71sbeetle wrote:
I picked up my 24 GM locally in November, no pre order (they had 2 in stock), and they told me they don't have any pre orders and get them frequently too.
In regards to the 24 GM, I think what you experienced was the exemption to the rule. It didn’t really start to be in stock here in Denmark before the start of April.
In regards to the 135 GM: what Guy says, you will have a much higher chance to get one by shopping around on launch day that pre-ordering now at the big photo resellers. Sony seems to spread the limited launch stock out on several resellers, I don’t think the numbers of pre-orders mean that much. At least not in Europe.
A question regarding contrast and colors. Based on the first pictures here I feel the new 135mm GM is quite close to render ZEISS contrast and colors? Definitely different than the 85mm GM... I am looking for a tele-prime that fits my SZ 35mm 1.4.
I thought the same. Colors are rather cool and contrast is extremely high. I think if we were told that it's a Loxia in a blind test, we probably wouldn't disagree.
Jannik Peters wrote:
I thought the same. Colors are rather cool and contrast is extremely high. I think if we were told that it's a Loxia in a blind test, we probably wouldn't disagree.
Sorry, but not sure if you meant the colors are rather warm, that's what I am used from my ZEISS glass
Jannik, regarding the comments about the bokeh: did you use the mechanical shutter, silent shutter or EFCS (since EFCS can negatively affect bokeh at fast shutter speeds)?
Jochenb wrote:
Jannik, regarding the comments about the bokeh: did you use the mechanical shutter, silent shutter or EFCS (since EFCS can negatively affect bokeh at fast shutter speeds)?
EFCS bokeh issues is very obvious as Bokeh balls get cut. I thought the rendering of the 135mm is good. I don’t think it’s hard to achieve good bokeh with a tele lens. Most tele lens rendering are good, the main difference I think is like loca, coma, sharpness.
My copy of the 135mm has pretty good bokeh. At least I am totally satisfied with it, Haven't seen much loCA, bokeh balls look smooth with minimal outlining.
I would post some samples but it seems I can't attach any files.
Did you detect any slight field curvature?
It was noticeable at infinity but I was wondering if it changes at shorter distances.
Resolution and contrast are not this lens' weakness for sure.
I actually lowered my LR preset for sharpness and when shooting portraits, I sometimes lowered contrast as well.
Aside from its superb optical attributes, AF is super fast and accurate. We needed a short tele like this!
dshao1 wroteHi Jannik, I’m not ignoring your pictures (which are great and relevant to showing what this lens can do)...but I want to say I love your garden! :-)
Pssst, have you seen Sigma 135/1.8? It so sharp in corners, it might be indistinguishable from 135 GM on 24MP. See my comparison of F-mount Sigma on D750 and E-mount Sigma on on A7III (A7III has even weaker AA filter than D750 so it appears sharper, but there is more moire):
Looking at Roger's MTF graphs, I see the Sigma is slightly better at corners than GM (maybe due to field curvature of GM?) while GM is superior in center.
Honestly, I'm looking at the MTF from Roger and wondering if I should just get another Sigma 😂😂😂 Not sure the GM would give me anything extra on the A7III and A9.
71sbeetle wrote:
Honestly, I'm looking at the MTF from Roger and wondering if I should just get another Sigma 😂😂😂 Not sure the GM would give me anything extra on the A7III and A9.
Af under Low light? And weight.
I don’t think there is much difference in iq.
Anyone compared the bokeh in the transition region? My experience with the 35mm and 40mm sigmas is that they do poorly in the transition region. Which happens often on wide angles but probably not often with tele?
wind30 wrote:
Af under Low light? And weight.
I don’t think there is much difference in iq.
Anyone compared the bokeh in the transition region? My experience with the 35mm and 40mm sigmas is that they do poorly in the transition region.
I haven't had any issues focusing in low light with the Sigma, so anything better would just be a plus. I held both in my hands, separately and at the same time in a "blind test" and honestly I couldn't tell the difference, lens by itself or mounted on a body. The biggest positive for me is that it's a Sony lens and I can send it to pro support if I have any issues, with the sigma the support is a pita, I'm going thru that right now with my 60-600 ....
71sbeetle wrote:
Honestly, I'm looking at the MTF from Roger and wondering if I should just get another Sigma 😂😂😂 Not sure the GM would give me anything extra on the A7III and A9.
I would reread this whole thread from the beginning just so your absolutely sure. If it’s a money issue obviously the Sigma is cheaper and the IQ is close but for AF speed size weight alone the Sony wins that battle. Really depends on what your after. I have no doubts on the Sony but that’s me. My priority is Sony native to match my other Sony’s and certainly AF speed are really my top priority but I do love everything else about . Both great lenses no doubt . Just be sure before pulling the trigger. Either choice will be good. We are talking some good money so you want to make the right choice for you. It’s your money
It's not really a money issue, when I sold my sigma Canon mount to buy the Sony mount the lens had paid for itself in a couple of week's time. I shot with both the sigma 135 and the GM 135 and I didn't find the focus to be significantly faster or more accurate (GM might be 3% faster, something like that, really insignificant). The sigma did have a much warmer tone, which I always had to remedy in post. Like I said, the fact that I can send the lens to Sony and they would make sure I'm taken care of is the main reason I'm going with the 135 GM. Right now I actually have to go rent a sigma because I have 2 photoshoots waiting and that would be my main lens. Counting the days down to get my GM lol
