Nikon 105 f1.4e Versus Sigma 105 f1.4

I know it is early but do you think the Sigma at a $600 lower list price than the Nikon will leverage Nikon to lower their price earlier rather than later? As a side note, I have seen reviews accusing the Sigma of being over-engineered and, as a result, heavier than it needs to be.

Sigma of being over-engineered and, as a result, heavier than it needs to be.

Many of the Sigma Art lenses are on the overly heavy side. In the case of the 105/1.4, it's 3.6lbs vs 2.2lbs and 105mm filter vs 82mm filter size. Makes the Sigma offering not look very appealing despite the lower price.

 

I know it is early but do you think the Sigma at a $600 lower list price than the Nikon will leverage Nikon to lower their price earlier rather than later?

Has that actually happened for any of the Nikon lenses that Sigma has brought out equivalents for?

I know it is early but do you think the Sigma at a $600 lower list price than the Nikon will leverage Nikon to lower their price earlier rather than later? As a side note, I have seen reviews accusing the Sigma of being over-engineered and, as a result, heavier than it needs to be.

I own neither one of those lenses, but there is no way I would consider the Sigma 105mm/f1.4 due to its weight and size:

105mm F1.4 DG HSM

 

It uses 105mm front filters and has a built-in tripod collar. Keep in mind that the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR uses 95mm filters, and that Sigma has a much larger front diameter.

 

To me, a 105mm is mostly a portrait lens. If I use that inside a studio, I would like to have the flexibility of hand holding and use flashes to freeze any motion. The Sigma is just way too heavy and cumbersome. In the old days, we had the 105mm/f2.5 portrait lenses and it was fine. I don't really think that f1.4 is necessary for portraits, from any brand. If we can go to f2 or f1.8, the depth of field is shallow enough and the lens can be smaller.

The Ai-S 105mm f/1.8 is still a very viable option for portraits. If fitted with a Dandelion chip it can do trap focus as well.

 

I'm doubtful that an extra 2/3rds stop is going to make a tremendous difference to depth-of-field.

>Has that actually happened for any of the Nikon lenses that Sigma has brought out equivalents for?

 

Sort of. I don't recall Nikon permanently dropping a lens price to meet competition. But the 200-500mm zoom was lintroduced at a very competitive price to start with, so it must have been designed to be built cheaply. I think Nikon's lens prices (except Nikon 1 lenses perhaps) are a fair reflection of the cost of building them the way they were designed.

While I was picking up my 85mm Sigma, I mentioned the 105mm Art to the Nikon rep who happened to be in the shop. He was extremely dismissive about its size compared with the Nikkor. Clearly this matters a lot to some people; to me, it matters very little. My biggest objection is that as far as I can tell, both lenses have "cat's eye" mechanical vignetting (as does the 85mm). If they're going to make a big telephoto prime for which "size is no object", I'm a little disappointed that they didn't avoid this. It might have tilted me towards one lens or the other.

 

Nikon, I hope you're listening when you eventually decide to replace the 135mm DC (unless Nikon just cede the 135mm length to Sigma). Get rid of the mechanical vignetting, do the "DC" properly with a strong apodisation filter, and make is roughly apochromatic, and I'll quite possibly start saving. I don't care nearly so much about whether it's smaller - currently I'm using a 200 f/2 for candid portraits because of the bokeh, ability to lose background, and lack of LoCA, so that's the target.

I am sure that Nikon feels that the Nikon brand justifies some extra premium. For example, the fairly recent 70-200mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR ($2800) is more than twice as expensive as the Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm/f2.8. In that case the Nikkor has FL elements and that is costly.

 

I would imagine Nikon thinks that their 105mm/f1.4 deserves a $600 premium over the Sigma, which I have a hard time understanding why Sigma makes it such a huge and heavy lens. However, what Nikon tends to do is after the AF-S f1.4, they would introduce an f1.8 version. They have done that for the 24mm AF-S, 35mm AF-S and 85mm AF-S. (In the case of the 28mm AF-S, Nikon introduced the f1.8 first and then an f1.4 E version a few years later.) Therefore, there maybe a chance we'll see a 105mm/f1.8 AF-S down the road, but that is merely my speculation. Moreover, if there is indeed an f1.8 version, how good (or bad) it will be is unknown and the time frame is also unknown. Personally, as I said earlier, a 105mm/f1.8 AF-S would be just fine. f1.4 is not really necessary for such a lens.

As to reason for big and heavy Sigma 105 f1.4, in an interview with head of Sigma at a photo show in Japan when he was asked this same question he answered that one of the engineers working on the project is seriously interested in Astrophotography and wanted the 105 f1.4 to cover that objective as well as portraiture.

For myself, I have Nikon kit and also the Fujifilm 56 1.2 which is light and travels well. Attached is a picture of stature of Sgt. Jasper a Revolutionary hero in Charleston, SC. f7.1, 1/350.

Nikon hands down especially if you own a D850. I agree with the person who mentioned the old 105mm f1.8 AIS, it's a sleeper and fantastic on FX.

Meh. I have a D850, and it's why I'm poor, which makes the Sigma a lot more appealing to me. And size doesn't bother me much until you get a lot bigger than this (135mm f/1.4...) I'm more of an 85mm/135mm person than a 105mm person, though.

The 105 DC is perhaps my favourite Nikon lens.

Most of the Sigma art primes so far render quite differently from the equivalent Nikon primes - Sigma seems to steer more towards sharpness above all, and may loose a certain gentleness in the process. The Nikons may appear soft-ish in comparison. Probably the most clear difference is between the 50mm f/1.4 Art and 58 f/1.4G - these lenses just have a different design brief, and as a result have completely different strengths and weaknesses.

 

So, I'd really wait for reviews with useful and relevant sample images before making any choice between these two. Lens tests so far of the Nikon are very favourable, and resulting images to my eyes are stunning, so it'll be hard to top that lens. But personal preferences differ, and no doubt for some the Sigma will end up being the better choice.

I'm not a Nikon guy but watched Matt Granger's review of Sigma vs. Nikon. If I was Nikon's management, I'd sleep on & do nothing (about 104/1.4 pricing, due to the Sigma). Sorry, as far as I understand things: Less than $1/g of "antimatter" (or however you fancy to call absent lens weight) looks like a fair offering.

 

I would be extremely reluctant to buy a portrait prime heavier than a 70-200/2.8. Maybe you are build like a Terminator, have carts & assistants, plan your shots in advance and get paid well. In that case the Sigma might work for you. To me it looks like the archetype of a stay at home lens.

I agree with the person who mentioned the old 105mm f1.8 AIS, it's a sleeper and fantastic on FX.

What?

How old is this thread?

No autofocus?

Old Film lens on a digital camera?

 

Seems I recall:

“I can do everything and more with my 46mp DSLR that I did with MF.”

I do not think Nikon will drop the price for the AF-S 105/1.4E just because Sigma has made an equivalent lens. That is wishful thinking, although it would be nice. Just look at the 24-70/2.8E VR, 70-200/2.8E and most Nikkor super-telephoto lenses. Sigma also make corresponding lenses for those, but unfortunately, that does not seem to factor in when Nikon set their prices.

 

Like most people in this thread, I own neither. However, I would not even consider the Sigma for its weight and size alone.

I find the Sigma 135mm 1.8 ART a bit on the weighty side, but very stable on a D850.

 

It is a bit front heavy on a D5300 though!

 

As a bizarre experiment it mounts, via the FT-1, nicely on the J5; Centre AF point only...:mad:

 

It's FOV is roughly a 400mm so lack of VR can be a slight framing issue handheld, but it's a lovely bright back screen.....;)

 

(NB Please do not hold this combo by J5 body alone!!)

I don't own either, but do own the Nikon 105mm f2 DC. From a build stand point I'd buy the sigma. And the image quality is great plus it cost less than the Nikon version.

So, what kind of testing have you conducted to compare the build of the Nikon and Sigma 105/1,4's. Drop/impact testing? How many samples / repetitions? What was the outcome?

Weight aside, the sigma's build quality and lower price would make it my choice.

It makes the user decide between absolute quality and weight.

In my line of work resolution trumps all.

The end.

PS. And like it or not the Sigma wins.

I don't think Nikon would drop the price regardless of how low the Sigma is. If the Sigma is overengineered that it would worth more.