Since I own the Sigma in Nikon version and didn't felt desperate when I bought it, you probably might to enlighten yourself by looking at their pricetags. ⅓ less expensive can be a reason to go humungous. But then, since your personal preferences are leaning towards µ 4/3 anyway, I don't expect too much comprehension. 
And using a picture with hood attached to "compare" it to the others without - well, in this forum you'll get away with it. I'm sure it was far too much work. So lemme help you:
![[Image: i-H4r8MR8-M.png]](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-H4r8MR8/0/4885364e/M/i-H4r8MR8-M.png)
It's also nice to see a picture in a post, you know? Without the need to waste space on my harddrive to view it.
Anyway, the size difference remains with or without hood.
Plus, in the Nikon version the genuine lens suffers of a lot of CA, Samyang didn't have an AF lens at the time (and even if it was, I don't want to buy a lens with a bad service), I had tried a Tamron and found it worse. It's not that there's as much 85s around like 50s...
So I have a much better 85 than before. Which I really use less than before, the 135 Art is as good (or better), shorter, lighter, more reliable to focus. I think the new 85/1.8 S might be worth to buy but that's only for a Z body. Sony currently has the best eye-AF while the FW-update of the Z made it to a great eye- or eye-lash AF. So. the GM wins? Quality-wise I expect the Sigma and the GM more or less on par, but in terms of weight and size the winner is clear.
It's simply the quickest way to make a DSLR lens work for mirrorless, and in terms of size it's also simple: cheaper lens, but great IQ = bigger size, more weight. Do I really need to repeat that in every post about Sigma lenses? Apparently, because YOU also keep on turning your "OMG how big, how ginormous, how disappointing to just add the length of an adapter" prayer-wheel.
820g to 1130g is roughly the same category as the price diff. Pay more to carry less. Why not? The price I'm paying once and after that I will have to carry it all the time. I'd have loved to stick with the (much lighter) Nikkor, but as I already paid an extra for f/1.4 I occasionally would like to use that aperture, too. With the Sigma, I can.
And using a picture with hood attached to "compare" it to the others without - well, in this forum you'll get away with it. I'm sure it was far too much work. So lemme help you:It's also nice to see a picture in a post, you know? Without the need to waste space on my harddrive to view it.
Anyway, the size difference remains with or without hood.
Plus, in the Nikon version the genuine lens suffers of a lot of CA, Samyang didn't have an AF lens at the time (and even if it was, I don't want to buy a lens with a bad service), I had tried a Tamron and found it worse. It's not that there's as much 85s around like 50s...
So I have a much better 85 than before. Which I really use less than before, the 135 Art is as good (or better), shorter, lighter, more reliable to focus. I think the new 85/1.8 S might be worth to buy but that's only for a Z body. Sony currently has the best eye-AF while the FW-update of the Z made it to a great eye- or eye-lash AF. So. the GM wins? Quality-wise I expect the Sigma and the GM more or less on par, but in terms of weight and size the winner is clear.
It's simply the quickest way to make a DSLR lens work for mirrorless, and in terms of size it's also simple: cheaper lens, but great IQ = bigger size, more weight. Do I really need to repeat that in every post about Sigma lenses? Apparently, because YOU also keep on turning your "OMG how big, how ginormous, how disappointing to just add the length of an adapter" prayer-wheel.
820g to 1130g is roughly the same category as the price diff. Pay more to carry less. Why not? The price I'm paying once and after that I will have to carry it all the time. I'd have loved to stick with the (much lighter) Nikkor, but as I already paid an extra for f/1.4 I occasionally would like to use that aperture, too. With the Sigma, I can.