[JJ_SO]

The sketches I saw of the rumored adapter did show a mirror. Lenses for mirrorless often are made with linear motors and/or clutches to focus manually - else it's focus by wire or entirely manually driven focus. I don't know enough about that to say, it's only about PDAF on sensor - lenses should also be involved. I also don't know the reason for the pattern on Fuji's 24 MP sensor, and no pattern on Sony's 45 MP sensor.

But there's nothing wrong . if doable - to let PDAF quick focus and CDAF do the fine work.

So, basically I would not be surprised if the new mirrorless uses the "same" sensor, but maybe another underlying circuit. What do I know?

Back to the lens, originally used to start this thread: It's kind of amazing to me: the company importing the Sigma lenses into Switzerland offers lens rentals and charges 10% of the new recommended price. As they state, this price is high enough to not compete with local photo dealers - basically a good thing. As they ask CHF 1975.- I'm a bit surprised to have to pay 217.- for one week. Same time for the Nikon: 107.-

The Sigma is available at the two dealers I usually look for the prices: One wants 1589.- for the lens, the other 1369.- (but probably without the special lifelong" service for free once a year" warranty). Available in Nikon, Canon and - yes - Sony mount.

The Nikon goes for nearly 2k at both dealers.

In general, I'm still happy with my Sigma lenses - the 85 Art being an exception. Last year I tried one copy at a sales show to compare with the Nikkor: AFMA out of range. I rented one last December: AFMA needed a combination of in-camera adjustment AND dock adjustment, at closest range it was +16+11 (+27). Then I bought one and again, I needed to find an AFMA with dock and in-camera correction. Just to find out now, that the sttings I intensely tested didn't work well a couple of months later. I have no idea why and how, but the discovery of out-of-focus pictures never is a nice thing. 135/1.8 is so much better in that aspect.

Altough some of the lenses for Canon already got firmware version of 2.00 and above, the Nikon types remain at 1.00 (except the 35/1.4 Art, that's already on 1.03 for Nikon (and 2.01 for Canon). There's no real reason (else than a strange behaviour of one lens in terms of AF) to suspect malfunctions, but why need the Canon versions so much firmware? And are the Nikon firmwares just easier to do?

The 85 is optically outstanding, yes, but if it doesn't AF well, nobody will see the outstanding performance. At the moment I can't recommend the lens anymore.

And the 105 has much more glass, so I'm already a bit biased and sceptical.

[davidmanze]

This is the basic adapter block diagram:

   Thinking further down the road, if this adapter were to be "actual" the compatibility of F mount lenses would be completely the same as on a Nikon DSLR other than the amount of AF points..

   The new Z range would be already optimized for ML using PDAF on another sensor (not from the D850) 

   The shortcoming is the AF array in the adapter itself!

  No doubt that the whole scenario body/adapter and a couple of new lenses could well set you back the price of a decent car!


So keep on leaning till the announcements arrive!

[JJ_SO]

This is the basic adapter block diagram:

   Thinking further down the road, if this adapter were to be "actual" the compatibility of F mount lenses would be completely the same as on a Nikon DSLR other than the amount of AF points..

   The new Z range would be already optimized for ML using PDAF on another sensor (not from the D850) 

   The shortcoming is the AF array in the adapter itself!

  No doubt that the whole scenario body/adapter and a couple of new lenses could well set you back the price of a decent car!


So keep on leaning till the announcements arrive!

The egg is ready to get cracked, the chick is ready to hatch, but you already talk about a possible career of the little chicken and what - if, but if not, then what?

I'm out of this part of timewaste. If you're happy to entertain yourself, cool.

[davidmanze]

I'm not forcing you to read nor reply..................

............however I will post with any further thoughts or gathered info!

[JJ_SO]

Then why don't you open up a new thread about MIRRORLESS NIKON instead of filling all your imaginations, questions, considerations in a lens thread?

For someone who doesn't want to buy a FF mirrorless you put a lot of attention on it.

[davidmanze]

I didn't start the Nikon thread here.....I joined it!

Yes, I'm interested in the new Nikon ML the reason, even though I'm not going to buy one
...the reason
.............it's called an enquiring mind!.....


......it's been one of the more notable things about the human race ......in what do we call that thingy?

Ah yes, the universe!

[JJ_SO]

It does make sense to dscuss a new camera system in a new thread instead of using an existing one to go far off topic here. And no one said you opened the thread, but as you wish to discuss Nikon Z-mount - have a go. That you declared not to buy it was a good reason to tease you, baby dave

[miro]

Can we go back to the main subject
I'll try re-phrase my question that I have asked before.

1. What is the purpose of this lens? - there is nice art 85/1,4 and even beter 135/1,8 those 85 and 135 are not random numbers. They are comming mainly from yeras of portherts photography. Why do you need 105/1,4? what is special? - so far I know that low coma is nice for astro-photograpgy, and thats all about this lens

2. I still trying to figure out the purpose of the whole Sigma ART serias. Can somebody help here. For me thay lokk like
- you have the perfect lens but they are heavy and mainly fixed focal lenght. Who need this. Weding is done mainly with two zoom 24-75 and 70-200, travel and walakound amateurs are also zooms. For product photography you need Macro lens. Only for studio porthret soot is good fixed fast lens.

- How good is good enough - Take as example Canon 135/2.0 - It is lighter is cheaper it super reliable. Yes Sigma 135 shows better results at lab tests but how this translates is real life.
- what type of media will show the optical advantage of those lenses?

PS: about the S105 weight. Yesterday I was making portrait photo-shoot for about 30 min. Mainly with my canon 50d sigma150 macro and flash-EX580 that trigger the rest of lighting /if artificial light was needed/. I would say that this setup is already heavy after 15 min usage.

[Brightcolours]

1. 105mm is a lovely portrait focal length. That is one purpose. There is a reason both 85mm and 135mm "exist", some like it short and some like it long. It totally makes sense that there is a compromise between the two, and it gives about the same subject separation as a 85mm f1.2. Since there are 3 manufacturers offering 85mm f1.2, there clearly is demand for shallow DOF (see also 200mm f1.8/2 lenses).

2. You might have odd ideas about photography. OF COURSE good wedding photographers also use big aperture primes. What do you think Canon and Nikon and Sony and Zeiss make big aperture primes for? And then why would Sigma need different rules? Artists don't follow narrow rules, they go where their creativity leads them. So they may use big apertures, small apertures, wide or narrow FOV for whatever subject or purpose. Don't judge things from your own little world, try to understand that other people have other sensitivities/ideas/needs.

PS: Can you show some of the results of that shoot?

[miro]

Thanks for quick response,
1. It is clear for now. Seems logical move from sigma since canon put 85/1.2 at slow death mode
2. This part is still not completely clear for me
- Yes. I understand that prime has limited use in wedding. Onl in controlled situation where photographer fills comfortable to do this.
- do you agree that still the workhorses are zooms?
- I'm only familiar with Canon lenses. for me the IS of 85/1,4 translates in higher keeper ration -> better output/picture.
- same story with 20 years old cannon 135/2,0 - it is just enough heavy. The AF is fast enough , same for sharpens.
I don't see where Sigma ART shines except in lab tests.
My point is that I find my setup very heavy.(above 5kg). I'm shooting with two APS-C camera bodies, mainly light consumers zooms. If I upgrade my setup to modern standart it will be 3 times heavier than now. It seems un-hummand to walk with 15..20kg setup. How do you mage this excesive weight in modern cameras?

Sorry I cannot post pictures. The customers are happy with the results. Funny enough they likes more the shoots at available light. Sunset at Loonse en drunnens duinen creates nice sphere. Saying that I'm made all with primes - sigma 150 and Canon85/1.8 :-)