Sigma Announces the 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Series Lens Development

[exquisitor]

I decided to do the math, just for fun. 85/1.8 USM (425 g) + 100/2 USM (460 g) + 135/2L (750 g) = 1635 g. Sigma 105/1.4 - Weight: 1645g/58.0oz. Those three Canon tele primes combined weigh a bit LESS than the new Sigma alone!!

Yep, this is a monster lens. I would go just with 135/2.0 L, nothing else needed.
The new Sigma 105 weighs the same as Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II or Canon 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS II. Insane! I think "A" in the Sigma line actually means "Arduous" or "Ample".

 

[aceflibble]

Is it just me or does it look like the stock foot has an ARCA Swiss dovetail?

Jim

Likely. Tamron's been doing that, too, so it wouldn't be surprising if Sigma copied them.

I decided to do the math, just for fun. 85/1.8 USM (425 g) + 100/2 USM (460 g) + 135/2L (750 g) = 1635 g. Sigma 105/1.4 - Weight: 1645g/58.0oz. Those three Canon tele primes combined weigh a bit LESS than the new Sigma alone!!

Yep, this is a monster lens. I would go just with 135/2.0 L, nothing else needed.
The new Sigma 105 weighs the same as Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II or Canon 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS II. Insane! I think "A" in the Sigma line actually means "Arduous" or "Ample".

You can't cheat physics. If you want telephoto lenses at wide apertures, they're going to be big. Yes, it weighs as much as a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, but you're asking it to bring in 4x the light. On top of that, as a prime lens—and one of Sigma's, to boot—it has expectations of being optically perfect, which again means more glass.
You also really can't compare it to the 1990s f/2 primes. Those are fine-enough lenses—I adore that 100mm f/2—but they were designed for film and their optics don't hold up to the standards of cameras like the 5DS R or D850. They're also made to a standard below the Sigma Art line (far below, in the case of the 85 and 100). Again, you can't expect a lens like this to be made to modern standards with modern quality and twice the aperture, but then be surprised when it towers over a simpler, cheap, film-era version.

 

[exquisitor]

I decided to do the math, just for fun. 85/1.8 USM (425 g) + 100/2 USM (460 g) + 135/2L (750 g) = 1635 g. Sigma 105/1.4 - Weight: 1645g/58.0oz. Those three Canon tele primes combined weigh a bit LESS than the new Sigma alone!!

Yep, this is a monster lens. I would go just with 135/2.0 L, nothing else needed.
The new Sigma 105 weighs the same as Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II or Canon 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS II. Insane! I think "A" in the Sigma line actually means "Arduous" or "Ample".

You can't cheat physics. If you want telephoto lenses at wide apertures, they're going to be big. Yes, it weighs as much as a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, but you're asking it to bring in 4x the light. On top of that, as a prime lens—and one of Sigma's, to boot—it has expectations of being optically perfect, which again means more glass.
You also really can't compare it to the 1990s f/2 primes. Those are fine-enough lenses—I adore that 100mm f/2—but they were designed for film and their optics don't hold up to the standards of cameras like the 5DS R or D850. They're also made to a standard below the Sigma Art line (far below, in the case of the 85 and 100). Again, you can't expect a lens like this to be made to modern standards with modern quality and twice the aperture, but then be surprised when it towers over a simpler, cheap, film-era version.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you need to pay for what you get, also with weight and size. Two lenses I mentioned (70-200 and 100-400) both have a similar max aperture of 71 mm compared to 75 mm of Sigma 105/1.4, so it's not a coincidence.
What I mean is, this lens is pushed to the extremes. It probably has stellar optical quality, no question, but its size and weight are also pushed to extremes making it impractical in many situations. This makes it rather unbalanced solution ought to be a niche solution with smaller market. You could say "So what, there are 200/2.0 and 400/2.8 too". Yes, but there are also 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 lenses. So there are extreme and balanced solutions. So far Sigma has rather extreme solutions in the Art line, highly optimized for big aperture and optical quality, but compromised in weight and size. I just would hope that they would bring something more travel friendly.

 

[TommyLee]

the Sig 135 f1.8 is so good.... it is as sharp as the NEW Canon90mm f2.8L ts-e (but diff purpose)
but that is a pretty good level... for compares..
and I cry for I.S. .... which is possibly coming with canon's 135 f2 mk II...
it will be hard to wait for that one...
[ i have to say the new 85L I.S. was ... not what I wanted...]

but this 105 f1.4 SEEMS to be one-notch shorter/smaller than the great Canon 200mm f2L
the 200 f2 could use a NEW 4+ stop I.S. system - which I long for...
.. if it also reduces size and weight a bit..

I can see in my kit (I love using the first 2)
a 14L mk II (so small as to never be left behind),
the Canon 35 f1.4L II,
and then the ?... well ....105 sigma might just fit there..

....I AM ........waiting for this contest to start... IMO it is between:
sig 135 f1.8
Canon 135f2L I.S.
Sigma104 f1.4

its about all you need... or...all I need...
and yes it can travel... just one camera body ..and...a couple batteries..
toss in a 1.4 or 2 TC if you want...
then do Paris ...

I would rather have I.S. ....
but this new sig...seems to fit the bill that my 85L II did in bar/city nite-shooting..
I am pretty sure if it has low coma/chromatics.. I will have to have it

if the sig arrives at the start of spring/summer...
I will want the first one in town...

 

[RunAndGun]

I like it. All of my still and cine glass is Canon, BUT I would really like to see Sigma make a cine version of this lens(prob. T1.5) like they have with the other ART lenses. It would be a really good interview lens. The only thing that looks disappointing and gives me pause is the MFD/MOD of 39.4", which is ever so slightly worse than my CN-E 135(39").

 

[Chaitanya]

Here are hands on previews posted by Imaging resource and Dpreivew. At 1.6kgs that is one stubby lens.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/03/01/cp-2018-hands-on-with-sigmas-bokeh-badboy-the-105mm-f-1.4-art-lens
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7988525955/cp-2018-hands-on-with-sigma-105mm-f1-4-art-bokeh-master

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Is it just me or does it look like the stock foot has an ARCA Swiss dovetail?

Jim

Yes that's a seriously nice feature and one that canon should wake up to.

My only two reservations with this lens, and on paper it looks amazing...is the old Sigma Achilles heel....focus accuracy.
Sigma seem to be pushing their lens design capability for a few years now with their ART range, but a common issue is their capability to design AF motors that can consistently and accurately focus with slim Depth of Field demands. So far there have been a lot of issues in that regard, If Sigma can't make a 35mm or 50mm f1.4 focus accurately...then what are they going to be like with an even more demanding lens like a 105mm f1.4?

How is it that Sigma can make a lens that is vastly larger, bulkier and heavier that the Nikon version? the Nikon version looks very much like a Canon 85mm f1.2 II L in terms of it's size, proportions and look. The Sigma looks like it was modelled on a 300mm f2.8 LIS!

The other observations is...where are all the idiot posts here on CR moaning about the lack of an image stabiliser? Isn't that the usual CR response to an ultra bright telephoto prime lens these days? Or is that just reserved for Canon lenses?