Fred Miranda wrote: Rendering compared to FE 100/2.8 STF GM:
I wanted to compared them side by side at the same exact distance. In order to match depth of field and FOV for both lenses, there necessary cropping and aperture adjustments made.
Since 100mm to 135mm requires a 1.35x crop, I multiplied the FE 100 STF's f/2.8 max aperture to "1.35" so both lenses show equiv. depth of field.
So, the FE 135/1.8 GM will be tested at f/4 which matches the 100 STF @f/2.8 cropped to 135mm.
135/100 = 1.35
f/2.8 x 1.35 = f/3.8 (~f/4)
Let's see the results: (I also added the FE 135 GM @f/1.8 just for fun! )
Great comparison. The 135mm is more effective at obliterating the background (at 1.8), however if you want to retain similar detail, the 100mm has the perfectly smooth rendering, devoid of any “nervosity”. In the last example the 100 does too much smoothing so the OOF details are unrecognizable but bland, while the 135 rendering is more “artistic” with the bokeh balls. Probably the 100 could have benefitted if stopped down 1 stop in this example so the OOF details become recognizable.
it seems i love this lens and need to buy this lens!
The old Alpha Sony Zeiss 135mm F1.8 was one of my all-time favourites... the new GM seems to have similar quality (pop, sharpness, contrast and microcontrast)... well done Sony... the GM85 is the creamier lens... anyway my heart missed the power and 3D pop of Zeiss glas...
so have to add the GM135 to my go-to bag... means adapted Sony A Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 (like it more than GM), Sony Zeiss FE 50mm F1.4 PLUS now the Sony GM135...
a top 1.4x teleconverter for travelling would be sweet... including AF...
This prime lens (as well as others to the same-ish degree) tells me this:
With a sharp enough lens and enough megapixels on the sensor, (which combined make cropping in, even heavily, virtually "lossless"), zoom lenses, with their extra cost, weight, and slower apertures, are almost superfluous.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you Drew,
That first image was from a school fundraiser with kids sprinting for their lives! I took about 300 shots with them running from different angles and only few shots were slightly out of focus. I've used the Batis 135 on similar events and noticed that the 135/1.8 GM was sharper and in my experience, way more reliable capturing fast action.
wsalopek wrote:
This prime lens (as well as others to the same-ish degree) tells me this:
With a sharp enough lens and enough megapixels on the sensor, (which combined make cropping in, even heavily, virtually "lossless"), zoom lenses, with their extra cost, weight, and slower apertures, are almost superfluous.
This was my thought on selling my 70-200 GM. For my uses with it (indoor sports or performances) those shots can generally be cropped some without losing enough resolution to make a difference in how they'll be used (small prints etc.). So for me the 135 GM can pull double-duty as it's obviously a great portrait lens, something that helps me justify spending so much money on it.
If I really need the reach, I typically also have decent light or am outdoors, so my 70-300 will be fine.
So a question here. Maybe hypothetical but should you take the A7RIII and 85GM and crop it get to 135mm equivalent with 18 mpixels, get the 135mm GM and spend $1900, or spend $900 and get the a6400 and get 24 mpixels. Of course new 135 GM with the A7RIII gives you the best image but would the A6400 at 24mpixels be next? Would the 18 mpixels, with larger pixels, look cleaner than the 24 mpixel version?
Just wondering
Mar 28, 2019 at 06:16 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
swldstn wrote:
So a question here. Maybe hypothetical but should you take the A7RIII and 85GM and crop it get to 135mm equivalent with 18 mpixels, get the 135mm GM and spend $1900, or spend $900 and get the a6400 and get 24 mpixels. Of course new 135 GM with the A7RIII gives you the best image but would the A6400 at 24mpixels be next? Would the 18 mpixels, with larger pixels, look cleaner than the 24 mpixel version?
Just wondering
Early in the thread Fred has comparisons of the 85 GM cropped to about the angle of view of the GM 135. In those images the 135 does look noticeably better, IMO. Keep in mind it is not just the megapixels that suffer when you crop. You also reduce the dynamic range and reduce the high ISO performance and the kicker here is the GM 135 f/1.8 has quite a bit faster AF than the GM 85 f/1.4. Personally, I think the GM 85 f/1.4 is brilliant for what it is and using it without cropping is a lovely idea for portraits. It is a different perspective, but arguably at least as good for portraits as the GM 135 (preference here will mainly be about what rendering one prefers and what perspective one prefers). That said, trying to stretch the GM 85 to do all the other stuff the GM135 does (fast accurate AF, fantastic landscape performance, etc.) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So, if you are after a portrait lens and you prefer the GM 85, then I would just use it without cropping for portraits. It is fantastic without cropping for that. If you are looking for more than a portrait lens and especially if you can use the much faster AF of the GM 135, then the GM 135 does portraits very well too and just about everything else as well.
I think it's more about the focal length than just the technical difference between the GM 85 vs. 135. If Sony upgrades the GM 85 with better AF motors, I would more likely go with the GM 85 II instead cause a 135 is a bit too long for indoors.
I’m really not that interested in a 100. No question I like 135 so really would not work for me. I do need a 85 but I’m just using the Sony 85 1.8 as I need good AF . But I mostly shoot the 135.
)
Sony GM135...