Z mount Nikon 70-200 2.8S vs Sigma 135mm Art

Hi All,

I am looking for a short telephoto lens with more compression than the 85mm 1.8 Z but not keen on compromising IQ.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the new 70-200 2.8 Z against the Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art?

Best,

Pat

Zeiss 135 f2.0 is nice if you don't mind manual focus. Heavy.

Yes, thanks, I am no stranger to Zeiss offerings, including the 135mm, used to own it a few years back, but I need AF.

Hi All,

 

I am looking for a short telephoto lens with more compression than the 85mm 1.8 Z but not keen on compromising IQ.

 

Has anyone had a chance to compare the new 70-200 2.8 Z against the Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art?

 

Best,

Pat

Pat, The 70-200/2.8 S lens is not a short lens at all. It's 8.6" long - 3+" longer than Sigma 135 f/1.8 . Weightwise, it's about 3 lbs, a half-pound more than the Sigma. It feels rather bulky. The two lenses do not have much in common. Image quality is good, of course.

Pat, The 70-200/2.8 S lens is not a short lens at all. It's 8.6" long - 3+" longer than Sigma 135 f/1.8 . Weightwise, it's about 3 lbs, a half-pound more than the Sigma. It feels rather bulky. The two lenses do not have much in common. Image quality is good, of course.

Thanks Mary, when I said "short" I was referring to the focal length rather than physical size, sorry, should have made that clearer.

I realise both are bulky, 70-200 2.8 being the bigger lens, of course, but since there are no AF prime options for a short (focal length) lens apart from the Sigma, the 70-200 2.8 lens becomes the only other option.

I already have Nikon's 70-200 F4 for personal/travel so these would belong in the studio or taken on specific shoots. The biggest (no pun intended) criterion is the ultimate optical quality in this case

I know my Sigma 135mm 1.8 ART is better than my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ART (at 135mm....;)), I wouldn't expect otherwise.

I haven't tried the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 S yet, although I am the newish owner of a Z6ii, so eventually I might see.

Interestingly, I tried the manual focus Samyang 135mm f2 (via FTZ) and focus peaking was surprisingly effective. Sharp as a very sharp thing.

The biggest (no pun intended) criterion is the ultimate optical quality in this case

If that's what you are looking for the 70-200 S lens is a no brainer.

If that's what you are looking for the 70-200 S lens is a no brainer.

is a character but his reviews are credible.

Yes, have seen them all :)

Looked at the Raw files and there is a certain softness in comparison to Jared's Sigma 135mm review, for instance, where the raw images just pop.

I am conscious this might be the camera's (Z5) lowpass filter & sensor characteristics though. My Z6 needed a different sharpening approach compared to my old d810 or df for instance; where Z6's RAW files looked inherently softer - not a bad thing (!), excellent sensor, just something one needs to be aware of. Without seeing a comparison of both lenses on identical sensor it's all (hype and sales-pitch) assumptions.

It's funny how biased (sponsored?) some people are, Dustin Abbott's impressions of the milvus 135mm Vs sigma art, for instance, often contradict what we are actually seeing in the images :)

Has anyone tried the Sigma AF tele's on the Z system? My only experience was with a Sigma Art 35/1.4 and D800 a while back. No complaints at all about the lens optics but I could not get reliable AF accuracy consistently, even with AF fine tune.

My choice for this lens slot, I think, would be a Nikon 105/1.4E, but I have not pulled the trigger on one yet.

Quick update, I ran a few quick tests with the Z7 the lens works absolutely fine; no issues with AF whatsoever, in fact, it works much better than adapted Nikon's G lenses (35mm 58mm 85mm 1.4s); so far I have not noticed it being worse than the Z primes. It is more audible than Z primes, though.

IQ-wise it is insanely good. Jaw-droppingly good. It has a definite edge over 85mm 1.8z; the magnification is different, obviously, but where the 85mm was already amazingly clear at wide open, the 135mm is clearer still. It is astonishing really. It renders things slightly warmer compared to the 85mm 1.8s Z but otherwise they share that modern lens signature. See below: Nikon Z 85mm 1.8s on the left and Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art on the right. Both at f1.8.

Practically zero CAs, which was another critical aspect for me (something that made me move away from the aforementioned Nikon 1.4s G lenses).

Flattering compression (but not too much) over the 85mm with great minimum focusing working distance.

Size-wise, I am really glad I have not gone for the larger zoom; for me, this hits the limit of what I would be willing to take to a shoot on top of the existing 35, 50 and 85mm primes. I have not made any IQ compromises either, the Zoom would leave me dissatisfied both on the size and image front ultimately I think. I do have a 70-200 Nikon f4 for travel and Z 14-30mm f4 for personal stuff & travel, mind you.

Definitely stays!

I will update the post should I face any issues in the future.

I tried to embed the images in the post but failed, here are some links instead:

NikonZ85mm1i8S-at-f1i8-L-and-Sigma-135mm-1i8-Art-at-1i8-R-at-25-meters

NikonZ85mm1i8S-at-f1i8-L-and-Sigma-135mm-1i8-Art-at-1i8-R-at-Infinity

Interesting just how much effect the compression and OoF softness the 85mm v 135mm has on the white railings at the back.

If you feel like a 40mm workout, try the Sigma 40mm 1.4. It's a bit better. Very different FoV, but bitingly sharp.

I could not match the FOV in the previous examples as I was shooting from a window and had to change the magnification level instead. We are talking about 25 meters in the case of the chimney and infinity for the tower block. However, for the sake of completeness, here are some examples at just a couple of meters, where the FOV was matched by moving the 135mm further back to where the 85mm was. All crops at 100% now.

Nikon-Left-vs-Sigma-Right-at-f1i8

Nikon-Left-vs-Sigma-Right-at-f2i8

Nikon-Left-vs-Sigma-Right-at-f4

Nikon-Left-vs-Sigma-Right-at-f5i6

Pretty much identical now so one more for diffraction at f11

Nikon-Left-vs-Sigma-Right-at-f11

Both are amazing lenses

If you are looking for exceptional image quality in a 135 mm lens, consider the Zeiss Batis 135/2.8. It is an apochromatic lens with image quality on a par with the Batis 40/2, arguably the best of the Batix series. It is over a pound lighter than the Sigma, and (on a Sony) has very fast (and silent) AF. An adapter with AF will be about $250. However the adapter would open up the Z world to over 80 MILC lenses which Nikon has been so slow to develop.

Another choice might be the Nikon DC 135/2.8, which is the same price as the Sigma.

Interesting just how much effect the compression and OoF softness the 85mm v 135mm has on the white railings at the back.

The OOF is directly proportional to the physical aperture diameter Mike. So 135mm at f/1.8 has nearly 1.6 times the amount of 'Oof' than an 85mm at f/1.8 has.

FWIW. I added a 'blur circle' column to my universal DoF-and-everything-else spreadsheet. It makes fascinating reading.... if you can call geeky stuff like that fascinating.