Reading the comments, it feels like people don't get how bigger difference the weight of the Sigma is when compared to the Nikon and how much more practical the Nikkor is in the real world, where carrying around a big heavy lens becomes a pain if you are shooting for hours at a time. Also photographers seem to take pixel peeping to the next level and in reality is sharpness and CA are not nearly as big an issue in the real world were viewers are not looking at the corners, or shoving their eyes up to a 30" print to see how sharp the image is. Vignetting is easily fixed, so that leaves the bokah balls, which is a big advantage to the Sigma wide open but that is only an issue very occasionally and if you stop down to f/2.2-2.4 the Nikkor does pretty well. Now if I was going to compain about the Nikkor it would be the build quality, like most Nikkor lenses, the plastic feels a little cheap but the reality is again, if I was going to drop the Nikkor the glass is probably going to break before the plastic and the same could be said for the Sigma. Lastly with the price, the Nikkor is much more expensive but if you add an ND filter you are looking at spending quite a lot more money for the 105mm than the 85mm of the Nikkor. Also the 82mm fits the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8e and 70-200mm f/2.8fl and you don't need such a big step up ring to go from 82mm down to 77mm. So whilst the Sigma is optically better it also isn't as practical as the Nikkor and even if I were to choose one or the other now, I would still go for the Nikkor, just because, getting older I have learnt that weight is often king.
As per other reviewer nikon transmission is better 1/3 stop which basically grt for low light and to get sharp picrture with sigma u need 1/250 minimu. shuttter speed where for nikon1/160 also the fall off of nikon is superior like zeiss character lens and nikon is true 105 and sigma is basically shorter in focal length and none of the point mentioned by reviewer ....
Great comparison. Could you mount all these to a Sony A7 so they all have the same sensor & processor? I'd love to see how they stack up. When putting them on different cameras, the anti-aliasing filter (or lack thereof) can give a different sharpness to it.
Been checking bout the sigma but as I already have that canon 100mmL macro 2.8 I’ll stick with that I was surprised that the sigmas bokeh balls weren’t as smooth and round as they are with the art 50 mm f1.4 which I’ve recently bought and so got me checking out the other art lenses as I’m well impressed with that 50mm 👍👍
Finally, someone who actually shows clear examples of how different the lenses are. Enjoyed the review. Really surprised the sigma did that well. I wasn't expecting it to be that much better on the corners than the nikon which costs $1k more. Must say though that weight on the sigma man...jesus. Talk about having sore arms after few minutes haha. I would say it would definitely be more challenging taking in focus shots with the sigma with that weight.
Bought the Nikon today, and then I see this. I'm wondering if I should return the Nikon for the Sigma. I don't trust the consistency and compatibility of 3rd party lenses. I feel that the overall experience with the Nikon will be more positive. I'm sure there is much more under the hood that we're not aware of. What I do like about the Sigma is the rounder bokeh balls toward the edges. The colors also seem to be warmer, which I prefer but that may have to do with the camera than the lens. Wish you used the same D850.
The Nikkor is an exceptionally good lens (I did buy it with my own money). It beats most lenses optically and is only slightly worse than the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Milvus wide open. Yes, the Sigma optically is better but it weights over 650g more than the Nikon, which is the equivalent of a Sony A7III body. For that alone I find the Nikon more practical. As for the price comparison the Sigma is cheaper but as a working pro, weight means more when you are using a lens for 4-6 hours a day.
That is a good example of why the perfect lens does not exist. You want perfect sharpness, no CA and smooth bokeh? Boom - take that 2 kilos of glass lol! You want it smaller and maybe stabilized? Well, It's going to be a bit softer and darker in the corners too... ;)
... what a silly test: The Canon is a macro lens. You also don't compare a pickup with a limousine. Lenses are calculated according to their task. Macro lenses are calculated for near range. Don't you know that? (lol)
When you compare Sigma and Nikon, in 3:1 ratio, how can you say it doesnt matter? If it was same price, I'd agree. If Sigma was more than Nikon, then I'd agree still. But if I pay 500 bucks extra, then the cheaper one should have that issue. If I need to pay that much extra, it better be sharper or at least even at 3:1 ratio, 10:1 ratio. I do realize at that ratio level its not that noticeable, but still. More money should be equal to more perks, regardless of how small that is. Sigma kills here. Hands down.
With the Nikon you have to take 2 things into consideration, you are partly paying for the name and the Nikon had no competition before the Sigma came out so Nikon could charge as much as they wanted. Nikon has lowered the price slightly (about £100 in the UK, though it is still more expensive than what I paid for the Nikkor 105mm a couple of years ago). The second thing is the Nikon weighs so much less than the Sigma, it just is silly. Photographers get it into their head that sharpness and CA are the most important thing with a lens but the reality is most viewers don't care about either and it is only photographers who shove their faces up against a print or go to 300% when looking at an image. So optically the Sigma is better but the only noticeable things are really going to be the cats eyes in bokah and the vignetting. Vignetting is easily sorted, so that leaves cat eye bokah, which only effects certain images. So in the end for me it comes down to slightly better optical ability of the Sigma vs the extra 600+ grams or to put it in another way, the weight of an FujiFilm X-H1 added body on to the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 to be the same weight as the Sigma 105mm. I personally would go with the weight saving every time, cause I don't want to be carting around more weight than I have to when working or using a camera for hours of a day.
I don’t know what the canon is doing there , you know you have a canon 2.0 and a Nikon. Macro 2.8 ve. So it’s unfair . Better get both Nikon versions and the canon 2.0 and we will be talking. Comparing prices is such nonsense (Dogma and Nikon are comparable)
Too many disclaimers. The Sigma is awesome, the differences matter, and it's pretty blatant. Stop saying it doesnt matter, when people pay thousands of dollars extra for a sensor with that added resolution, and having a lens that can resolve it at a 3:1 punch in absolutely matters to those who are the demographic for these products. Good comparison, too apathetic of language.
LensProToGo absolutely big . However , I would mostly use it for studio work and sometimes location work, so not a dealbreaker for me . However , I’ve hauled a lot bigger stuff for long periods of time while in the military . Thanks for the review .
Nice video..... out of curiosity.... would you choose or buy a Sony 70-200/2.8 OSS GM lens or this Sigma 105/1.4 Art lens....as a second lens other than 24-70/2.8...kindly let us know. Thank you
LensProToGo I just picked up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and wish to shoot both events and portraits....so I'm stuck between either picking up 2 prime lens (maybe Sigma art 50 & 105 1.4s) or Sony GM 70-200) 2.8 OSS (versatile yet expensive)
I really love the Sigma primes especially the 50, I would also look at the Sigma 85 art for portraits. I did a video on that if you want to take a look, but the 70-200 is definitely going to be better for events, the flexibility you get will make it worth the extra $$. The GM series are fantastic lenses.
I would consider the sigma because of the 1.4 aperture and also the front opening. If bokeh is you thing then definitely the sigma but if compression is your thing, then go for the 70-200. You will not need high ISO in lowlight with the sigma 105
The old Canon 85mm f/1.2 would come out badly against the other 2 lenses in most areas. It isn't nearly as sharp, has more CA and far slower AF. The only area it might stand out is the bokah.
@@henrymproduction7319 The 100mm f/.28 macro can easily be used as a portrait lens. Yes, wide open it isn't as good as either the Nikkor or Sigma but for headshots outdoor, I pretty much never shoot at f/1.4, it is normally between f/2,2-2.8 because the depth of field is too shallow for most of the work I do. In studio, I shoot at f/10 normally and depth of field isn't an issue, so having a 100mm macro isn't an issue, it is more about the extra compression I get from 85mm, which gives a more pleasing look. When I first got into photography many a moon ago, the first lens I bought which was really useful for portrait photographer was the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, it was cheap and whilst plasticy and rather noisy, the image quality was very good. A lot of people have 90-105mm macro lenses and often they don't realise how good they are for portraits.
Incredibly well arranged and presented comparison. Thank you for the time and effort. Bravo!
Thanks Steve! Really appreciate it!
What happen to the Canon 100mm f2?
Reading the comments, it feels like people don't get how bigger difference the weight of the Sigma is when compared to the Nikon and how much more practical the Nikkor is in the real world, where carrying around a big heavy lens becomes a pain if you are shooting for hours at a time.
Also photographers seem to take pixel peeping to the next level and in reality is sharpness and CA are not nearly as big an issue in the real world were viewers are not looking at the corners, or shoving their eyes up to a 30" print to see how sharp the image is. Vignetting is easily fixed, so that leaves the bokah balls, which is a big advantage to the Sigma wide open but that is only an issue very occasionally and if you stop down to f/2.2-2.4 the Nikkor does pretty well.
Now if I was going to compain about the Nikkor it would be the build quality, like most Nikkor lenses, the plastic feels a little cheap but the reality is again, if I was going to drop the Nikkor the glass is probably going to break before the plastic and the same could be said for the Sigma.
Lastly with the price, the Nikkor is much more expensive but if you add an ND filter you are looking at spending quite a lot more money for the 105mm than the 85mm of the Nikkor. Also the 82mm fits the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8e and 70-200mm f/2.8fl and you don't need such a big step up ring to go from 82mm down to 77mm.
So whilst the Sigma is optically better it also isn't as practical as the Nikkor and even if I were to choose one or the other now, I would still go for the Nikkor, just because, getting older I have learnt that weight is often king.
The sigma is aimed at tripod based portrait work and at that it's killing anything in its price range and above.
As per other reviewer nikon transmission is better 1/3 stop which basically grt for low light and to get sharp picrture with sigma u need 1/250 minimu. shuttter speed where for nikon1/160 also the fall off of nikon is superior like zeiss character lens and nikon is true 105 and sigma is basically shorter in focal length and none of the point mentioned by reviewer ....
Wow. Sigma have really turned around their fortune lately. That is some impressive sharpness!!!
Best comparison on these two lenses on the net I've seen without a doubt. Great job. Not surprised by the results, sigma prime still KING.
The Sigma is big and heavy, Sure.. But the Results it produce are AWESOME. But how is the AF consistency/accuracy?
It's really solid, I would say they are all very similar.
How about video af?
Video af perform well at 2.8 on sigma 105mm
Subbed for this level of quality, great work!
Thanks, Jerrad!
Great comparison. Could you mount all these to a Sony A7 so they all have the same sensor & processor? I'd love to see how they stack up. When putting them on different cameras, the anti-aliasing filter (or lack thereof) can give a different sharpness to it.
Been checking bout the sigma but as I already have that canon 100mmL macro 2.8 I’ll stick with that I was surprised that the sigmas bokeh balls weren’t as smooth and round as they are with the art 50 mm f1.4 which I’ve recently bought and so got me checking out the other art lenses as I’m well impressed with that 50mm 👍👍
Great way of telling a story about what matters!
Finally, someone who actually shows clear examples of how different the lenses are. Enjoyed the review. Really surprised the sigma did that well. I wasn't expecting it to be that much better on the corners than the nikon which costs $1k more. Must say though that weight on the sigma man...jesus. Talk about having sore arms after few minutes haha. I would say it would definitely be more challenging taking in focus shots with the sigma with that weight.
Yes and with no IS to help stabilize it.
I just bought the sigma, and I am so happy with my purchase.
It's a great lens.
Great review! Thanks
Thank you!
Highly appreciated work
Man the Sigma Lens is sick 😍🙏🔥
great video deserves 10000x the views
Damn, the Sigma destroys the Nikon in the edges.
Amazing!!! TY for the review :)
Nicely lade out comparison, glad i made the right choice getting the Sigma :)
CJamesPhoto how are you dealing with the weight and bulk?
Lol seems he is already sold sigma
Bought the Nikon today, and then I see this. I'm wondering if I should return the Nikon for the Sigma. I don't trust the consistency and compatibility of 3rd party lenses. I feel that the overall experience with the Nikon will be more positive. I'm sure there is much more under the hood that we're not aware of. What I do like about the Sigma is the rounder bokeh balls toward the edges. The colors also seem to be warmer, which I prefer but that may have to do with the camera than the lens. Wish you used the same D850.
U give me the nikon 105 if u dn like it :D
Great review, thanks. I was shocked with the sigma. Damn, I wouldn't even buy that Nikon with someone else's money.
The Nikkor is an exceptionally good lens (I did buy it with my own money). It beats most lenses optically and is only slightly worse than the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Milvus wide open. Yes, the Sigma optically is better but it weights over 650g more than the Nikon, which is the equivalent of a Sony A7III body. For that alone I find the Nikon more practical. As for the price comparison the Sigma is cheaper but as a working pro, weight means more when you are using a lens for 4-6 hours a day.
The Sigma is best, i own one and the weight is part of workout 🤝🏽😂😂
Thank you. I want to buy a macro Sigma 105mm Macro f/2.8 vS Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD Macro Vs Nikon 105/f2.8.. Am alittle stuck
I want Sigma 105mm 2.8 for my Nikon D5600, but I'm afraid the picture will be too close for other photos like the macro...
Hey! I'm not quite sure what you are asking?
Did u shot sigma at 1.4 and Canon at 2.8 to compare ? And sigma came a bit sharper at 1.4 ?
Compare it with Canon 200mm f2 & sigma 105mm art
Thanks Greg..I have a question outside the subject, how do you find the colors between Canon vs Nikon?
haha i didn't know leprechauns did photography XDDDD
Nice way to show AF speed!
That is a good example of why the perfect lens does not exist. You want perfect sharpness, no CA and smooth bokeh? Boom - take that 2 kilos of glass lol! You want it smaller and maybe stabilized? Well, It's going to be a bit softer and darker in the corners too... ;)
12:40It is not "almost" double. It is more than double.
Sigma is bigger and heavy for some reason , we can see in the results .
You are a great presenter.
Thank you Johnny!
Shooting in medium raw isn’t a fair comparison, and I’m not sure why anyone else hasn’t mentioned that immediately.
why not? If they're all shot in M Raw then it doesn't really matter...
@@Steve-kj9tx they weren’t both shot in medium raw. Only Nikon was.
Good test...
... what a silly test: The Canon is a macro lens. You also don't compare a pickup with a limousine. Lenses are calculated according to their task. Macro lenses are calculated for near range. Don't you know that? (lol)
When you compare Sigma and Nikon, in 3:1 ratio, how can you say it doesnt matter? If it was same price, I'd agree. If Sigma was more than Nikon, then I'd agree still. But if I pay 500 bucks extra, then the cheaper one should have that issue. If I need to pay that much extra, it better be sharper or at least even at 3:1 ratio, 10:1 ratio. I do realize at that ratio level its not that noticeable, but still. More money should be equal to more perks, regardless of how small that is. Sigma kills here. Hands down.
With the Nikon you have to take 2 things into consideration, you are partly paying for the name and the Nikon had no competition before the Sigma came out so Nikon could charge as much as they wanted. Nikon has lowered the price slightly (about £100 in the UK, though it is still more expensive than what I paid for the Nikkor 105mm a couple of years ago). The second thing is the Nikon weighs so much less than the Sigma, it just is silly.
Photographers get it into their head that sharpness and CA are the most important thing with a lens but the reality is most viewers don't care about either and it is only photographers who shove their faces up against a print or go to 300% when looking at an image.
So optically the Sigma is better but the only noticeable things are really going to be the cats eyes in bokah and the vignetting. Vignetting is easily sorted, so that leaves cat eye bokah, which only effects certain images.
So in the end for me it comes down to slightly better optical ability of the Sigma vs the extra 600+ grams or to put it in another way, the weight of an FujiFilm X-H1 added body on to the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 to be the same weight as the Sigma 105mm.
I personally would go with the weight saving every time, cause I don't want to be carting around more weight than I have to when working or using a camera for hours of a day.
Yeah the 100 l is also pretty old now
I don’t know what the canon is doing there , you know you have a canon 2.0 and a Nikon. Macro 2.8 ve. So it’s unfair . Better get both Nikon versions and the canon 2.0 and we will be talking. Comparing prices is such nonsense (Dogma and Nikon are comparable)
You should not be afraid to give praise to Sigma. It killed the Nikon!
It definitely has the edge over the other two.
The sigma is sooooo good
Too many disclaimers. The Sigma is awesome, the differences matter, and it's pretty blatant. Stop saying it doesnt matter, when people pay thousands of dollars extra for a sensor with that added resolution, and having a lens that can resolve it at a 3:1 punch in absolutely matters to those who are the demographic for these products. Good comparison, too apathetic of language.
Hard to beat the macro 100s performance for the money.
Yeah its still a great lens I use it all the time
That sigma is impressive !
Sure is optically but it's so big! That's the one big drawback for me.
LensProToGo absolutely big . However , I would mostly use it for studio work and sometimes location work, so not a dealbreaker for me . However , I’ve hauled a lot bigger stuff for long periods of time while in the military . Thanks for the review .
Yeah definitely make sense for that.
Nice video..... out of curiosity.... would you choose or buy a Sony 70-200/2.8 OSS GM lens or this Sigma 105/1.4 Art lens....as a second lens other than 24-70/2.8...kindly let us know. Thank you
What other lenses do you own and what do you shoot primarily?
LensProToGo I just picked up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and wish to shoot both events and portraits....so I'm stuck between either picking up 2 prime lens (maybe Sigma art 50 & 105 1.4s) or Sony GM 70-200) 2.8 OSS (versatile yet expensive)
I really love the Sigma primes especially the 50, I would also look at the Sigma 85 art for portraits. I did a video on that if you want to take a look, but the 70-200 is definitely going to be better for events, the flexibility you get will make it worth the extra $$. The GM series are fantastic lenses.
LensProToGo Thank you so much.... your advice is most appreciated 🙂
I would consider the sigma because of the 1.4 aperture and also the front opening. If bokeh is you thing then definitely the sigma but if compression is your thing, then go for the 70-200.
You will not need high ISO in lowlight with the sigma
105
Two things. The better contender from Canon camp would be the 85mm f/1.2. And nobody buys the 105mm f/1.4 to shoot macro photography.
The old Canon 85mm f/1.2 would come out badly against the other 2 lenses in most areas. It isn't nearly as sharp, has more CA and far slower AF. The only area it might stand out is the bokah.
@@MichaelLaing71 I agree, but why compare a portraits lens with a macro lens, and why compare an f2.8 with an f1.4?
@@henrymproduction7319 The 100mm f/.28 macro can easily be used as a portrait lens. Yes, wide open it isn't as good as either the Nikkor or Sigma but for headshots outdoor, I pretty much never shoot at f/1.4, it is normally between f/2,2-2.8 because the depth of field is too shallow for most of the work I do. In studio, I shoot at f/10 normally and depth of field isn't an issue, so having a 100mm macro isn't an issue, it is more about the extra compression I get from 85mm, which gives a more pleasing look.
When I first got into photography many a moon ago, the first lens I bought which was really useful for portrait photographer was the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, it was cheap and whilst plasticy and rather noisy, the image quality was very good.
A lot of people have 90-105mm macro lenses and often they don't realise how good they are for portraits.
you are missing Sony 100mm STF
THE SIGMA BLOWS AWAY ALL COMPETITION!
Apart from weight, where it feels like a brick, compared to the Nikon can Canon and weight does make a difference.
bad choice of t-shirt
Yeah noticed that after it was all shot.