All I know is that my Sigma 135/1.8 FE on my A7RIII struggled in gymnasium level light when my m43 camera plus 75/1.8 Oly was instant and sure of the AF point.
I had my daughter running towards me with the A7RIII & canon-adopted Sigma 135, and the Sigma didn’t give me one keeper in 50 shots. A handful were “ok”, but not critically sharp.
gocolts wrote:
I had my daughter running towards me with the A7RIII & canon-adopted Sigma 135, and the Sigma didn’t give me one keeper in 50 shots. A handful were “ok”, but not critically sharp.
So after sleeping one night about that, I see it this way:
The Sony offers over the Sigma:
- size advantage
- weight advantage
- better balancing (less front heavy)
- better sharpness wide open
- better sharpness at MFD
- much better MFD
- better handling (buttons, switches, aperture ring, GM build)
- better CA correction
- better AF
The Sigma offers over the Sony
- $€$€$€
- Differences in bokeh that we mostly identify by color temperature and sharpness
I think the AF performance will push the sharpness advantage even more to the Sony side. This is actually much more critical than the static sharpness performance of these two lenses if movement comes into the equation.
Furthermore, I think the bokeh difference is negligeable and I will put it out of my personal equation. After all the lens comparisons and testing that I have done, I would rate these two lenses exactely the same. The difference is so small that you would not be able to tell them apart by bokeh in real world shooting when not viewed side by side and even here we have big problems and need some other supporting factors like color temperature and sharpness.
So for me, the results of this test made me even more confident about my pre-order. The difference in price will not matter to me regarding a big bag of real and significant advantages.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Hopefully Fred can do a similar test with both.
My Sigma 135/1.8 E-mount native is like that. While focus feels fast for refocusing between subjects (except for close up around 1m where it is slow), it cannot follow motion well. On static subjects it is super accurate. On slowly walking subjects in good light, it is ok. On subjects fast walking or running towards me, even in great light, it is not keeping focus on face, it lags behind and backfocuses on hair at the back of head.
I'm not sure if this is due to lens firmware (fixable by Sigma) or if this is due to focus motors being optimal for DSLR focus system while being suboptimal for mirrorless PDAF. Maybe experience from Sigma F-mount users on Nikon Z and EF-mount users on EOS R could be useful to tell this apart.
In dark environment (1/125s, f/1.8, ISO 8000 while still underexposed, like in Manny Ortiz and Luis Gabriel videos) it was focusing well when there were vertical lines in subject, but when contrast was horizontal lines it was hunting (due to OSPDAF lines not seeing it). I could rotate camera by 90deg and subjects that were good and poor switched. When I rotated camera by 45deg both subjects had enough detail in OSPDAF lines and locked well. I did not have problems with out of focus images, maybe due to AF priority in AF-C set to Focus.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was at 16 feet (5m). Do you want to see it longer?
Yes. SA can change with different focus distance. Also more of the background usually gets into transition zone.
Thanks for quizz example 4. While I could easily guess correct answer for 1-3 with assumption that Sigma has slightly smoother background bokeh, I could not tell 4 apart based on overview picture. I could do it based on high magnification crop due to sharpness difference, but bokeh was just too similar.
Jannik Peters wrote:
So after sleeping one night about that, I see it this way:
The Sony offers over the Sigma:
- size advantage
- weight advantage
- better balancing (less front heavy)
- better sharpness wide open
- better sharpness at MFD
- much better MFD
- better handling (buttons, switches, aperture ring, GM build)
- better CA correction
- better AF
The Sigma offers over the Sony
- $€$€$€
- Differences in bokeh that we mostly identify by color temperature and sharpness
I think the AF performance will push the sharpness advantage even more to the Sony side. This is actually much more critical than the static sharpness performance of these two lenses if movement comes into the equation.
Furthermore, I think the bokeh difference is negligeable and I will put it out of my personal equation. After all the lens comparisons and testing that I have done, I would rate these two lenses exactely the same. The difference is so small that you would not be able to tell them apart by bokeh in real world shooting when not viewed side by side and even here we have big problems and need some other supporting factors like color temperature and sharpness.
So for me, the results of this test made me even more confident about my pre-order. The difference in price will not matter to me regarding a big bag of real and significant advantages.
bluloo wrote:
This thread’s subtitle should be GAS Therapy Group Session.
Your Honor, I plead not guilty, I had (and still have) no intention of buying an 135mm, I was looking at this just to see where Sony is heading with their latest and future lenses...
Like anyone would be buying my story lol we all know why we're here ha ha
Jannik Peters wrote:
So after sleeping one night about that, I see it this way:
The Sony offers over the Sigma:
- size advantage
- weight advantage
- better balancing (less front heavy)
- better sharpness wide open
- better sharpness at MFD
- much better MFD
- better handling (buttons, switches, aperture ring, GM build)
- better CA correction
- better AF
The Sigma offers over the Sony
- $€$€$€
- Differences in bokeh that we mostly identify by color temperature and sharpness
I think the AF performance will push the sharpness advantage even more to the Sony side. This is actually much more critical than the static sharpness performance of these two lenses if movement comes into the equation.
Furthermore, I think the bokeh difference is negligeable and I will put it out of my personal equation. After all the lens comparisons and testing that I have done, I would rate these two lenses exactely the same. The difference is so small that you would not be able to tell them apart by bokeh in real world shooting when not viewed side by side and even here we have big problems and need some other supporting factors like color temperature and sharpness.
So for me, the results of this test made me even more confident about my pre-order. The difference in price will not matter to me regarding a big bag of real and significant advantages.
Generally agreed.
Though, for the average hobbyist, I think these differences are far less important. For most shooters, the Sigma is going to remain an excellent optic, and an even better value now that it compares so favorably to a more expensive F1.8 option.
I'll also add that, while the GM's sharpness seems to exceed the ability of the current crop of Sony sensors, I think it's utility on current cameras going to become more apparent when cropping images, because you can do so without most of the typical concomitant loss in perceived sharpness.
Five more days and Firmware 5.0 drops ( if rumor proves true). That's when I will get excited. Can't wait to try 5.0 on the A9 and glad to know I'll have 5.0 practice by the time the GM 135 shows up end of April 🤞 I already knew what to expect IQ wise with the GM 135's MTF scores, no major surprise there for me from samples posted so far.
Sigma seems to be holding its own IQ-wise which probably doesn't surprise those that own the Sigma 135. Splitting hairs vs the GM IMO from what I've seen so far. But at this level of achievement between these two lenses, not sure we will see much difference in IQ real-world anyway. Curious to see more of how the GM compares to Batis and Zeiss 135/2.
