[JJ_SO]

turns out, the concrete wall just had the "proper" structure to bring out a downside of the 85/1.8 S. Yesterday evening I took both lenses on different cameras and shot some situations with various combinations of distance between camera, main-subject and background. I only can tell which lens in the comparison is the Nikkor and which the Sigma by looking at the EXIF.

Due to tiny focus-differences (also caused by different mode of manual focusing . the Sigma reacts direct, the Nikkor slightly laggish) I would not be confidently sayingg one is clearly better than the other. Contrast appears to be slightly better on the Nikkor - but that might come from various recipes of Capture One, handling camera and lens profile.

Still, there are otehr differences. Weight and size are the obvious ones. The laggish reaction to manual focus and the lack of a distance scale are less obvious, but in some situations relevant. Like observing the focus ring if it is stacking or not. If it goes beyond ∞ 8and produces useless files) or not and if so, after how many shots.

I do use focus stacking a bit more, but there are some quirks about which I often think, it would have been nearly the same costs to implement the function properly and useful.

The last bit what I want to check is CA (with and without correction), but I need sunshine to do this.

[Brightcolours]

You can check CA with any black on white print at an angle too (albeit those will be close up).

[JJ_SO]

You can check CA with any black on white print at an angle too (albeit those will be close up).

I prefer water drops from sort of sprinkler. They are more chaotic and collect more "light from the wrong angle". The lens which looks good at that test has no problems with leaves or contrasty borders.

[davidmanze]

I just now looked at dpreview's sample images from that Nikkor Z 85mm f1.8 S, and I have not seen that nervous background? Way better than the AF-S 85mm f1.8 G.

    I think a nervous background is a figment of an insecure upbringing ............... 


        

 ............. the lens looks a gem to me !!

[JJ_SO]

I just now looked at dpreview's sample images from that Nikkor Z 85mm f1.8 S, and I have not seen that nervous background? Way better than the AF-S 85mm f1.8 G.

    I think a nervous background is a figment of an insecure upbringing ............... 


        

 ............. the lens looks a gem to me !!

I'm not buying unfinished lenses  . Leave that to the grey-importers. 

[JJ_SO]

I have a hard time to find obvious differences. This gallery I mostly set up for sake of bokeh: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-different-85-mm-on-Z-7/n-sBzfZt

Please note that I was rather sloppy in terms of "scientific comparison": no tripod, two different bodies with the same sensor size, two different AF systems with some "impossible" subjects for each of them (that was also interesting to me). It's mainly to compare bokeh.

[davidmanze]

I have a hard time to find obvious differences. This gallery I mostly set up for sake of bokeh: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-different-85-mm-on-Z-7/n-sBzfZt

Please note that I was rather sloppy in terms of "scientific comparison": no tripod, two different bodies with the same sensor size, two different AF systems with some "impossible" subjects for each of them (that was also interesting to me). It's mainly to compare bokeh.

   I'll go along with the Sigma producing a nicer bokeh than the Nikkor there JoJu ..... but they had to choose one of the most difficult backgrounds to expose it ........ stones, gravel and general random clutter at distances which trip up many a lens.
     The Nikkor does what is the start of bubble bokeh, with that vague circular thing starting to form.

   If I was seriously doing portraiture I would choose Sigma ...... both the 85mm and the 105mm ...... but on a ML body.

  Nevertheless, the Nikkor is a huge upgrade from the AF85mm F1.8G .... and not unsurprisingly AF85mm F1.8D.

    Just looking on line this minute the Sigma Art is available for 805 euros on promo .....

[JJ_SO]

I have a hard time to find obvious differences. This gallery I mostly set up for sake of bokeh: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-different-85-mm-on-Z-7/n-sBzfZt

Please note that I was rather sloppy in terms of "scientific comparison": no tripod, two different bodies with the same sensor size, two different AF systems with some "impossible" subjects for each of them (that was also interesting to me). It's mainly to compare bokeh.

   I'll go along with the Sigma producing a nicer bokeh than the Nikkor there JoJu ..... but they had to choose one of the most difficult backgrounds to expose it ........ stones, gravel and general random clutter at distances which trip up many a lens.
     The Nikkor does what is the start of bubble bokeh, with that vague circular thing starting to form.

   If I was seriously doing portraiture I would choose Sigma ...... both the 85mm and the 105mm ...... but on a ML body.

  Nevertheless, the Nikkor is a huge upgrade from the AF85mm F1.8G .... and not unsurprisingly AF85mm F1.8D.

    Just looking on line this minute the Sigma Art is available for 805 euros on promo .....

"They"? If you're referring to the gallery I just put in the link to, it was my insignificant contribution to the gazillions of comparison galleries   for which I take full responsibility (and ownership, harhar). The concrete wall had loads of tiny details in a horrible, yet random frequency.

And as said, I really find it hard to look at a shot and say "aah, of course, Sigma Art..." as I don't do comparisons when doing portraiture.

If you're tempted by the Sigma, be aware: I had two copies as a rental, none of them was spot on with AF. Then Sigma published a firmware udpate, so I didn't had to use AFMA in lens AND in body to get the correct focus. The focus drive in the lens is really powerful, as I feel and hear in few moments when it was too fast to stop at the right point and races towards minimum or maximum. I would not recommend it very strongly to use it on Nikon's ML as in my eyes the genuine Z lens offers a very close bokeh at roughly 50 % of weight and much smaller size.

If one can live with a longer FL, the 135/1.8 Art has a shorter MFD, so you actually can do a bit of close-up work. The focus drive operates a bit smoother and the keeper rate is rather good.

[davidmanze]

I have a hard time to find obvious differences. This gallery I mostly set up for sake of bokeh: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-different-85-mm-on-Z-7/n-sBzfZt

Please note that I was rather sloppy in terms of "scientific comparison": no tripod, two different bodies with the same sensor size, two different AF systems with some "impossible" subjects for each of them (that was also interesting to me). It's mainly to compare bokeh.

   I'll go along with the Sigma producing a nicer bokeh than the Nikkor there JoJu ..... but they had to choose one of the most difficult backgrounds to expose it ........ stones, gravel and general random clutter at distances which trip up many a lens.
     The Nikkor does what is the start of bubble bokeh, with that vague circular thing starting to form.

   If I was seriously doing portraiture I would choose Sigma ...... both the 85mm and the 105mm ...... but on a ML body.

  Nevertheless, the Nikkor is a huge upgrade from the AF85mm F1.8G .... and not unsurprisingly AF85mm F1.8D.

    Just looking on line this minute the Sigma Art is available for 805 euros on promo .....

"They"? If you're referring to the gallery I just put in the link to, it was my insignificant contribution to the gazillions of comparison galleries   for which I take full responsibility (and ownership, harhar). The concrete wall had loads of tiny details in a horrible, yet random frequency.

And as said, I really find it hard to look at a shot and say "aah, of course, Sigma Art..." as I don't do comparisons when doing portraiture.

If you're tempted by the Sigma, be aware: I had two copies as a rental, none of them was spot on with AF. Then Sigma published a firmware udpate, so I didn't had to use AFMA in lens AND in body to get the correct focus. The focus drive in the lens is really powerful, as I feel and hear in few moments when it was too fast to stop at the right point and races towards minimum or maximum. I would not recommend it very strongly to use it on Nikon's ML as in my eyes the genuine Z lens offers a very close bokeh at roughly 50 % of weight and much smaller size.

If one can live with a longer FL, the 135/1.8 Art has a shorter MFD, so you actually can do a bit of close-up work. The focus drive operates a bit smoother and the keeper rate is rather good.

    ........ the thought of buying both Sigmas and the Z7 is purely a pipe dream !!

[JJ_SO]

    ........ the thought of buying both Sigmas and the Z7 is purely a pipe dream !!

I don't smoke pipe and I don't need to dream about - I just did. No smoke involved. The 85 is excellent - but the 135 is even better, plus "lighter" and shorter.