# Leaked: Sigma 105mm f/1.4 HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 25, 2018)

```
<p>It looks like Sigma isn’t done with their CP+ announcements. They are set to announce a 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens this week.</p>
<p>Specifications should leak soon.</p>
<p>Wow!</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-33933 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-2.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-2-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-2-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## brad-man (Feb 25, 2018)

I wish they would put OS on these lenses. It sure would look sexy on my M5...


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 25, 2018)

Sigma is killing it.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 25, 2018)

Wow, this is unexpected! This focal region will be quite crowded in the Sigma line: 85/1.4, 105/1.4, 135/1.8.
It seems to be a non-macro lens. In this case there is also no distinction between all three.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 25, 2018)

While this and the 70 macro are interesting offers one point is open:
Like brad-man I ask myself: Do they have image stabilization? While for the 1.4 105 I think this is not the case a macro lens should have it to be an interesting offer.

My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Feb 25, 2018)

A perfect lens -- if it had OS!?!

Well, keep it up Sigma. Great options and wow, really filling the holes of Canikon! Thanks for that. 

Happy shooting y'alls


----------



## Besisika (Feb 25, 2018)

I wouldn't mind the weight as long as it has IS. I would be interested. I need IS in that focal length for that F-stop.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 25, 2018)

Nice. Just last week I was lamenting still using the 100/2 while Nikon has the 105/1.4.

I don't trust Sigma's AF, though—every single one I've owned, rented, or borrowed has had such horrifically inconsistent, vague AF that I've had to resort to just focusing manually—and they're not well-made for manual focus, either. All their lenses of this type lacking sealing, as well.

Fingers crossed they've had some kind of breakthrough in AF and they've stopped being stingey gits and have built a premium lens with an actual pro-quality focus ring and sealing. If they have, this is the most obvious, no-brainer, instant buy for me. (And hopefully they then put out a 28mm to match it.)



mb66energy said:


> My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.


You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?


----------



## MintChocs (Feb 25, 2018)

I can’t believe there is a huge market for such lenses. As said above 85,135 and now this. How do they make a profit on such small production runs? I would prefer lighter f2 versions with IS.


----------



## Refurb7 (Feb 25, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> While this and the 70 macro are interesting offers one point is open:
> Like brad-man I ask myself: Do they have image stabilization? While for the 1.4 105 I think this is not the case a macro lens should have it to be an interesting offer.
> 
> My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.



This Sigma 105 is going to be GIGANTIC. Too big for me. Like you, I'd be more interested in a 100mm f/2.0 with IS. Let's hope Canon makes that in the near future.


----------



## Refurb7 (Feb 25, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?



Tamron's 85mm f/1.8 with VC (IS) is about 700 grams. Heavy for an f/1.8, but not extreme. Perhaps a 100mm f/2.0 with IS could be about the same weight.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 25, 2018)

Wow!

This is going to be amazing for portraits, concerts, weddings, etc. I'm a big low-light geek & this gets me hot.

Like lots of folks, my first reaction was "why no stabilization?"

but if you think about it:


Adding IS to large-aperture lenses is *hard* & adds size & weight. Large glass elements are harder to stabilize as they need bigger motors etc.
Cost. Sigma knows that no matter how good it is, there's a limited number of people willing to shell out much over a kilobuck for a "3rd party" lens. This'll certainly be more $$ than their 85mm f/1.4, which is already a grand at B&H.
This sucker is going to be heavy, so that makes it easier to hold steady.
Bragging rights. This is the only competition to Nikon's 105mm f/1.4
I already own a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC; would I buy a Sigma 100mm f/1.8 OS? Probably not. Do I want a 105mm f/1.4? You bet I do.
Super-luminous lenses like this are less needy of stabilization than smaller aperture zooms where it's harder to maintain a high shutter speed. You can "stabilize" a fast 100mm by setting auto-ISO to e.g. 1/125 min shutter speed, but there ain't no substitute for the "wow factor" of a full-frame f/1.4 lens.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 25, 2018)

No IS? I'd think cost is the reason, first. A lens this fast will give very good shutter speeds at still-decent ISO, shot close to wide-open. Weight and cost, without IS, will be much more manageable. Bet they sell a bunch.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 25, 2018)

I wondered if some third party would release this, when Nikon released theirs a while back. It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2, fits into a Nikon lens mount throat diameter. I’ve been told that their smaller mount makes some very specific lenses difficult, such as an 85mm 1.2

Edit: 
I think it’s quite telling of the shift the market has taken over the last few years that nowadays when a fast prime is released that we even ask whether it has IS. Go back 10 years and there were no stabilized anythings 1.8 or faster.


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2018)

If only it had stabilization, just kidding. It's been said right? I agree with fb, this will be an interesting lens. Can't wait to see image samples.


----------



## vscd (Feb 25, 2018)

It's a perfect portraitlens, but no weathersealing - no buy. 

I had quite a few raining-events on weddings or in location and I don't need another failure like on a 50mm 1.4 Art... seal it. 8) I went to Tamron in the meantime and got sealing+VC together with f1.8 which is working out very well.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2018)

Judging by the size of that front element relative of the mount, that is going to have one big filter diameter. 86mm? 95mm maybe?

Also, presuming this is real and happens soon, Sigma Art will have knocked out fast primes in all of the following FLs:

14
20
24
35
50
85
105
135

That represents almost the entire non-white L prime lineup -- including fringe-ier items like 20mm and 105mm -- knocked out _in less than 6 years_.

- A


----------



## ad (Feb 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Judging by the size of that front element relative of the mount, that is going to have one big filter diameter. 86mm? 95mm maybe?


If you look closely at the lens name in the image in the original post (http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma105artnok.jpg), it says 105mm diameter.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 25, 2018)

Would be great if someone came out with an equivalent of this lens with autofocus.


And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Would be great if someone came out with an equivalent of this lens with autofocus.
> 
> 
> And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.



The 35 and a few others used a much older AF motor and algorithm and the later models are quite impressive. Some rival 1st party such as the 85 and 135 not to mention the 24-35 as well for an older model with good AF (easier on wide , I know) It really is night and day.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 25, 2018)

I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.


----------



## magarity (Feb 25, 2018)

Starting at 1.4 means with a pair of doublers it can be a 420mm 5.6. hah!


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That represents almost the entire non-white L prime lineup -- including fringe-ier items like 20mm and 105mm -- knocked out _in less than 6 years_.



I'm sure that Sigma has used their existing lenses as a base for improvement, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some design similarities between the 135 and 105, for example.

Some of these have probably been in the works since the pre-Global Vision lens series were released.

That 105mm might be similar to the Canon 200 f/2 in size and weight.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.



I'll pay for shipping to me if you're giving it away 

Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on? I've always wondered if that made a difference, or if it was the lens itself


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 25, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on? I've always wondered if that made a difference, or if it was the lens itself



On the 5DSR and the 5D Mark III it was hopeless. Performs much better (as you'd expect) on a mirrorless camera (eg Sony A7RII with metabones, or on the M5) but still not stellar. 

I'm hoping a future Canon FF mirrorless will make the lens worth keeping.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.



Interesting.....

Are you on the latest firmware for the lens?


----------



## The Fat Fish (Feb 25, 2018)

Another case for IBIS.


----------



## zim (Feb 25, 2018)

CR?
Or click bait?


----------



## Joules (Feb 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.


I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?

My 35mm Art showed inconsistent focus before I calibrated it. Sometimes it would back focus, sometimes it would hit perfectly, sometimes it would front focus. After spending a good amount of time with the dock, this inconsitency is gone and it hits perfectly in the close range on an 80D. My correction value for infinity isn't quite right, so for distances around 2m I still get front focus, but it is consistent.

But I'm sure there are actually bad copies out there and maybe you have one.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 25, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Introducing aspherical lenses, special dispersion glasses and maybe some exotic materials like the blue refractive material are methods to (1) reduce the number of lenses and/or (2) enhance correction a little bit and for LOCA only and/or (3) make room (see (1)) for more movement of lens groups to reduce the close focus distance and (4) make room for an IS group (see (1) too).

The existing EF 100 2.0 is a very very good lens except LOCA at f/2.0. If it gets 10mm in length, 10mm in diameter and 200g more of weight it would be a very flexible toy for those who like a longer focal length as general purpose lens.


----------



## Mistral75 (Feb 25, 2018)

ad said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Judging by the size of that front element relative of the mount, that is going to have one big filter diameter. 86mm? 95mm maybe?
> ...



It's even easier to read it when looking at the image originally published by Nokishita Camera:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItzQiQl2rgI/WpKsVvzTcEI/AAAAAAAAFKQ/-dATE7SgFRg9ZNZuNwNqgVbgrdVRxL7dgCLcBGAs/s1600/sigma.jpg


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 25, 2018)

A Fast Aperture Portrait Lens with a Tripod Foot!
“Angelic Chorus Echoes Across The Land”


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 25, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> I wondered if some third party would release this, when Nikon released theirs a while back. It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2, fits into a Nikon lens mount throat diameter. I’ve been told that their smaller mount makes some very specific lenses difficult, such as an 85mm 1.2
> 
> Edit:
> I think it’s quite telling of the shift the market has taken over the last few years that nowadays when a fast prime is released that we even ask whether it has IS. Go back 10 years and there were no stabilized anythings 1.8 or faster.



The fact it’s made to work on Nikon also means it should avoid most (if not all) shutter box Bokeh clipping issues that people have with the 85f1.2.


----------



## HarryFilm (Feb 25, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Nice. Just last week I was lamenting still using the 100/2 while Nikon has the 105/1.4.
> 
> I don't trust Sigma's AF, though—every single one I've owned, rented, or borrowed has had such horrifically inconsistent, vague AF that I've had to resort to just focusing manually—and they're not well-made for manual focus, either. All their lenses of this type lacking sealing, as well.
> 
> ...



---

Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 25, 2018)

It's an interesting lens.
Sigma are really hard at it bringing out lens.
I wonder is the strategy working for them.
It must be very expensive developing specialized lens like this.

I don't know if it has weather sealing or not but I think when lens get expensive weather sealing is important.
They are not waterproof but you can continue in a light drizzle. No sealing would make me nervous.

I'd need IS I think. It looks heavy might be difficult to keep steady.
Bokeh will be interesting, it's the only thing that I'd pay for this type of wide aperture.
The Canon 100mm L Macro is a very sharp lens already with a good bokeh.
1.4 would allow very low light photography and might be useful for concerts but it looks like a very big lens.
I don't think it will be on my shopping list but maybe it will have amazing reviews.
Hopefully Sigma won't bankrupt itself with all these new limited market lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 25, 2018)

Joules said:


> I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?



Yes - and buying the sigma dock was another waste of money. And a high res calibration card to use for focus testing (ok, that's not so much of a waste because that's been useful for my other lenses).

Number of my canon L lenses that have needed micro-adjustment = zero

The sigma was all over the place. I would adjust it fine, and the very next shot it'd be focusing somewhere else.

Sigma refused to look at it because I bought it online from a dealer who fulfilled from Ireland (which I had no idea of at the time). So much for a single market...

So screw Sigma, I'll never buy another of their products again.


----------



## mjg79 (Feb 26, 2018)

If this matches the quality of their other Art lenses it will be very tempting.

In a funny way Sigma are making it far less tempting to ever switch to Nikon. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 and 105/1.4 were two lenses Canon has no direct answer to and yet it seems quite likely now we will have two either comparable or possibly even better lenses in the EF mount and for good prices.

When one adds in the 20mm 1.4, 14mm 1.8 and 24-35 2.0 one really has to tip one's hat to Sigma. 20-30 years ago that kind of aggressive, push-the-boundaries approach was part of Canon's approach, with lenses like the 50mm 1.0, 85mm 1.2 and 200mm 1.8. And years before that Nikon had had their own glory years with the Nikon "Noct" 58mm 1.2 as well as some amazing wide angle lenses like the 13mm 5.6 "Holy Grail".

I admit I am a little sad that Canon has become conservative in some respects but a company can only push in so many directions and Canon's relentless pursuit of build quality, good ergonomics and ceaseless refinement of the great whites and 2.8 zooms has been a perhaps less "exciting" focus but a reasonable focus nonetheless. Read Lensrental's tear down of the 35mm 1.4L II and see a level of engineering no other manufacturer comes close to. So I'm not trying to bash Canon but gosh I do think they could give us a few more exotics, even if they are compromised as they tend to inevitably be. It also makes business sense; keep giving photographers a reason to stick with the EF mount, something they can't find anywhere else.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 26, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?
> ...



Yeah, sounds like you've had a raw deal on that. 
For what it's worth, using the 35mm copy i have, the 20mm and the 150-600 c on the mirrorless system has been good, so fingers crossed you have a similar outcome if you try yours on that at some point


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 26, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2,


This is a misuse of the term "bokeh"; "bokeh" is the _quality_ of the out-of-focus rendering, not the _amount_ of blur as you imply.

However, for the record, 105mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 work out to have _exactly the same depth of field and amount of background blur_ when they are framed the same with your subject 1/3rd of the way into the scene. If you are working from the exact same distance, so the 105mm ends up tighter, you get much more background blur out of the 105mm as well as a shallower depth of field. If you are working so the subject is closer to you than the 1/3rd mark (e.g. a background so far away it's essentially at the infinity point) then the 105mm can have slightly greater depth of field but still _more_ background blur than 85mm f/1.2 can.

I think if more people realised how much focal length matters to background blur and subject/background separation, they wouldn't get so hung up on things like f/1.2. (Or even f/1.4mm for that matter)



MintChocs said:


> I can’t believe there is a huge market for such lenses. As said above 85,135 and now this. How do they make a profit on such small production runs? I would prefer lighter f2 versions with IS.


Nikon has 105mm f/1.4 and it's been a big seller for them. Canon's own 100mm f/2 has sold fairly well for nearly three decades, while the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is one of the best-selling prime lenses Canon has ever had; if you ever ask a Canon rep about it, they'll gladly tell you the company puts most of the sales down to portraiture, rather than anything demanding the macro functionality.

Then you've got Sony putting out things like the 100mm STF, Laowa do their version, and 100-110mm _equivalents_ have been the go-to portrait length for medium format systems since the 1940s.

Sigma's primes have been doing very well for them; throwing in another popular (and in the case of Canon, long-requested) length and aperture combination is a very safe play for them. They can be sure to sell enough to make a solid profit if it's up to the standard of their past primes. If they take this opportunity to also improve their horrific AF (yes, it really is horrific) then this isn't just a safe profit for them; this is the 85mm f/1.2 killer, this is the 100mm f/2.8L killer, this is the 135mm f/2 killer. Putting out lenses like this is how lens manufacturers take over the market. Canon did it themselves with the original 85mm f/1.2, taking the spotlight from the then-more-popular 100mm primes of the day.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 26, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!


Grip isn't the issue. The problem with Sigmas and manual focus is the rings aren't very tightly connected to the gearing at the extreme ends, causing the ring to 'slip', giving an almost by-wire feeling of lag. On top of that they have a more limited throw than first-party Canon, Nikon, and Sony lenses, as well as being far shorter-throw than Tamron lenses, resulting in far less precision.

(And, personally, I can't exactly turn up with bits of rubber taped to my lenses. My clients are rather too high-class to tolerate that. Which is another annoyance, because the Sigmas are the classiest-looking lenses out there and would fit right in, if only _any_ kind of focus worked consistently for them.)


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 26, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!
> ...


 I have noticed this as well. A sigma lens focuses over about 90 degrees of rotation, and the Canons and Tamrons around 135 degrees.


----------



## hne (Feb 26, 2018)

9VIII said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I wondered if some third party would release this, when Nikon released theirs a while back. It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2, fits into a Nikon lens mount throat diameter. I’ve been told that their smaller mount makes some very specific lenses difficult, such as an 85mm 1.2
> ...



All f/1.4 lenses I've looked at on Nikon cameras show mirror box clipped bokeh balls.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 26, 2018)

hne said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



Yes, but the question is, what does a Nikon lens look like on a Canon body?
The size of the EF mount is still one of the best decisions Canon has ever made. It’s a shame Sigma doesn’t have a Full Frame Quattro (the SA mount is very similar to the EF mount).

If nothing else any Sony FF body would be guaranteed not to have that problem.
If Canon ever makes a Mirrorless EF mount hopefully they take care to minimize this problem, trouble is on the 85f1.2 the electronic contacts are on the rear lens element and will always affect the Bokeh, the 105f1.4 definitely avoids that.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 26, 2018)

Hope Canon would release a EF105mm f/1,4L IS Macro!


----------



## Pukanina (Feb 26, 2018)

A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2018)

Pukanina said:


> A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...



Once again.... the older Generation Sigma Arts had different af motors and systems than the newer lenses in the past couple years.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2018)

slclick said:


> Pukanina said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of buzz wit the Sigma Art lens, a lot of very good reviews, but I bought a 50 mm 1,54 lens and it didn't focus well...a 700 euros lens and it did't focus well???? I had to buy the USB docker and a focus target and arrange focus by myself???? I'm not going to buy another Sigma lens to get problems...
> ...



They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.

I have ZERO confidence that any Sigma will ever focus properly. So while I can except that some people have working versions, I don't believe for a second I could buy one that works...


----------



## bokehmon22 (Feb 26, 2018)

I think people are questioning why Sigma make this lens don't understand Sigma's philosophy. Their Art lens have been trying to create the best optic despite the weight and size (see Sigma 85 & 135 Art). Sigma 105 1.4 could be their bragging right lens. Many photographers want Canon 200 F2 despite its weight, size, and and $6K retail price. I'm sure this will be a big hit for those portrait/wedding photographer like me who want 200 F2 quality for a significant cheaper price and manageable working distance.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 26, 2018)

Viggo said:


> They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.
> 
> I have ZERO confidence that any Sigma will ever focus properly. So while I can except that some people have working versions, I don't believe for a second I could buy one that works...


To throw in my experience, yes, the Sigma 85 and 135 have not focused any better for me than any of their other lenses. Every time a new Sigma comes out I borrow or rent a couple of copies because I _want_ them to be great, but the focus has let me down every single time. So far I've used 2-4 copies of every Sigma released since they relaunched, and the AF has been unusably bad in all of them, with only two exceptions: the 24-35mm f/2 zoom focuses 'okay', though still not as good as Tamron or first-party lenses; the 20mm f/1.4 focuses perfectly fine, but at 20mm it's not like the focus system is under much stress. For clarity, no, I did not find the 85mm or 135mm to be any better than any other Sigma lenses. Granted, people who can afford the time and effort to wade through 6,7, maybe 10 copies might have better luck finding a unit which focuses better for their bodies. Some other people may luck out and get a great-focusing copy right away. I don't doubt that there are some copies of Sigma lenses out there which manage to focus well enough for their owners. But every one I use, other than the 24-35 and 20mm, the focus is abysmal. 

I wish Tamron would take a leaf out of Sigma's book and make some brighter lenses (both aperture and transmission), while I wish Sigma would take note of Tamron and work on autofocus, manual focus, and weather sealing everything. (I think it's pretty gross that Sigma don't seal most of their lenses when they're pitching them as premium, professional-grade products.)


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 26, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> I think people are questioning why Sigma make this lens don't understand Sigma's philosophy. Their Art lens have been trying to create the best optic despite the weight and size (see Sigma 85 & 135 Art). Sigma 105 1.4 could be their bragging right lens. Many photographers want Canon 200 F2 despite its weight, size, and and $6K retail price. I'm sure this will be a big hit for those portrait/wedding photographer like me who want 200 F2 quality for a significant cheaper price and manageable working distance.



But bragging right lenses have to perform, not just looking like a sexy spec'd item -- otherwise we'd all be shooting Mitakon 135mm f/1.4 lenses right now. :

AF. consistency. really. matters. Especially with a large aperture prime. Here's hoping Sigma has upped their game here.

- A


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > They said the same about the 85 Art and then again with the 135, yet I see and hear people that have the same type of issues with those. Like when shooting with outer points with the 85 Art.
> ...



And on the other hand I and others who have used, rented and owned most or all of the Art lenses (minus the wider new varieties) have experienced the opposite. 35 and 50 suck at AF, 85 and 135 excel. It's starting to look a lot more like Canon where certain lenses have copy variation and others don't only with Sigma there is a Stigma. It's well deserved but it's also a case of YMMV. Hell, I went through 3 copies of the 24-105 and all of them suffered from one major issue or another, then there's your 50 1.4...look hard enough and there are people out there with amazing copies. Basically, what it boils down to me is that Sigma is making all the glass we wish Canon would make.


----------



## Pixel (Feb 27, 2018)

I own three Sigma primes currently and this one is on my radar. I have the 14 1.8, 20 1.4 and the 135 1.8. They're all phenomenal lenses that I love shooting with. I'm a sports photographer and I have no qualms whatsoever about putting the 135 on a 1Dx and shooting basketball with it....and it nails shots left and right and I shoot at f1.8!


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Feb 27, 2018)

fwiw, my 50 art focuses like a champ and produces beautiful images for me 



50mm Portrait by Tony, on Flickr



50mm Portrait by Tony, on Flickr

i do wonder tho, and i want to preface by saying i am not suggesting there aren't bad copies out there and people genuinely have problems, but i wonder how many people with bad copies are out there making a fuss compared to people with good copies just keeping quiet and happily snapping away, but also how many "bad copies" are actually attributed to inexperienced photographers struggling to nail focus due to challenge of small dof, like not long ago my very amateur mate tried shooting with my 5D4 and 50 art combo and he was struggling big time nailing focus while i was pretty much hitting every shot

anyway back on topic, if the 105 1.4 continues to live up to sigma's recent top tier IQ i think i would actually sell the phenomenal 135 1.8 and get the 105, mostly due to easier working distance particularly indoors, but for the first time i am little concerned about the size of the lens not so much for weight but rather with that huge 105mm front element it may be difficult to fit it in my day to day walk around bag :-\


----------



## rlarsen (Feb 27, 2018)

This lens looks very heavy. I wonder at f2 how it compares with the Canon 100 f2.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 1, 2018)

Joules said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.
> ...



Is manual focus any better?  I take a lot of photos at 2m with my 35mm. That thing still sounds inconsistently consistent to me.


----------



## aceflibble (Mar 5, 2018)

slclick said:


> And on the other hand I and others who have used, rented and owned most or all of the Art lenses (minus the wider new varieties) have experienced the opposite.


It's not really "on the other hand" when I explicitly stated


> "Some other people may luck out and get a great-focusing copy right away. I don't doubt that there are some copies of Sigma lenses out there which manage to focus well enough for their owners."





rlarsen said:


> This lens looks very heavy. I wonder at f2 how it compares with the Canon 100 f2.


One would have to assume better. Most f/1.4 lenses are better than f/2 equivalents when stopped down vs wide open. Sigma are reporting, by their own admission, that this 105mm design (currently) has extremely strong vignetting, but other Sigma lenses also have strong vignetting and clean up very nicely with just one stop. The 85 and 135 Sigmas don't have any other particular optical flaws, so it's hard to imagine this 105 will have any, too.

Conversely, the Canon 100mm f/2 doesn't have the resolving power to hold up on a 5DS R sensor—though less-dense sensors are fine for it—and it has some slight distortion, altered by focus breathing; noticeable barrel distortion at closest focus and strong pincushioning at infinity. Granted, in regular use you never notice these things, but we should all know by now that these Sigmas are sold primarily on their superiority in controlled lab testing, and that's where the Canon 100mm's faults show up.

In short, I expect this Sigma _stopped down to f/2_ to have a more uniformly-bright image, less distortion, more saturation, more broad contrast, more micro-contrast, less astigmatism toward the edges and corners, and higher resolution.

All that said, given my experience with multiple copies of the 'best'-focusing Sigmas, I don't trust the AF will be anywhere close to the Canon 100/2 (which is still one of the best AF motors in any Canon lens), and manual focus probably will be a tie. Of course then there's the weight, size, and price; it's very hard to ignore the fact the Canon 100mm f/2 can be found for as little as £200 in good condition and isn't much bigger than a cheap 50mm, with a very cheap 58mm filter thread to boot.
Then there's the rendering. Sigma lenses, while _technically_ very good, have pretty boring rendering. Generally with lenses you can have technical perfection or pleasing rendering, but rarely both. (Zeiss have both, but then, they give up on autofocus, they're not very well sealed, _and_ you're paying a huge premium.) Sigma, so far, have always gone with technical quality above all else. Conversely, the Canon 100mm f/2 is one of the leading examples of the value of rendering quality over technical quality. That lens may not win the resolution battle anymore, but for its common use as a portrait prime, it's _exactly_ as sharp as it needs to be and not being sharp enough to show up every single pore—which will then have to be blurred out anyway—is a positive.

There may also be a slight framing difference. The Canon 100mm is actually about 108mm, while Sigma tends to go a little wider than their stated lengths—the 85mm is actually about 82mm and the 135mm is actually about 128mm—so I expect this 105 to actually be a straight 100mm. Those few millimeters don't mean as much to a telephoto lens as they do to a wide-angle, but it can still make a difference if working distance is tight.

All-in-all, I don't think these two lenses will really be in competition. The Sigma will most likely for be for those people who want absolute maximum background blur without the overly-compressed look of something like 200-300mm, and at f/2 and smaller it will probably be the winner for anybody who has to demand absolute technical perfection. The Canon 100mm f/2 will continue being the go-to 100mm for anybody who values size, values autofocus, or values... value. It will probably also continue being the #1 100mm choice for portrait shooters with expressive styles rather than gigantic-print, technical styles.

To put it another way: I have the Canon 100mm f/2. I also have the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, a Mamiya 110mm f/2 I use with an adapter, my 70-200s spend most of their time at 100mm, and I'm strongly considering buying the Laowa 105mm STF. My #1 complaint with Fuji is they still don't have a 100/105mm equivalent, and if I buy into Sony any more I'll definitely be picking up their 100mm STF. To say I like the 100mm focal length is an understatement, and each lens I have or have had in that length has had its own use.
It should be no surprise that this Sigma 105mm will have to really drop the ball for me to not pick one up, and I fully expect that, if I do buy one, it will find a specific use just as all my other ~100s have.


----------

