[JJ_SO]

You have exaggerated as well as false ideas and draw conclusions far from reality. It is a pity that there is no point in correcting them, because you actually want to remain in your world of thoughts. And they don't know any "Art" lenses from own experience, so I don't understand why you want to join in the discussion here. If you don't even understand the difference between large format field cameras (which are far away from 25kg) and lenses for comparatively tiny FX-format. I'm not struggling but even if I were I doubt your advice would be helpful.

For all others except miro: I tried to find a tiny advantage which would, together with the costs of ⅔ of the Nikkor, justify buying Sigma this particular time, at this particular FL/aperture combination. The only I can imagine: You have no Nikon FX camera and are very sure that 105 mm is the only working portrait FL for your work. As far as I can see, the Sigma is every bit as good as the Nikkor, has visibly less vignetting, equally great bokeh and rather biting sharpness. Both lenses failed gloriously, when a friend tried to focus them manually - he is used to Leica and he dogmatically focuses manually The eyes I autofocused on were always sharper. In one night shot with some harsh front light the Nikkor disappointed me. But in general, Matt Granger isn't far off my findings