Honestly,real world wise,straight out of camera (and before everyone edits & presets photos to death). I don’t see a big difference in “rendering” in most lenses.
Take any 4 lenses you have of similar focal length and shoot the same subject at same settings,straight out of camera they’ll be very very similar.
I've been following this is thread since you started it, Fred. I'm not a fan of Sigma lenses in general. They're not bad at all, but color rendition isn't my cup of tea. It's still better than Samyang color though. I chose the 135mm f2 Apo over the Sigma, because of the rendering (color and contrast are very special), in spite of the difficulty of manually focusing portraits at 135mm.
The 135mm f1.8 ZA's only weakness is the CA wide open, but it more than make up for that in the bokeh department, which is probably the best I've seen. Color rendition is also fantastic.
There's usually something that I don’t like about "perfect" lenses like the Voigtlander 110mm or this Sony 135mm f1.8 GM. Zeiss is probably the only manufacturer that manages to balance color correction and beautiful rendering. The 135mm f2 Apo and Otus lenses are examples of that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
How do you guys feel about the Sigma 135/1.8 Art's rendering? Not magical enough?
I posted side-by-side comparisons in a blind test starting here and many thought their rendering was similar.
I was never a fan of the Zeiss 135/1.8's rendering for its high axial CA wide open but that does not seem to bother many photographers. My absolute favorite is the Zeiss 135/2 APO's rendering but I would not be surprised if the 135 GM comes very close to it. I'm thinking of renting one and comparing them side by side.
ysultan wrote:
I've been following this is thread since you started it, Fred. I'm not a fan of Sigma lenses in general. They're not bad at all, but color rendition isn't my cup of tea. It's still better than Samyang color though. I chose the 135mm f2 Apo over the Sigma, because of the rendering (color and contrast are very special), in spite of the difficulty of manually focusing portraits at 135mm.
The 135mm f1.8 ZA's only weakness is the CA wide open, but it more than make up for that in the bokeh department, which is probably the best I've seen. Color rendition is also fantastic.
There's usually something that I don’t like about "perfect" lenses like the Voigtlander 110mm or this Sony 135mm f1.8 GM. Zeiss is probably the only manufacturer that manages to balance color correction and beautiful rendering. The 135mm f2 Apo and Otus lenses are examples of that.
You say "for some reason, I'm not falling in love" or "there's usually something that I don’t like" or "nothing magical about it", etc...This stuff is of course subjective but also important when building a consensus about a lens.
Aside from subjective opinions, comparing lenses side by side at multiple distances, under identical lighting, identical camera/processing settings is the only way to really add some objectivity to the mix.
My first priority although I have many and use this type of lenses in a lot of different types of shooting but one area sticks out more than most. I do a ton of corporate work and usually I get hired to do a lot of offsite meetings with attendees from around the globe doing ballroom meetings. So couple of immediate things. One is length, I can’t be on top of the podium. 135 puts me in about the fourth row. I’m not so obvious there. Second is light , I can’t use flash at all except when they may give out a award. So I’m usually in low spots on podium as there running PowerPoints so you can’t blast the stage. Third believe it or not they do NOT sit still, sometimes there nervous as hell or talk with there hands or jump out of the light. It’s kind of a mess. I usually on a monopod and in the past I would wind up on manual focus because I’m just better at it than AF.
From all that I seen so far the key factor was extremely sharp wide open and I really need that as I do not like going high ISO especially not past about 1200. That’s MY comfort level . Also what I seen myself so far is the AF speed but more the accuracy is maybe the best I have seen yet on a Sony lens. So for just this one type of job and I do many types this solved a continual challenge that I always faced. Now and next week I got a 5 day job loaded with this type so it will be a awesome test bed for me. But I’m expecting lower ISO now I’m at F1.8 not F2.8 and yes I loved my Batis but the extra speed I need and nailing focus at 1.8 with good shutter speeds as these people are jumping around so I need to stop there motion and more accurate AF and focusing speed. These are big pluses for me. Now there are at least 10 more ways I use a 135 and if I analyzed each type they way I just did than I see absolutely no downside. I also like the rendering and at this point in the evolution of Sony system it maybe the best 135 overall solution yet. I like the Sigma don’t get me wrong but I have many factors to consider and the Sony checks the boxes better. Now I need a 200 just like it
Fred Miranda wrote:
You say "for some reason, I'm not falling in love" or "there's usually something that I don’t like" or "nothing magical about it", etc...This stuff is of course subjective but also important when building a consensus about a lens.
Aside from subjective opinions, comparing lenses side by side at multiple distances, under identical lighting, identical camera/processing settings is the only way to really add some objectivity to the mix.
Agree but also as I pointed out out above it’s the usability factor that actually maybe more important too.
Without a direct comparison, strengths and weaknesses are often exaggerated, more so with the "magical" properties. If Sony remakes that ZA 135/1.8 in E-mount, it has to be lighter, smaller and cheaper. Even then, it might be a flop as well given the trend nowadays is all about sharpness.
In the end, it's all about knowing your priorities. There is no better 135 out there for me cause I greatly value AF speed, wide aperture flexibility and the size and weight of this lens for what it can do. Price has always been a secondary factor since I can always wait to buy a used copy for much less and/or save to afford it.
KarmaKramer wrote:
Honestly,real world wise,straight out of camera (and before everyone edits & presets photos to death). I don’t see a big difference in “rendering” in most lenses.
Take any 4 lenses you have of similar focal length and shoot the same subject at same settings,straight out of camera they’ll be very very similar.
Really?
How about 90mm macro vs 100 STF? Or FE 85/1.8 vs 85 GM?
I can’t believe you said that unless, of course, your lens collection consists in something like 5 different makes of vintage double Gauss 50mm/1.7.
How about 90mm macro vs 100 STF? Or FE 85/1.8 vs 85 GM?
I can’t believe you said that unless, of course, your lens collection consists in something like 5 different makes of vintage double Gauss 50mm/1.7.
Just sour grapes, the guy hasn't really provided anything substantial with any of his snide remarks. He made a statement in the Sigma 105/1.4 thread about how he could replicate the results easily with his 50/1.4. That's when I ignored most of his comments .
I kind of agree that the rendering isn't "magical" and I kind of like that. Some lenses are pretty recognizable (certain Sigma ARTs, Batis, certain Zeiss lenses), but I can't decide if I like that or not. I feel like for the most part, the rendering with the 135GM (and 24 as well) just gets out of the way...smooth vs pop or something, idk.
hiepphotog wrote:
Just sour grapes, the guy hasn't really provided anything substantial with any of his snide remarks. He made a statement in the Sigma 105/1.4 thread about how he could replicate the results easily with his 50/1.4. That's when I ignored most of his comments .
Since you mentioned the FE 50/1.4 ZA, here is a recent 'rendering' comparison to the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4. Same distance, same lighting, same settings and post-processing. There is a noticeable difference at 1:1 that's still visible in resized images. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/20#14832246
I think that aside from resolution and rendering styles, the 'magic' happens when a photographer figures out the optimal FL and aperture for the composition, chooses a pleasant background under ideal lighting and nails focus.
GMPhotography wrote:
My first priority although I have many and use this type of lenses in a lot of different types of shooting but one area sticks out more than most. I do a ton of corporate work and usually I get hired to do a lot of offsite meetings with attendees from around the globe doing ballroom meetings. So couple of immediate things. One is length, I can’t be on top of the podium. 135 puts me in about the fourth row. I’m not so obvious there. Second is light , I can’t use flash at all except when they may give out a award. So I’m usually in low spots on podium as there running PowerPoints so you can’t blast the stage. Third believe it or not they do NOT sit still, sometimes there nervous as hell or talk with there hands or jump out of the light. It’s kind of a mess. I usually on a monopod and in the past I would wind up on manual focus because I’m just better at it than AF.
From all that I seen so far the key factor was extremely sharp wide open and I really need that as I do not like going high ISO especially not past about 1200. That’s MY comfort level . Also what I seen myself so far is the AF speed but more the accuracy is maybe the best I have seen yet on a Sony lens. So for just this one type of job and I do many types this solved a continual challenge that I always faced. Now and next week I got a 5 day job loaded with this type so it will be a awesome test bed for me. But I’m expecting lower ISO now I’m at F1.8 not F2.8 and yes I loved my Batis but the extra speed I need and nailing focus at 1.8 with good shutter speeds as these people are jumping around so I need to stop there motion and more accurate AF and focusing speed. These are big pluses for me. Now there are at least 10 more ways I use a 135 and if I analyzed each type they way I just did than I see absolutely no downside. I also like the rendering and at this point in the evolution of Sony system it maybe the best 135 overall solution yet. I like the Sigma don’t get me wrong but I have many factors to consider and the Sony checks the boxes better. Now I need a 200 just like it...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
How do you guys feel about the Sigma 135/1.8 Art's rendering? Not magical enough?
I posted side-by-side comparisons in a blind test starting here and many thought their rendering was similar.
I was never a fan of the Zeiss 135/1.8's rendering for its high axial CA wide open but that does not seem to bother many photographers. My absolute favorite is the Zeiss 135/2 APO's rendering but I would not be surprised if the 135 GM comes very close to it. I'm thinking of renting the Milvus version and compare them side by side.
The Milvus won’t autofocus at any speed comparable to the GM so any slight advantage in APO-idness will be seriously counterbalanced by other factors including but not limited to AF.
I’m agonizing here on making a FE 90mm vs CV 110mm decision, and, as much as I like the APO of the 110mm, I also like the diaphragm blade shape and the AF of the 90mm.....
Fred Miranda wrote:
Since you mentioned the FE 50/1.4 ZA, here is a recent 'rendering' comparison to the CV 50/1.2 @f/1.4. Same distance, same lighting, same settings and post-processing. There is a noticeable difference at 1:1 that's still visible in resized images. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/20#14832246
Missed that one and a great comparison Fred! That's partly why I sold the ZA since I really like the direction Sony is taking with their GM line atm (still big emphasis on bokeh and sharpness). Though the GM 40/50 might not be any smaller or lighter than the ZA, I have great confidence that they will keep it within the goal they set out for the GM line, and with an upgrade in AF speed as well. Did you notice such big difference between the Sony and Sigma 135? I remember the Sigma bokeh is a little smoother, but not as drastic as what you showed in the ZA comparison.
vdo1 wrote:
The Milvus won’t autofocus at any speed comparable to the GM so any slight advantage in APO-idness will be seriously counterbalanced by other factors including but not limited to AF.
I’m agonizing here on making a FE 90mm vs CV 110mm decision, and, as much as I like the APO of the 110mm, I also like the diaphragm blade shape and the AF of the 90mm.....
Is the AF speed on the 90 quick? I got the 65 mainly for macro work anyway and the thought of having all the CV APO is kinda nice . But the cv 110 is at the bottom of my list since I got the GM 135 since few of my macros need that 1:1.
Didn’t I say I like the color and bokeh rendering of the other lenses? 😃
The high contrast bokeh ruins it for me, not talking about the 135mm f1.8 gm specifically here. It has OK bokeh, but still higher in contrast than say the 85mm GM and 135mm f1.8 ZA.
And I agree that side by side comparisons are the best way to be more objective. But here is the thing, we're talking about (primarily) portrait lenses. So I think it makes more sense to compare how these lenses render portraits side by side.
Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate the work you do here, and it's extremely helpful. I just wanted to say my opinion, but it seems like it's making some people upset 🙂
Fred Miranda wrote:
You say "for some reason, I'm not falling in love" or "there's usually something that I don’t like" or "nothing magical about it", etc...This stuff is of course subjective but also important when building a consensus about a lens.
Aside from subjective opinions, comparing lenses side by side at multiple distances, under identical lighting, identical camera/processing settings is the only way to really add some objectivity to the mix.
ysultan wrote:
Didn’t I say I like the color and bokeh rendering of the other lenses? 😃
The high contrast bokeh ruins it for me, not talking about the 135mm f1.8 gm specifically here. It has OK bokeh, but still higher in contrast than say the 85mm GM and 135mm f1.8 ZA.
And I agree that side by side comparisons are the best way to be more objective. But here is the thing, we're talking about (primarily) portrait lenses. So I think it makes more sense to compare how these lenses render portraits side by side.
Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate the work you do here, and it's extremely helpful. I just wanted to say my opinion, but it seems like it's making some people upset 🙂
I also prefer lenses with lower contrast on the OOF plane. That's one of the reasons I like the Loxia line better than Batis in terms of rendering.
The 135/1.8 GM is so high in contrast though that I find myself lowering overall contrast (and sharpening) in post when shooting portraits with it.
Aside from rendering style, I find that the 135 GM gets the job done no matter what I am shooting. Some lower speed AF and MF lenses may even have a small rendering edge but are not as flexible.
I recently got the 135 and love it. Surprise! I don't shoot any portraits... I got it for the focal length and the speed since I sometimes like more subject isolation then a slower lens can provide. I also like the size ... I have owned both 70-200s and the 135 is more discrete looking on the body for street scenes etc. Love the IQ and I had a record number of keepers when testing it by taking pictures of my dog at 1.8. My AF kit now just needs a 50 1.4. Kinda bummed I missed out on buying Guy's (glad you are getting better)
