New 2 Sigmas.

[JKoerner007]

Given the weight of Nikon's 105mm f/1.4 lens, it is not a bad thing IMHO to see the new Sigma with its own solid looking tripod foot, especially if it is to be used with lighter weight bodies that use monocoque construction methods and which may not take too kindly to being tripod mounted with a heavy lens mounted.  I can recall how fragile the insides of Armando's D800 looked and the very neat repairs that he carried out on its structural issues - and the D800 is supposedly a professional grade body which should have been able to be tougher............
Roland, I have also heard good things about the current/old 70mm f/2.8 macro.

The D800 was an unfinished prototype ... the D810/D850 will have the framework to handle this.

I do remember thinking the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO Sonnar felt "dangerously-heavy" on my D810 though ... but it all worked out.

[David H. Hartman]

I think it interesting that we go forever with no manufacturer doing a new 105mm (non-macro) and now there are going to be two at f1.4.   Cool, but both are big 

I would love to see a 105/2.5~2.2 in an AF-S E-Type that is a non-VR, non-Macro lens that is designed to be compact to replace the 105/2.5 AI/AIS. I'm thinking less that f/2.0 so as not to cut into 105/1.4 sales.

The current AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR is a decent lens. It's sharp with great bokeh and CA isn't a great problem if you use CaptureNX-D and check the Axial CA correction but that lens is a *honker*. I value it for many times when I can't use a tripod and need close-up. The VR is still working at 1:1 but it's a bit dicey for a number of reasons. Nailing the focus is not assured but the odds are better if a good number of shots are taken so this masks the VR's help. Also 1:1 at a focal length of 105 requires high shutter speeds so if one expects to get away with really low speeds they will be disappointed. I think perhaps the VR can't move the image far enough at 1:1 so failures are more common as 1:1 approaches.

Anyway I like the current 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor but it's as fat as the 180/2.8 ED AIS and with the hood it's long and looks to be a 200mm lens or so. It's has what I call "presence" whether you like it or not. The old 105/2.5(s), pre-AI Sonnars through the 105/2.5 AIS Xenotar even with an HS-8 or HS-14 hood are fairly compact.

Please Nikon! Make us a smaller 105mm lens that has similar properties to the 105/2.5 AI and AIS (excepting the wobbly built in hood of the AIS).

Dave Hartman

[longzoom]

So, FBW by Sigma isn't compatible with Nikon mount... It means no new 70 Sig for Nikon, so far. Sorry, I really need  this comfortable, for me, at least, 70mm new macro lens. OK, will see.  LZ

[Roland Vink]

70mm is just a bad focal length for macro IMO.

Doesn't give the working distance of longer macros, nor the width-perspective of wider macros.

Can't think of any serious macro shooter who "eats and sleeps" with this focal length in macro ... like I can with so many other focal lengths.

That's largely because there are so few macro lenses in the 70mm class

I see 70mm not for the "serious" macro shooter anyway, they would use the 105mm or longer for the greater working distance. But 70mm is useful for giving just a bit more working distance than the 50-60mm macros where the working distance is often inconveniently short. 70mm is still short enough that the lens remains reasonably compact and hand-holdable without VR, and is also affordable. Assuming there are extension tubes that work with this lens, less extension would be required for magnifications beyond 1:1 than the longer macros, so it could be a useful option for high magnification work (is it a coincidence the Canon 65mm MP-E has a very similar focal length?) On FX format it can double as a short portrait/tele lens, and on DX format it replicates the angle of view of a 105mm FX lens. So, while it won't be everyone's favourite, it fills a useful niche.

[OCD]

That's largely because there are so few macro lenses in the 70mm class

I see 70mm not for the "serious" macro shooter anyway, they would use the 105mm or longer for the greater working distance. But 70mm is useful for giving just a bit more working distance than the 50-60mm macros where the working distance is often inconveniently short. 70mm is still short enough that the lens remains reasonably compact and hand-holdable without VR, and is also affordable. Assuming there are extension tubes that work with this lens, less extension would be required for magnifications beyond 1:1 than the longer macros, so it could be a useful option for high magnification work (is it a coincidence the Canon 65mm MP-E has a very similar focal length?) On FX format it can double as a short portrait/tele lens, and on DX format it replicates the angle of view of a 105mm FX lens. So, while it won't be everyone's favourite, it fills a useful niche.

If there were 18mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 and 70mm f/2 DX lenses...I'd still be using a DX camera.  Alas.  (I'd take VR with that 70mm though).

[Frank Fremerey]

Oops, I misread. I guess the 105 isn't a macro ... it's challenge to the Nikkor 105 f/1.4

The Nikkor 1.4/105E is wonderful but it also has some issues. So lets see how those two compare.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The Sigma 105/1.4 is >1.6kg in weight.

[Akira]

The Sigma 105/1.4 is >1.6kg in weight.

Yeah, it's HUGE!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7988525955/cp-2018-hands-on-with-sigma-105mm-f1-4-art-bokeh-master?slide=4

[Erik Lund]

Indeed,,, front element looks almost like a 200mm f/2   


It's apparently 'only' 105mm filter size,,,


Most likely it will have a super good ability to defocus in front of the focus plane due to the large front element,,, as well as of of course behind the focus plane,,,

[Akira]

Indeed,,, front element looks almost like a 200mm f/2   


It's apparently 'only' 105mm filter size,,,


Most likely it will have a super good ability to defocus in front of the focus plane due to the large front element,,, as well as of of course behind the focus plane,,,

Yes, the filter size is 105mm.  Let's hope the mirrorbox won't cut the circular bokeh...

[Akira]

Here is a report of the Sigma booth from CP+ (sorry, all in Japanese):

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/eventreport/1109671.html

One interesting point, or rather a problem, is that Sigma is halting the development of 70mm Macro for the Nikon F mount, because of the concern about the (in)compatibility issue of its fly-by-wire focusing system using a coreless motor with Nikon's AF-P system.

If you are interested in other new products reported here, please don't hesitate to ask.  I would be willing to summarize the sections in question.

[Macro_Cosmos]

The sig 105mm has a ridiculous filter size of like 105mm or something from what I've heard. Perhaps this is just like their 84.6 errr I mean 85mm Art, meant to counter vignetting wide open. The 105 f/1.4E has ample vignetting wide open. CA is also quite moderate, although I'm not sure if it's an issue in shooting or not -- I don't have one. Maybe the Sig has better performance when it comes to lack of CA?

As for the 70mm, I'm a serious macro shooter, not interested. I have an 85mm pc-e for 1:2, a rayfact 95mm f/4 that covers 1:1 to 2:1 (it's not on Nikon's website, it's a special line scanner lens that covers medium format). I would like to have 1:1 macro lens that gives me adequate working distance, which the 70mm would not deliver. Instead, I'd take the 180mm from Sigma. Going to save up for one in the near future.

[Akira]

A few sample images:

70mm Macro:

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_70_28/gallery/

105/1.4:

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_105_14/gallery/

[Roland Vink]

The sig 105mm has a ridiculous filter size of like 105mm [...]

The Sigma 85mm Art also has a proportionately large filter size of 86mm. These filters sizes are large enough (just) to allow an entrance pupil diameter to equal the focal length, in other words an f/1.0 aperture. So their 85mm and 105mm f/1.4 lenses are really quite slow compared to the filter size   

[Macro_Cosmos]

The Sigma 85mm Art also has a proportionately large filter size of 86mm. These filters sizes are large enough (just) to allow an entrance pupil diameter to equal the focal length, in other words an f/1.0 aperture. So their 85mm and 105mm f/1.4 lenses are really quite slow compared to the filter size   

Yep, that's true. The nikon F mount only allows lenses as fast as f/0.95 or something, I forgot. The Zeiss Otus 85mm also has a ridiculous 86mm filter size, but the vignetting is worse than Sig. The Sig is less sharp and yields more LoCA in comparison but wayyyyy brighter at f/1.4 than the Otus. The sigma is also not 85mm, it's a bit shorter -- oh well.

I looked at the 70mm macro sample photos.They are boring in my opinion.
Edit: Also looked at the 105mm -- borrrrrriing