Since switching from Canon in November and trying/renting/purchasing a variety of native mount primes, I’ve settled on the 24GM, 50ZA, 85GM; all of which I am extremely happy with (just wish the 85 autofocus was a smidge faster). Now I’m currently debating how to supplement the long end and trying to decide between the 135GM or 70-200 2.8.
I also mostly take pictures of people, but also would like something I can use to take pictures of my kids when they are old enough to play sports. I’ve been leaning towards jumping on the 135, but keep wondering if the extra reach would be better.
Not sure what body you have... I owned the 7-200 2.8 with the A7R2 and was unimpressed with low light focusing. The majority were missed focus so I sold it. In bright light it was much better but for the price and aperture I expected much better range of use for action shots
I have an A7RIII, so I would think the AF should be better? I did play around with the 70-200 for maybe 15 minutes inside my local camera store, but didn’t have a chance to try to track any subjects that were too taxing.
offtraildog wrote:
Not sure what body you have... I owned the 7-200 2.8 with the A7R2 and was unimpressed with low light focusing. The majority were missed focus so I sold it. In bright light it was much better but for the price and aperture I expected much better range of use for action shots
If it means anything my friend went from 70-200 f/4 to 70-200 2.8 to my Sigma 135, he's in love with the 135! He does mostly family shoots, newborns and events/concerts so far he said he hasn't missed the 70-200 at all
macfrank wrote:
Since switching from Canon in November and trying/renting/purchasing a variety of native mount primes, I’ve settled on the 24GM, 50ZA, 85GM; all of which I am extremely happy with (just wish the 85 autofocus was a smidge faster). Now I’m currently debating how to supplement the long end and trying to decide between the 135GM or 70-200 2.8.
I also mostly take pictures of people, but also would like something I can use to take pictures of my kids when they are old enough to play sports. I’ve been leaning towards jumping on the 135, but keep wondering if the extra reach would be better.
For outdoor sports the 70-200 2.8 would be better. Focus is really quick and accurate on my A7RIII and A7III. Way better than on my A7II (and likely better than on an A7RII). My son is 3 and the zoom range is perfect for small kids soccer. I’ve tried using a prime (85mm), but they just move around too much making the 70-200 more ideal.
I think the 135 will shine for indoor sports (extra light) and portraits. Your working distance will be really far for portraits though. It will be a much lighter lens than the 70-200 which feels like a beast on mirrorless bodies. It does seem like you prefer primes (better IQ, smaller, etc), so I could see you just building on that kit.
what do you feel is an idea 4 prime lens kit, now?
I currently have 1.4 native sony 24/35/50/85. And a 55 for casual stuff.
I feel that one of these 1.4 glasses should go, just to be reasonable.
I shoot people.
with the excellent MFD on the 135, it's going to be an interesting call!
It probably focuses closely to what a 105 does, I would say, right?
Cheers
My kit will be 24GM / 55 1.8 / 85 1.8 / 135GM. Trying to balance and compromise between speed, IQ, and size/weight. The 135 will be kind of the outlier in terms of size and weight, but I really like a fast 135, so we'll see.
macfrank wrote:
Since switching from Canon in November and trying/renting/purchasing a variety of native mount primes, I’ve settled on the 24GM, 50ZA, 85GM; all of which I am extremely happy with (just wish the 85 autofocus was a smidge faster). Now I’m currently debating how to supplement the long end and trying to decide between the 135GM or 70-200 2.8.
I also mostly take pictures of people, but also would like something I can use to take pictures of my kids when they are old enough to play sports. I’ve been leaning towards jumping on the 135, but keep wondering if the extra reach would be better.
I would almost think with the resolution and resolving power of the a7rIII and 135GM, you could feel pretty confident cropping for reach. Would be interesting to compare 135GM crop vs 70-200 at 200.
HikariHawaii wrote:
For outdoor sports the 70-200 2.8 would be better. Focus is really quick and accurate on my A7RIII and A7III. Way better than on my A7II (and likely better than on an A7RII). My son is 3 and the zoom range is perfect for small kids soccer. I’ve tried using a prime (85mm), but they just move around too much making the 70-200 more ideal.
I think the 135 will shine for indoor sports (extra light) and portraits. Your working distance will be really far for portraits though. It will be a much lighter lens than the 70-200 which feels like a beast on mirrorless bodies. It does seem like you prefer primes (better IQ, smaller, etc), so I could see you just building on that kit....Show more →
Agree with all of this - sports on a small field, 70-200 f2.8 is outstanding. Indoors, the 135 f1.8 (I use the Sigma) is a requirement IMO if the gym is poorly lit (and I've been in some really poorly lit gyms - f2.8 was just not enough).
The 1.4x TC on the 70-200 works pretty well and gets you to 280mm. The 2x TC requires you to to stop down to an effective f8 to get acceptable results, so not ideal.
I have shot tens of thousands of sports photos with the 70-200 GM and it has been an outstanding lens - worth every penny especially when compared to the price of the Sony 135 - yikes! I'll be sticking with the Sigma as my 135, personally.
I have both the Sigma 135 and the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM. Roughly, the 135 wide open at F1.8 is a bit sharper than the GM zoom at F2.8. Of course the Sigma gets even better when stopped down. Essentially, the Sigma 135 lives on one of my A9 bodies unless I need the reach of the zoom.
The, unobtanium, Sony 135 GM is even a bit sharper than the Sigma although the improvement is in the center of the frame (the edges are more nearly equal) and may be difficult to see on a 24mP sensor.
It’s also slightly sharper at the extreme corners.
I’ve never tried the 70-200 GM but it’s sweet spot should be around 135mm.
SoundHound wrote:
I have both the Sigma 135 and the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM. Roughly, the 135 wide open at F1.8 is a bit sharper than the GM zoom at F2.8. Of course the Sigma gets even better when stopped down. Essentially, the Sigma 135 lives on one of my A9 bodies unless I need the reach of the zoom.
The, unobtanium, Sony 135 GM is even a bit sharper than the Sigma although the improvement is in the center of the frame (the edges are more nearly equal) and may be difficult to see on a 24mP sensor.
seanoc wrote:
I just noticed that my Credit Card has a pending charge from Adorama for the price of the 135 GM. Hope that may mean it ships today.
Interesting! Mine doesn't show as pending, but my available credit differs from my balance by $1898. I'm not sure if it was like that before or not. I'm a little worried I'll miss the first batch, because I didn't get my pre-order in until 3/25.
