LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[John Koerner]

If you check out LenScore, they updated 10 new Lens Performance Profiles since 2/1/17:

http://www.lenscore.org

• Sigma 500mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM S - 1286
• Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM - 1208
• Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED - 1044
• Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - 946
• Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM - 877
• Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 DG HSM - 849
• Sigma 12-24mm f/4.0 DG HSM - 826
• Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM - 804
• Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM - 741
• Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM - 702

Each lens is rated in 10 categories, so with the caveat that a score of 1000 = an A-quality performance, only 1 Nikkor and 2 Sigmas are worthy of discussion ... while the new Sony 24-70 comes in last place with a score of 702.

I suppose the new Nikkor 70-200 FL ED VR deserves "honorable mention," with a score of 946, making it the #4 Zoom in the entire "zoom database" (behind only Canon's $12,000 200-400, Nikon's $7,000 200-400, ans Sigma's $3,400 120-300mm). With a "price vs. performance" perspective, the newest FL Nikkor seems like a bargain at $2800 ... except the fact 200mm is pretty useless for wildlife and sports compared to 300 and 400mm ... not to mention the other lenses rate 20-40% higher in their placements too.

The new Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED certainly achieved a worthy score, but was rather underwhelming compared to its accolades. Based on the reviews, I expected at least a 1200 placement ... which it almost got in Resolving Power (1198) and Bokeh (1102) ... but was not close to Otus-quality, in any category, ultimately.

On the other hand, 2 new Sigma offerings did approach Otus-quality: the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art and the Sigma 500mm f/4.0 Art, with scores of 1208 and 1286, respectively.

Considering that the brand new AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4.0E FL ED VR leads the class with a 1354 LenScore (for a whopping $10,300), the fact that this new Sigma 500mm f/4.0 Art achieves 95% the same score at 1286 (for a price of only $6,000), certainly makes the new Sigma the more attractive option.

And, finally, the new Sigma Art 85mm got reviewed by LenScore and it hit a home run. With Nikon's AF-S 85mm f/1.4G actually being LenScore's reference lens for quality (with a 1000 score across the board), and with Sony's new and vaulted FE 85mm f/1.4 GM barely edging this, with a 1035 score (compared to Canon's lagging score of 942 in its EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM), the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art blows these offerings away with an overall score of 1208.

While not quite the level of an 85mm Otus (1459), the fact that the new Sigma 85mm Art (at 1208) is an AF lens, and the fact it's only $1,200, makes it is 83% the lens of an Otus, at 26% the price (the Otus is $4,500). The new Sigma Art has to be considered by far the better value. Better still, the Sigma's highest scores were in Resolving Power (1395) and Bokeh (1330).

In other words, the new Sigma is a lot closer to being "Otus quality" and CaNikon is to being "Sigma Quality"

When considering that Canon's, Nikon's, and Sony's 85mm offerings are $1,900, $1,600, and $1,800 ... and that the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art is better in every single department ... while being $400 to $700 lower in price ... this makes the mainstream offerings (to quote LenScore) "look both underperforming and overpriced."

Jack

Moderation: Edit of language.

[PedroS]

Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?

[John Koerner]

Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?

<... deleted ...>

If you read every review of the new Sigma 85mm Art ... the CaNikons cannot, in any way, compare ... the Otus is the only 85mm lens to talk about, if one is seeking something better than the Sigma (and is also prepared to spend 4x as much to get a 15% increase quality).

[Peter Forsell]

Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?

I have yet to see one Sigma lens that focuses properly. I have the 24 Art and 35 Art and while the image quality is very good the autofocus experience as a whole is disgusting. The focus acquire time is too long, focusing accuracy is sporadical, tracking ability awful, contre-jour focusing impossible and the hesitating back-forth rattle of the last focusing steps just before locking are imbecile. Tested with D4S, D3X, D3S, D700, D2X, D2HS, D300, D1X, D1H.

Better to just consider Sigma lenses as manual focus, this is the way to avoid disappointments.

Quick review of 24 Art and 35 Art:
image quality: 4/5 stars
bulk and heft: 2/5 stars
Autofocus: fail
Price: low

Verdict: you get what you pay for. They suck.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.

There are more to a lens than numbers.

[John Koerner]

I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.

There are more to a lens than numbers.

Never heard that before ... and know a few long-time Sigma lens owners ... and have owned one myself.

I have heard of multiple instances of people being disappointed with AF ... usually those who don't make use of the dock (or didn't know how).

The Sigma I had was the 180mm Macro, and it was superb, with AF that worked as well as any Canon AF I had.
(Never used a Nikon macro, but the Sigma outperforms them all, was well-built, and I had none of the issues you claim.)

[Alaun]

... to get a 15% increase quality....

When out of a random sample of 100 instead of 70 now 85 perform according to a given specification, that could be called an increase of 15% in quality   (however low the specification is set)

[bjornthun]

I use Sony, and Sony scores well on DXO, so I like the DXO tests.

LOL!

(This is what I posted on fredmiranda.com to the same topic, that was started there too.)

[richardHaw]

I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.

There are more to a lens than numbers.

i hated that sigma rubber coating. glad that they stopped using it

[John Koerner]

I use Sony, and Sony scores well on DXO, so I like the DXO tests.

LOL!

(This is what I posted on fredmiranda.com to the same topic, that was started there too.)

We tend to prefer that which reinforces our preferences

However, the DxO Mark also scores the Sigma Art 85mm similarly.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon__388_814_1680_1035_1777_0

[John Koerner]

As a final note, for those who prefer the DxO Mark, it actually rates the Sigma higher than the Otus:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Star-Otus-85mm-F14-ZF2-Nikon__1680_1035_1777_814_1384_0

That is one of the reasons why I trust LenScore over DxO: its findings are better categorized and its results more realistic IMO, placing the Otus where it belongs, on the top (which is in alignment with virtually every photographer who's owned both).

Jack

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses; I appreciate that Nikon was able to reduce the weight on the 70-200/2.8 E for example, compared to its predecessor, while better maintaining its focal length in close focus and improving many other aspects of the lens. This is excellent

With the Sigma and Zeiss 85/1.4's (Art, Milvus and Otus), they basically doubled the weight of the lens compared to traditional designs. If every lens is doubled in weight, the bag gets very heavy quickly when carrying everything that I may need or prefer to have with me. I guess if Sigma was able to make a 300/2.8 that is superior to Nikon and Canon lenses but 6kg in weight, Sigma fans would be exhilarated. I would not. To me this is not a practical direction. I don't mind heavy equipment but there are limits.

Additionally to me the 85/1.4 Art sample portraits are harsh and not at all flattering to the subject. I prefer lenses that render the subject in a beautiful and flattering way.

[MILLIREHM]

(Never used a Nikon macro, but the Sigma outperforms them all, was well-built, and I had none of the issues you claim.)

How do you know that the Sigma outperforms all Nikon macro lenses when you never used any?

[John Koerner]

How do you know that the Sigma outperforms all Nikon macro lenses when you never used any?

I owned and used virtually every Canon macro lens ever made, and the Sigma outperformed them, to the degree reflected in LenScore.

While the Nikkor macro lenses rate higher than their Canon equivalents, the Sigma 180 macro outshines the Nikkor macros tested.

Also, I read in multiple reviews how the Sigma 180 macro blew the rusty hinges off Nikon's 200mm equivalent.

Thus, while not owning any Nikkor macros, as somebody who's been almost entirely a macro shooter for 8 years, I am pretty hip on "what's what" concerning macro lenses.

The Nikkor 105 VR II is very, very close, however ... just shorter.

This is perhaps my favorite review on the Sigma 180:

https://gormteper.net/reviews/sigma-180mm-f2-8-os-macro

But there are others:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/180mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro/review
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-180mm-f-2-8-apo-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro-lens-review-20912
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=355

Jack

[MILLIREHM]

Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses;

Bag and Backpack manufacturers still design for the old lens dimensions or sometimes make their dividing parts even smaller (like Think Tank in some cases)