• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / D850 / Sigma 135/1.8 LoCA on D850

Sigma 135/1.8 LoCA on D850

November 28, 2017 JimK 9 Comments

This is the 26th post in a series of Nikon D850 tests. The series starts here.

I’ve just purchased a bunch of Sigma lenses, thanks to the D850. Why’s that? It’s a somewhat-complicated chain of reasoning:

  1. Because the D850’s Focus Shift Shooting (FSS) feature as the potential to completely change the way I work with static subjects when sharpness is paramount.
  2. Although FSS looks like it’s designed for focus stacking, I intend to use it for focus bracketing as well.
  3. I had pretty much standardized on Zeiss lenses for use with F-mount cameras and static subjects.
  4. Those were all manual focus lenses.
  5. FSS works only with autofocus lenses. 
  6. I’ve been really happy with the two Sigma ART lenses that I have, the 50/1.4 and the 24/1.4.
  7. With some notable exceptions like the 105/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8, I have not been as happy with recent Nikon lenses.

So I’m going to be testing several Sigma lenses on the D850. First up is the 135 mm f/1.8 ART.

I tested the lens for on-axis sharpness with a backlit razor-blade target at 1.5 meters. I used the D850’s Focus Shift Shooting feature for focus bracketing, and made exposures at the whole stops from f/2.8 through f/11, and wide open. Here’s the target I used:

Here’s the rest of the test protocol:

  • ISO 64
  • Focus shift, silent shutter option
  • 40 steps 
  • Minimum step size (1)
  • Aperture exposure mode
  • Wescott LED panels set to 5500 K.
  • Gitzo legs
  • Arca Swiss C1 head
  • Vinyl tile flooring over 6 inches on concrete on grade

I used Fast Raw Viewer to discard the really out of focus images and put the rest through my processing pipeline: dcraw in document mode, MTF Mapper, Matlab, and Excel.

Here are the results wide open:

 

The vertical axis is MTF50, measured in cycles per picture height (cy/ph). The shot taken with the lens focused to the closest position is on the left. There are 7 more exposures plotted. There is no way to know the focused distance for these exposures. I used the minimum step size for the Focus Shift Shooting feature, which is too large to reliably catch the actual peaks, but it’s not that bad. It is clear that this is a seriously sharp lens wide open, although not in Otus territory, or even Zeiss 135/2 Apo-Sonnar territory. The green channel is by far the sharpest, which is the way you’d want it if two channels had to be down from the other. There is some longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA); the sharpest peak for the green channel comes one step away from the sharpest peak for the other two.

Stopping down to f/2.8:

Now the sharpness has moved into Otus territory. The LoCA is still about one step. Note that the FSS steps get bigger as you stop down the lens.

At f/4:

This is pretty spectacular. The blue and green channel MTF50 peaks are almost at the Nyquist frequency for the D850! The blue and green peaks line up now.

At f/5.6, the depth of field (DOF) has gotten to the point where it will cover up most of the LoCA. Sharpness has fallen, but the lens is still quite sharp.

Now diffraction is the limiting factor, and there is plenty of DOF to mask the LoCA.

By f/11, most lenses tend to look about the same in this test. The Sigma 135/1.8 is no exception.

So, far, I’m impressed.

 

D850

← a7RII superhot pixel frame-to-frame consistency Sigma 105/2.8 macro LoCA on D850 →

Comments

  1. Lynn Allan says

    December 1, 2017 at 6:44 am

    JK >> Because the D850’s Focus Shift Shooting (FSS) feature as the potential to completely change the way I work with static subjects when sharpness is paramount.

    This Canon semi-defector to Sony wonders if Nikon’s FSS is related to Micro-Focus-Adjustment to fine-tune AF. Are the steps smaller with MFA than FSS?

    Does Nikon call this feature “Autofocus Microadjustment”?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 1, 2017 at 9:13 am

      I don’t remember what Nikon calls the PDAF adjustment feature. It appears that the step sizes in that feature are smaller than the the steps in the FSS feature. I doubt if the two are related, but only the folks who wrote the firmware and their confidants know for sure.

      Reply
  2. Wayne Melia says

    December 1, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    1.5 m distance to subject may be zeroing in on an anomaly?
    Marianne on DPR reported that LoCa is problematic only at ‘close’ shooting distance; and disappears at longer shooting distance.
    I am far from a technical wizard, so my comment may be disregarded on that basis, but that part of the test triggered a memory of her comment.
    And the issue may be irrelevant to the purpose of your test. (which appears to be an investigation if FFS can be a tool for determining optimal focus?)
    Or is this ‘problem distance’ chosen purposefully as a problem and a possible solution?
    Cheers, and thank you for being one of the people who pursue the technology limits so the benefits can filter down to the rest of us.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 1, 2017 at 7:52 pm

      I’ve certainly seen LoCA at long subject distances. But I respect Marianne. Can you give me a link to her post that you’re talking about?

      Reply
  3. Wayne Melia says

    December 1, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60363713
    is a specific.

    Reply
  4. Wayne Melia says

    December 1, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59556288;
    finally found it, and no reply necessary, I’m not trying to argue with you, btw, just thought I’ld throw it in since you sparked a flashback, that may or may not be relevant.
    Sorry for any annoyance.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 2, 2017 at 8:41 am

      Ah, I see. Marianne was referring to just the 135/1.8, and not LoCA vs distance in general. She might be right. I have a way to test for LoCA at long distance. It’s not quantitative though. I’ll give it a try when I get a chance. I am busy with the a7RIII right now, though.

      Reply
  5. Tom B. says

    December 27, 2023 at 11:27 am

    I have read your detailed review a number of times. Comparing the Nikon 105mm f/1.4e and the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG, on my Nikon D850, which would show better focus, less focus shift?
    Thank you!

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 27, 2023 at 3:17 pm

      The Sigma has less focus shift.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.