Sigma A 105 mm f/1.4 DG HSM
7. Coma, astigmatism and bokeh
| Center, f/1.4 | Corner APS-C, f/1.4 | Corner FF, f/1.4 |
|
|
|
| Center, f/2.0 | Corner APS-C, f/2.0 | Corner FF, f/2.0 |
|
|
|
When it comes to astigmatism, understood as an average difference between horizontal and vertical MTF50 values, we don’t have any reservations either. The value measured by us amounted to 4.5% and it means you don’t have to think about that aberration at all. Still it’s worth adding that the Nikkor 1.4/105E ED performed better, with a result of just 1.8%.
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A fast portrait lens should be able to provide pleasant blurry areas and in this category we don’t have any complaints. Circles of light are very nice and smooth, without any local extremes. Even the rim, which appears on stopping down, is not especially intensive. What’s important, mechanical vignetting disappears practically completely on stopping down the aperture to f/2.0 while in the case of the Nikkor it influenced heavily circles even by f/2.8. The difference in dimensions of these two lenses makes itself felt.
| Center, f/1.4 | Corner APS-C, f/1.4 | Corner FF, f/1.4 |
|
|
|
| Center, f/2.0 | Corner APS-C, f/2.0 | Corner FF, f/2.0 |
|
|
|
Center, f/2.8 | Corner APS-C, f/2.8 | Corner FF, f/2.8 |
|
|
|
