The Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art Lens Produces Ridiculously Sharp Photos

Sigma has been really cruising the last few years, but it seems they've outdone themselves with their 105mm f/1.4 Art lens. Check out this awesome review of this sharp piece of glass.

Coming to you from Manny Ortiz, this great video gives his review of the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens. I personally have had the Sony version of this lens for a few months now and can definitely attest to how stunningly sharp it is, even on my high-resolution a7R III. It's undoubtedly heavy, but it does balance in my hands fairly well, and autofocus has been quite good, much better than I'm used to with Sigma lenses on my Canon gear. When you consider just how much optical quality you're getting for the price, it really is an awesome bargain, especially for a wide-aperture portrait lens that can take advantage of Sony's awesome Eye AF, which tends to give me a much higher keeper rate than my old portrait setup, which was an 85mm on my Canon DSLRs. And as Ortiz mentions, the built-in adapter actually gives some nice clearance around the camera grip. If you're looking for a portrait lens for your Sony camera, I definitely recommend it. It's also on sale right now; you can get yours for $100 off right here.

Log in or register to post comments

19 Comments

Rifki Syahputra's picture

and the one that will make you ridiculously fit and muscular.. cool

Alex Cooke's picture

Nah, I've still got chicken arms.

Nick Viton's picture

Just got mine yesterday!
I went to update my FStoppers profile "Gear Bag" but this lens isn't listed.

Alex Cooke's picture

How do you like it so far? We can only update that catalog every few months when B&H sends us a new gear list.

Nick Viton's picture

Love it! It doesn't feel as heavy as online reviews make it out to be (granted, I haven't carried it around all day). I haven't put it through its paces yet, just some test shots. I think I might need to tweak it; it may be backfocusing by a hair on my D750. Not sure if I should spring for the Sigma dock or just fiddle with the in-camera settings. If anyone has any suggestions, would be much appreciated!

From what I've heard there can be a lot of focus issues with Sigma lenses, and the dock seems to clear them right up.

michaeljin's picture

And in news that surprises absolutely nobody at this point, a Sigma ART lens is really sharp.

user-156929's picture

😲

It's a specialty lens, to be used in portrait sessions either indoors/studio or outdoors, so the weight of this lens is not an issue to be honest. It's not something you carry daily for hours for a vacation or a hike searching for landscape shots. Unfortunately it's too niche of a lens for me to justify buying one.

Another option would be a 100/105mm 2.8 macro - a more versatile lens, smaller, but you lose 2 stops of light.

michaeljin's picture

Plenty of people probably will be carrying it on vacation or hiking. It's big and heavy, but it's not THAT big and heavy.

David Pavlich's picture

It's a tad heavy, but it's fairly short so the weight isn't much of a lever like the 70-200 f2.8II Canon lens that I carry around a lot. I'd love to put the 105 in my quiver. :-)

user-216690's picture

I'd be really interested to know how many people who purchase high end gear are printing large.

Disclaimer, lest I be misinterpreted: I am not saying people should not buy whatever they want.

michaeljin's picture

It's not always about printing large. I like high MP cameras because it allows me the flexibility to crop in when needed without suffering too much quality loss in the final output. Particularly when you're not doing the type of photography where you get the luxury of carefully setting a scene or taking your time to compose an image, it helps to have the option since you might not always have time to get yourself in the position that you want for the shot that you want.

The largest I'll print is typically 16x20, which allows for a good deal of cropping with a 40+MP sensor.

Ivar Dahl Larsen's picture

I have no doubt that the lens is sharp, but what's ridiculous about that?

they have to make the article clickable, so exaggeration words are always helpful.

Exactly. What's so surprising about a $1500 lens being good? It's almost like saying "These tires are so round!", well duh! LOL

Nice review by Manny. I'm starting my third year as a professional photographer (I've shot for 25 years and have a marcom background) and have sometimes found myself overly obsessive about gear (seems fundamental to me as I use both modern and vintage gear and have about 14 or so lens now). This lens is one example... "oh my, should I get a 105 or 135?" I have a Zeiss Batis 85 1.8 and when the Sony GM 85 1.4 came out, I felt certain shooters trying to convince me that I was somehow behind the curve because the Batis has a busier bokeh and is a tad slower. Yet my portrait/family clients are typically quite happy with the images and I have found the Batis super sharp and super reliable for the handful of commercial shoots I've done. Then as I considered a Sigma 105 vs the Sigma 135, I started to get all caught up in how one was surnamed Bokeh "Monster." Yet, from a fundamental perspective, 135 is more practical for most of the shooting I do and even more so given that I have an 85. End of debate. Meanwhile, I've started occasionally sneaking in a $40 manual focus Canon FD 135 2.5 into portrait/family sessions just to get better acquainted with the perspective. "Ridiculously sharp" isn't always all its cracked up to be with a fair number of human faces I've encountered.

user-216690's picture

I quite like shooting portraits on film. I don't want to see every pore and wrinkle.

user-156929's picture

Agree about pores and wrinkles but I love to see the minute details and play of light in the iris which requires a sharp photo so...