 135 Art). Sigma 105 1.4 could be their bragging right lens. Many photographers want Canon 200 F2 despite its weight, size, and and $6K retail price. I'm sure this will be a big hit for those portrait/wedding photographer like me who want 200 F2 quality for a significant cheaper price and manageable working distance.

 

[aceflibble]

They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.

I have ZERO confidence that any Sigma will ever focus properly. So while I can except that some people have working versions, I don't believe for a second I could buy one that works...

To throw in my experience, yes, the Sigma 85 and 135 have not focused any better for me than any of their other lenses. Every time a new Sigma comes out I borrow or rent a couple of copies because I want them to be great, but the focus has let me down every single time. So far I've used 2-4 copies of every Sigma released since they relaunched, and the AF has been unusably bad in all of them, with only two exceptions: the 24-35mm f/2 zoom focuses 'okay', though still not as good as Tamron or first-party lenses; the 20mm f/1.4 focuses perfectly fine, but at 20mm it's not like the focus system is under much stress. For clarity, no, I did not find the 85mm or 135mm to be any better than any other Sigma lenses. Granted, people who can afford the time and effort to wade through 6,7, maybe 10 copies might have better luck finding a unit which focuses better for their bodies. Some other people may luck out and get a great-focusing copy right away. I don't doubt that there are some copies of Sigma lenses out there which manage to focus well enough for their owners. But every one I use, other than the 24-35 and 20mm, the focus is abysmal.

I wish Tamron would take a leaf out of Sigma's book and make some brighter lenses (both aperture and transmission), while I wish Sigma would take note of Tamron and work on autofocus, manual focus, and weather sealing everything. (I think it's pretty gross that Sigma don't seal most of their lenses when they're pitching them as premium, professional-grade products.)

 

[ahsanford]

I think people are questioning why Sigma make this lens don't understand Sigma's philosophy. Their Art lens have been trying to create the best optic despite the weight and size (see Sigma 85 & 135 Art). Sigma 105 1.4 could be their bragging right lens. Many photographers want Canon 200 F2 despite its weight, size, and and $6K retail price. I'm sure this will be a big hit for those portrait/wedding photographer like me who want 200 F2 quality for a significant cheaper price and manageable working distance.

But bragging right lenses have to perform, not just looking like a sexy spec'd item -- otherwise we'd all be shooting Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 lenses right now. :

AF. consistency. really. matters. Especially with a large aperture prime. Here's hoping Sigma has upped their game here.

- A

 

[slclick]

They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.

I have ZERO confidence that any Sigma will ever focus properly. So while I can except that some people have working versions, I don't believe for a second I could buy one that works...

To throw in my experience, yes, the Sigma 85 and 135 have not focused any better for me than any of their other lenses. Every time a new Sigma comes out I borrow or rent a couple of copies because I want them to be great, but the focus has let me down every single time. So far I've used 2-4 copies of every Sigma released since they relaunched, and the AF has been unusably bad in all of them, with only two exceptions: the 24-35mm f/2 zoom focuses 'okay', though still not as good as Tamron or first-party lenses; the 20mm f/1.4 focuses perfectly fine, but at 20mm it's not like the focus system is under much stress. For clarity, no, I did not find the 85mm or 135mm to be any better than any other Sigma lenses. Granted, people who can afford the time and effort to wade through 6,7, maybe 10 copies might have better luck finding a unit which focuses better for their bodies. Some other people may luck out and get a great-focusing copy right away. I don't doubt that there are some copies of Sigma lenses out there which manage to focus well enough for their owners. But every one I use, other than the 24-35 and 20mm, the focus is abysmal.

I wish Tamron would take a leaf out of Sigma's book and make some brighter lenses (both aperture and transmission), while I wish Sigma would take note of Tamron and work on autofocus, manual focus, and weather sealing everything. (I think it's pretty gross that Sigma don't seal most of their lenses when they're pitching them as premium, professional-grade products.)

And on the other hand I and others who have used, rented and owned most or all of the Art lenses (minus the wider new varieties) have experienced the opposite. 35 and 50 suck at AF, 85 and 135 excel. It's starting to look a lot more like Canon where certain lenses have copy variation and others don't only with Sigma there is a Stigma. It's well deserved but it's also a case of YMMV. Hell, I went through 3 copies of the 24-105 and all of them suffered from one major issue or another, then there's your 50 1.4...look hard enough and there are people out there with amazing copies. Basically, what it boils down to me is that Sigma is making all the glass we wish Canon would make.

 

[Pixel]

I own three Sigma primes currently and this one is on my radar. I have the 14 1.8, 20 1.4 and the 135 1.8. They're all phenomenal lenses that I love shooting with. I'm a sports photographer and I have no qualms whatsoever about putting the 135 on a 1Dx and shooting basketball with it....and it nails shots left and right and I shoot at f1.8!

 

[basketballfreak6]

fwiw, my 50 art focuses like a champ and produces beautiful images for me

50mm Portrait by Tony, on Flickr

50mm Portrait by Tony, on Flickr

i do wonder tho, and i want to preface by saying i am not suggesting there aren't bad copies out there and people genuinely have problems, but i wonder how many people with bad copies are out there making a fuss compared to people with good copies just keeping quiet and happily snapping away, but also how many "bad copies" are actually attributed to inexperienced photographers struggling to nail focus due to challenge of small dof, like not long ago my very amateur mate tried shooting with my 5D4 and 50 art combo and he was struggling big time nailing focus while i was pretty much hitting every shot

anyway back on topic, if the 105 1.4 continues to live up to sigma's recent top tier IQ i think i would actually sell the phenomenal 135 1.8 and get the 105, mostly due to easier working distance particularly indoors, but for the first time i am little concerned about the size of the lens not so much for weight but rather with that huge 105mm front element it may be difficult to fit it in my day to day walk around bag :-\

 

[rlarsen]

This lens looks very heavy. I wonder at f2 how it compares with the Canon 100 f2.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Is manual focus any better? I take a lot of photos at 2m with my 35mm. That thing still sounds inconsistently consistent to me.

 

[aceflibble]

And on the other hand I and others who have used, rented and owned most or all of the Art lenses (minus the wider new varieties) have experienced the opposite.

It's not really "on the other hand" when I explicitly stated

"Some other people may luck out and get a great-focusing copy right away. I don't doubt that there are some copies of Sigma lenses out there which manage to focus well enough for their owners."

This lens looks very heavy. I wonder at f2 how it compares with the Canon 100 f2.

One would have to assume better. Most f/1.4 lenses are better than f/2 equivalents when stopped down vs wide open. Sigma are reporting, by their own admission, that this 105mm design (currently) has extremely strong vignetting, but other Sigma lenses also have strong vignetting and clean up very nicely with just one stop. The 85 and 135 Sigmas don't have any other particular optical flaws, so it's hard to imagine this 105 will have any, too.

Conversely, the Canon 100mm f/2 doesn't have the resolving power to hold up on a 5DS R sensor—though less-dense sensors are fine for it—and it has some slight distortion, altered by focus breathing; noticeable barrel distortion at closest focus and strong pincushioning at infinity. Granted, in regular use you never notice these things, but we should all know by now that these Sigmas are sold primarily on their superiority in controlled lab testing, and that's where the Canon 100mm's faults show up.

In short, I expect this Sigma stopped down to f/2 to have a more uniformly-bright image, less distortion, more saturation, more broad contrast, more micro-contrast, less astigmatism toward the edges and corners, and higher resolution.

All that said, given my experience with multiple copies of the 'best'-focusing Sigmas, I don't trust the AF will be anywhere close to the Canon 100/2 (which is still one of the best AF motors in any Canon lens), and manual focus probably will be a tie. Of course then there's the weight, size, and price; it's very hard to ignore the fact the Canon 100mm f/2 can be found for as little as £200 in good condition and isn't much bigger than a cheap 50mm, with a very cheap 58mm filter thread to boot.
Then there's the rendering. Sigma lenses, while technically very good, have pretty boring rendering. Generally with lenses you can have technical perfection or pleasing rendering, but rarely both. (Zeiss have both, but then, they give up on autofocus, they're not very well sealed, and you're paying a huge premium.) Sigma, so far, have always gone with technical quality above all else. Conversely, the Canon 100mm f/2 is one of the leading examples of the value of rendering quality over technical quality. That lens may not win the resolution battle anymore, but for its common use as a portrait prime, it's exactly as sharp as it needs to be and not being sharp enough to show up every single pore—which will then have to be blurred out anyway—is a positive.

There may also be a slight framing difference. The Canon 100mm is actually about 108mm, while Sigma tends to go a little wider than their stated lengths—the 85mm is actually about 82mm and the 135mm is actually about 128mm—so I expect this 105 to actually be a straight 100mm. Those few millimeters don't mean as much to a telephoto lens as they do to a wide-angle, but it can still make a difference if working distance is tight.

All-in-all, I don't think these two lenses will really be in competition. The Sigma will most likely for be for those people who want absolute maximum background blur without the overly-compressed look of something like 200-300mm, and at f/2 and smaller it will probably be the winner for anybody who has to demand absolute technical perfection. The Canon 100mm f/2 will continue being the go-to 100mm for anybody who values size, values autofocus, or values... value. It will probably also continue being the #1 100mm choice for portrait shooters with expressive styles rather than gigantic-print, technical styles.

To put it another way: I have the Canon 100mm f/2. I also have the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, a Mamiya 110mm f/2 I use with an adapter, my 70-200s spend most of their time at 100mm, and I'm strongly considering buying the Laowa 105mm STF. My #1 complaint with Fuji is they still don't have a 100/105mm equivalent, and if I buy into Sony any more I'll definitely be picking up their 100mm STF. To say I like the 100mm focal length is an understatement, and each lens I have or have had in that length has had its own use.
It should be no surprise that this Sigma 105mm will have to really drop the ball for me to not pick one up, and I fully expect that, if I do buy one, it will find a specific use just as all my other ~100s have.