Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Pricing and Preorder Coming May 25

Jul 12, 2017
173
245
MrFotoFool said:
Very niche lens - I wonder who it is for. Wouldn't astro photographers want a wider angle?

it would be wide field deep sky stuff, that lens would be great for the likes of orion or the antares region particularly on a crop body where you can get tighter framing on bigger objects while being able to shoot at 1.4

for example i used my 24-70II at 70mm on a modified 760D for this just last weekend

Antares, Rho Ophiuchi and Blue Horsehead by Tony, on Flickr

i quite regularly use my 135 1.8 for dso as well
 
Upvote 0

9VIII

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
TAF said:
Nifty, but given the size of the front element, I would prefer a 50mm f0.5

Now that would be awe inspiring.

Digital Vignetting gets in the way.
If you try to send light onto a digital sensor from too extreme of an angle the light gets blocked by all the layers of circuits and stuff before it hits the actual photoreceptors.
Backlit sensors help (theoretically at least, I don’t think I’ve seen a direct comparison), but in general most of the extra light wider than f1.4 never makes it to the pixels.
 
Upvote 0
Bennymiata said:
Personally, I like to hand hold my camera when doing portraits, and I would think that this lens is just too heavy to hand hold for long periods of time.
I doubt one will find its way into one of my camera bags.
You can get used to handhold such lens pretty easy. I was using 200/2 on monopod since day I acquired it, but today I use it hand held even on several hours shooting.
 
Upvote 0

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,411
1,430
Turku, Finland
basketballfreak6 said:
MrFotoFool said:
Very niche lens - I wonder who it is for. Wouldn't astro photographers want a wider angle?
it would be wide field deep sky stuff, that lens would be great for the likes of orion or the antares region particularly on a crop body where you can get tighter framing on bigger objects while being able to shoot at 1.4

Precisely. 105mm is definitely in the "wideangle" (or wide field as they say) range for DSO astrophotography. It's much shorter than your average telescope.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,650
9VIII said:
TAF said:
Nifty, but given the size of the front element, I would prefer a 50mm f0.5

Now that would be awe inspiring.

Digital Vignetting gets in the way.
If you try to send light onto a digital sensor from too extreme of an angle the light gets blocked by all the layers of circuits and stuff before it hits the actual photoreceptors.
Backlit sensors help (theoretically at least, I don’t think I’ve seen a direct comparison), but in general most of the extra light wider than f1.4 never makes it to the pixels.

Careful what you wish for. Canon's two f/1.2L primes and the new 85 f/1.4L IS have the mirrorbox clipping phenomenon where you get D-shaped bokeh that -- once seen -- you can't unsee it in any other future pictures.

The presumption is that the wide open aperture of such a lens will be so enormous that the mirrorbox behind it will serve as an unavoidable 'bokeh template' like you see enthusiasts use to deliberately make background lighting turn into shapes (stars, hearts, whatever).

If this is a minor nuisance on a 50mm f/1.2, imagine how jarring the f/0.5 output would look. You'd have breathtaking isolation, but the bokeh would look like blurry/boxy 1980s video game space invaders. And I'm not even sure if FF mirrorless would solve this as even without a mirror in the mix, something in the mount/internals/etc. would likely be in frame for such a comically large aperture.

- A
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,650
PavelR said:
Bennymiata said:
Personally, I like to hand hold my camera when doing portraits, and I would think that this lens is just too heavy to hand hold for long periods of time.
I doubt one will find its way into one of my camera bags.
You can get used to handhold such lens pretty easy. I was using 200/2 on monopod since day I acquired it, but today I use it hand held even on several hours shooting.

It's very simple -- you covet bokeh/isolation enough to carry this, or you don't. It's not too heavy if that's the output you are gunning for.

Also: this Sigma is only a shade heavier (~100-150g) than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II everyone and their mother carries around all day at events and photo sessions. It's not a Sigma 200-500 2.8 or anything!

I think it's a bigger pain to have to pack this in your bag as it clearly won't fit in most conventional ~ 3.5" chambers in a camera bag.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
ahsanford said:
PavelR said:
Bennymiata said:
Personally, I like to hand hold my camera when doing portraits, and I would think that this lens is just too heavy to hand hold for long periods of time.
I doubt one will find its way into one of my camera bags.
You can get used to handhold such lens pretty easy. I was using 200/2 on monopod since day I acquired it, but today I use it hand held even on several hours shooting.

It's very simple -- you covet bokeh/isolation enough to carry this, or you don't. It's not too heavy if that's the output you are gunning for.

Also: this Sigma is only a shade heavier (~100-150g) than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II everyone and their mother carries around all day at events and photo sessions. It's not a Sigma 200-500 2.8 or anything!

I think it's a bigger pain to have to pack this in your bag as it clearly won't fit in most conventional ~ 3.5" chambers in a camera bag.

At f/1.4 and outdoors, I suspect there will be a load of ND filters sold with this. ;)
 
Upvote 0

luckydude

1dxII, 5DIII, 7DII, lots of glass, tolerant wife
Aug 3, 2013
119
1
MrFotoFool said:
Very niche lens - I wonder who it is for. Wouldn't astro photographers want a wider angle? I had the Sigma 85 f1.4 EX for a few years and it was a nice lens, but too niche to carry most of the time so I finally traded it in. One thing about the 85, though, it was very handholdable. If this is heavier than a 70-200 2.8 I have a hard time understanding the appeal. It's not telephoto enough to be a wildlife lens. Maybe if you are a wedding and/or portrait shooter and you just want that little extra blur (to eliminate busy backgrounds on city streets, etc).

I have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 art (which is very different than the EX). I also have the Canon 200mm f2, which is my favorite lens (I've got a shit ton of Canon glass). I'm not a pro, just a guy with a wife that understands.

The Canon 200mm is $6000, the Sigma 85mm is $1200.

I fricking love the Canon 200mm, it's by far my favorite lens and I've got the 600mm f4 II, I've got the 16-35mm III, I've got around $40K invested in Canon glass. The 200mm is the one lens that if I dropped it I would buy another one the next day, it's that good.

In my opinion, the Sigma is 80% as good as the Canon. Much better bang for the buck. Here are some shitty pictures I took when I was drunk at a party, that's all the Sigma. It's a great lens, it is becoming my second favorite lens:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2018-otis-is-50/

Sigma has really stepped up their game. I'm not sure why you would want the 105 over the 85, well it will flatter your nose a bit more, but if it is like the 85mm art, you can't go wrong with that lens. These Sigma lenses are not like the shitty couldn't focus crappy quality Sigmas of 20 years ago, these are L quality glass and the auto focus works. Kudos to Sigma.
 
Upvote 0
luckydude said:
MrFotoFool said:
Very niche lens - I wonder who it is for. Wouldn't astro photographers want a wider angle? I had the Sigma 85 f1.4 EX for a few years and it was a nice lens, but too niche to carry most of the time so I finally traded it in. One thing about the 85, though, it was very handholdable. If this is heavier than a 70-200 2.8 I have a hard time understanding the appeal. It's not telephoto enough to be a wildlife lens. Maybe if you are a wedding and/or portrait shooter and you just want that little extra blur (to eliminate busy backgrounds on city streets, etc).

I have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 art (which is very different than the EX). I also have the Canon 200mm f2, which is my favorite lens (I've got a S____ ton of Canon glass). I'm not a pro, just a guy with a wife that understands.

The Canon 200mm is $6000, the Sigma 85mm is $1200.

I fricking love the Canon 200mm, it's by far my favorite lens and I've got the 600mm f4 II, I've got the 16-35mm III, I've got around $40K invested in Canon glass. The 200mm is the one lens that if I dropped it I would buy another one the next day, it's that good.

In my opinion, the Sigma is 80% as good as the Canon. Much better bang for the buck. Here are some shitty pictures I took when I was drunk at a party, that's all the Sigma. It's a great lens, it is becoming my second favorite lens:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2018-otis-is-50/

Sigma has really stepped up their game. I'm not sure why you would want the 105 over the 85, well it will flatter your nose a bit more, but if it is like the 85mm art, you can't go wrong with that lens. These Sigma lenses are not like the shitty couldn't focus crappy quality Sigmas of 20 years ago, these are L quality glass and the auto focus works. Kudos to Sigma.
I've seen 5 of your images and 2 are front focused => I don't think that Sigma AF is dramatically improved on fast primes. (I like the Sigma - I own 85/1.4 EX, 50A, 120-300S, but none of the lenses are any close AF consistency to Canon glass.)
105 is better than 85 any time you can not get closer to your subject and blurred background will be a lot smoother and I hope there will not be any fringing (all 85/1.x - Canon, NIkon, Sigma, Sony exhibits) = I hope the IQ will be more like 135mm
 
Upvote 0

luckydude

1dxII, 5DIII, 7DII, lots of glass, tolerant wife
Aug 3, 2013
119
1
PavelR said:
luckydude said:
MrFotoFool said:
Very niche lens - I wonder who it is for. Wouldn't astro photographers want a wider angle? I had the Sigma 85 f1.4 EX for a few years and it was a nice lens, but too niche to carry most of the time so I finally traded it in. One thing about the 85, though, it was very handholdable. If this is heavier than a 70-200 2.8 I have a hard time understanding the appeal. It's not telephoto enough to be a wildlife lens. Maybe if you are a wedding and/or portrait shooter and you just want that little extra blur (to eliminate busy backgrounds on city streets, etc).

I have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 art (which is very different than the EX). I also have the Canon 200mm f2, which is my favorite lens (I've got a S____ ton of Canon glass). I'm not a pro, just a guy with a wife that understands.

The Canon 200mm is $6000, the Sigma 85mm is $1200.

I fricking love the Canon 200mm, it's by far my favorite lens and I've got the 600mm f4 II, I've got the 16-35mm III, I've got around $40K invested in Canon glass. The 200mm is the one lens that if I dropped it I would buy another one the next day, it's that good.

In my opinion, the Sigma is 80% as good as the Canon. Much better bang for the buck. Here are some shitty pictures I took when I was drunk at a party, that's all the Sigma. It's a great lens, it is becoming my second favorite lens:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2018-otis-is-50/

Sigma has really stepped up their game. I'm not sure why you would want the 105 over the 85, well it will flatter your nose a bit more, but if it is like the 85mm art, you can't go wrong with that lens. These Sigma lenses are not like the shitty couldn't focus crappy quality Sigmas of 20 years ago, these are L quality glass and the auto focus works. Kudos to Sigma.
I've seen 5 of your images and 2 are front focused => I don't think that Sigma AF is dramatically improved on fast primes. (I like the Sigma - I own 85/1.4 EX, 50A, 120-300S, but none of the lenses are any close AF consistency to Canon glass.)
105 is better than 85 any time you can not get closer to your subject and blurred background will be a lot smoother and I hope there will not be any fringing (all 85/1.x - Canon, NIkon, Sigma, Sony exhibits) = I hope the IQ will be more like 135mm

I wouldn't blame the Sigma for that, I'd blame the photographer who had had some drinks :)
If I had been paid for those shots, well first, I'd want better shots, but second I would have been sober and shooting single focus point. Or at least watching the screen to see where it grabbed focus and retry if it was not in the right spot.

My L collection includes 100mm macro, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm f4, 400mm f4 DO (both I and II, II is indeed better), 600mm f4 II, 70-200mm f4 I, 100-400mm II plus a bunch of non-L glass.

In my experience, that Sigma focusses just as accurately as the 200mm. My most used lenses are 200mm, 200mm + 1.4x, 24-105 I, Sigma 85mm. I'd give the Sigma high marks for accurate AF. It's a little slower than the $6000 200m but I could buy 5 of these Sigmas for that amount of money.

Sigma has done some great work with the ART line and, in my opinion, deserves some well earned kudos. It's not just me, go read what Bryan had to say, pretty much matches my experience:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

Here's a relevant part:

"While the price of this lens is reaching into the mid-tier of lenses overall, it seems like a bargain to me. The optical performance compares to or exceeds that of lenses costing far more and that AF is included gives it a great advantage over many of those competing most strongly on the optical front."
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
mkamelg said:
I'm from country Poland in Central Europe.

Suggested gross (lens + 23% VAT) retail price: 6190 PLN (about 1685 USD or 1259 GBP or 1437 EUR)

On sale from: At the end of June 2018

Source: https://kconsultmedia.prowly.com/31934-kolejna-nowosc-marki-sigma-105mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-wkrotce-w-sprzedazy (official press release of an authorized representative of SIGMA CORPORATION in Poland)

Off topic: Is there a local tax on top of the VAT? Is the VAT the only tax? I sure hope VAT never makes it to the United States. Imagine that. Charging a person nearly 25% to spend their own money.
 
Upvote 0

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,242
672
Eastern Shore
CanonFanBoy said:
mkamelg said:
I'm from country Poland in Central Europe.

Suggested gross (lens + 23% VAT) retail price: 6190 PLN (about 1685 USD or 1259 GBP or 1437 EUR)

On sale from: At the end of June 2018

Source: https://kconsultmedia.prowly.com/31934-kolejna-nowosc-marki-sigma-105mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-wkrotce-w-sprzedazy (official press release of an authorized representative of SIGMA CORPORATION in Poland)

Off topic: Is there a local tax on top of the VAT? Is the VAT the only tax? I sure hope VAT never makes it to the United States. Imagine that. Charging a person nearly 25% to spend their own money.
Isn’t that the definition of a sales tax?
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
BeenThere said:
CanonFanBoy said:
mkamelg said:
I'm from country Poland in Central Europe.

Suggested gross (lens + 23% VAT) retail price: 6190 PLN (about 1685 USD or 1259 GBP or 1437 EUR)

On sale from: At the end of June 2018

Source: https://kconsultmedia.prowly.com/31934-kolejna-nowosc-marki-sigma-105mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-wkrotce-w-sprzedazy (official press release of an authorized representative of SIGMA CORPORATION in Poland)

Off topic: Is there a local tax on top of the VAT? Is the VAT the only tax? I sure hope VAT never makes it to the United States. Imagine that. Charging a person nearly 25% to spend their own money.
Isn’t that the definition of a sales tax?

Absolutely, but it isn't 25%. Remember though, in the U.S. the sales tax is state and local. A VAT tax is a national sales tax on top of income taxes. That's why I asked him about other taxes.

A few years back I was doing some work for Vestas Wind Systems that had a plant in Colorado. One of the managers was telling me how in Denmark they have free health care, free this, free that, etc. He was sort of bragging about all the free stuff they get compared to what we have to pay for here. My response was, "Free? No. You still pay for it, on top of the bureaucracy used to confiscate the money and then distribute it." Nothing is free. Ever.

Anyway, not a discussion for here.

"A person making $30,000 a year has an income tax rate of about 32% in Denmark, compared to about 15% in the US. There is also a 25% sales tax on almost everything you buy, plus an 85% tax on new cars. (Until a couple of years ago, it was 150%, and still is on high-end vehicles.)"
 
Upvote 0

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
483
152
BeenThere said:
CanonFanBoy said:
mkamelg said:
I'm from country Poland in Central Europe.

Suggested gross (lens + 23% VAT) retail price: 6190 PLN (about 1685 USD or 1259 GBP or 1437 EUR)

On sale from: At the end of June 2018

Source: https://kconsultmedia.prowly.com/31934-kolejna-nowosc-marki-sigma-105mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-wkrotce-w-sprzedazy (official press release of an authorized representative of SIGMA CORPORATION in Poland)

Off topic: Is there a local tax on top of the VAT? Is the VAT the only tax? I sure hope VAT never makes it to the United States. Imagine that. Charging a person nearly 25% to spend their own money.
Isn’t that the definition of a sales tax?


No, a sales tax is a tax only at the final retail level.

A VAT (value added tax) is a tax added at every step in the process.

In other words, when the aluminum ore is sold to the refiner, they pay a VAT. They've 'added value'.

Then the company that takes the raw aluminum and makes billets (which may not be the refiner) pays a VAT. They've 'added value'.

Then the camera maker pays a VAT on the aluminum they buy to make the body. They then 'add value'.

Then the store you're buying from pays a VAT to get the finished camera. They've 'added value'.

Then you pay it when you by it. (your added value to the process is to put it to work; sometimes they also add a sales tax, just to add insult to injury).

It is insidious, and why prices for things in countries with a VAT are frequently double what they are in countries without such a tax.
 
Upvote 0

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
483
152
ahsanford said:
9VIII said:
TAF said:
Nifty, but given the size of the front element, I would prefer a 50mm f0.5

Now that would be awe inspiring.

Digital Vignetting gets in the way.
If you try to send light onto a digital sensor from too extreme of an angle the light gets blocked by all the layers of circuits and stuff before it hits the actual photoreceptors.
Backlit sensors help (theoretically at least, I don’t think I’ve seen a direct comparison), but in general most of the extra light wider than f1.4 never makes it to the pixels.

Careful what you wish for. Canon's two f/1.2L primes and the new 85 f/1.4L IS have the mirrorbox clipping phenomenon where you get D-shaped bokeh that -- once seen -- you can't unsee it in any other future pictures.

The presumption is that the wide open aperture of such a lens will be so enormous that the mirrorbox behind it will serve as an unavoidable 'bokeh template' like you see enthusiasts use to deliberately make background lighting turn into shapes (stars, hearts, whatever).

If this is a minor nuisance on a 50mm f/1.2, imagine how jarring the f/0.5 output would look. You'd have breathtaking isolation, but the bokeh would look like blurry/boxy 1980s video game space invaders. And I'm not even sure if FF mirrorless would solve this as even without a mirror in the mix, something in the mount/internals/etc. would likely be in frame for such a comically large aperture.

- A

Thank you for that link, it was very interesting.

But I am not entirely certain that in this particular case, that those D shaped splotches are caused by the mirror box. Take a look at the bulbs. They are not point sources, they are D shaped sources because the end with the wire has neither light output nor is it particularly reflective, while the pointy end does output light.

A photo of the sun with a non-circular bokeh would be definitive; can anyone point to one?

Of course, for those of us who still use film from time to time, do we still have an issue due to the mirror box, or is it really an issue with the design of the (digital) sensor? In which case maybe that is why Canon keeps patenting curved sensors?

Imagine a new FF mirrorless, with a curved sensor, and a kit 50mm f0.5 lens...that would be a fun thing to dream about for street photography.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,650
TAF said:
Thank you for that link, it was very interesting.

But I am not entirely certain that in this particular case, that those D shaped splotches are caused by the mirror box. Take a look at the bulbs. They are not point sources, they are D shaped sources because the end with the wire has neither light output nor is it particularly reflective, while the pointy end does output light.

I don't have sun shots, only electric lighting bokeh to show this. But other shots that demonstrate this:

85 f/1.2 = see my first link, this has been a known limitation here at CR apparently for some time (was news to me).

85 f/1.4L IS: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696463#msg696463

85 f/1.4L IS: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34107.0;attach=173436;image

And see the last one below (apologies for the nasty compression, I'm not on my comp and I just swiped it from FB).

Anecdotally from my rental, this occurs when the bokeh isn't too far from the working DoF. Another shot I took like the last one -- but with the lightning much further behind -- rendered nearly perfect circle bokeh.

- A
 

Attachments

  • 85L IS clipping.jpg
    85L IS clipping.jpg
    135.8 KB · Views: 189
Upvote 0

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
483
152
ahsanford said:
TAF said:
Thank you for that link, it was very interesting.

But I am not entirely certain that in this particular case, that those D shaped splotches are caused by the mirror box. Take a look at the bulbs. They are not point sources, they are D shaped sources because the end with the wire has neither light output nor is it particularly reflective, while the pointy end does output light.

I don't have sun shots, only electric lighting bokeh to show this. But other shots that demonstrate this:

85 f/1.2 = see my first link, this has been a known limitation here at CR apparently for some time (was news to me).

85 f/1.4L IS: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696463#msg696463

85 f/1.4L IS: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34107.0;attach=173436;image

And see the last one below (apologies for the nasty compression, I'm not on my comp and I just swiped it from FB).

Anecdotally from my rental, this occurs when the bokeh isn't too far from the working DoF. Another shot I took like the last one -- but with the lightning much further behind -- rendered nearly perfect circle bokeh.

- A

Thank you very much!

It is fascinating to see different shapes to the bokeh depending on what appears to be the distance.

Since my fastest lens is a 50mm f1.4 (Zeiss), I guess I won't be experiencing this.

If I do, I'll just have to reach for the film body.
 
Upvote 0

GuyF

EOS RP
May 26, 2012
689
0
TAF said:
No, a sales tax is a tax only at the final retail level.

A VAT (value added tax) is a tax added at every step in the process.

In other words, when the aluminum ore is sold to the refiner, they pay a VAT. They've 'added value'.

Then the company that takes the raw aluminum and makes billets (which may not be the refiner) pays a VAT. They've 'added value'.

Then the camera maker pays a VAT on the aluminum they buy to make the body. They then 'add value'.

Then the store you're buying from pays a VAT to get the finished camera. They've 'added value'.

Then you pay it when you by it. (your added value to the process is to put it to work; sometimes they also add a sales tax, just to add insult to injury).

It is insidious, and why prices for things in countries with a VAT are frequently double what they are in countries without such a tax.

Off topic but needed to clarify:

You're slightly misleading people here as you don't explain that if you pay VAT on goods or services as part of your on-going business, you can reclaim this input tax (as it's called) back from the government. So if I buy aluminium ingots to produce camera bodies, I can reclaim the VAT I paid the supplier. When I sell the bodies to my customer, I charge them VAT which I pass to the government. If my customer is VAT registered and buys the goods for a business use (either to use as part of their business or to resell again), they can reclaim from the govt. the VAT that they paid to me. It's the end user e.g. Joe Public who cannot reclaim the VAT whereas everyone else in the chain (usually) can if they're VAT registered.
 
Upvote 0