BillD208 wrote:
I have the 105 f/1.4 and love that lens. It is hard for me to imagine ever giving it up but the 135 looks like a great lens for many people. I prefer the 105 for studio work compared to a 135 as my studio doesn't have quite enough room for the 135mm focal distance.
I have that lens too, it’s the perfect balance between 85 and 135. My only complaint is the focus speed.
Sigma have been killing it this year, the 300-600, 200mm, now the 135 and a new 35mm coming soon.
If it's sharp, and handles fringing and aberration well, what a lens it will be. 135 is my favorite indoor sports lens in crappy school lighting. 1.4 will be a significant improvement. We are spoiled rotten (other than price). 50-150, 135, 200. What a time.
BillD208 wrote:
I have the 105 f/1.4 and love that lens. It is hard for me to imagine ever giving it up but the 135 looks like a great lens for many people. I prefer the 105 for studio work compared to a 135 as my studio doesn't have quite enough room for the 135mm focal distance.
I have my fingers crossed that Sigma will give us a new, smaller and lighter, version the 105mm f/1.4 one of these days! The three lenses Sigma has just released sound great, but in the end I don't think I am a buyer for any of them. I am happy with my 35GM, I don't think I want a super zoom, and as much as I have liked 135mm in the past I would prefer a bit shorter focal length than that. A slimmed down 105mm f/1.4 is the one I would be really interested in.
I got to hold the new 135 f/1.4 last week when I picked up my 200 f/2, it's definitely smaller and lighter than the 200 f/2, and it felt surprisingly light in hand, picking up my 105 f/1.4 right after and it felt heavy. It's really nice but I too would have preferred a new mirrorless version 105 f/1.4 in a more compact and lighter body, the 135 f/1.4 is nice though but I'll stick to my 105 f/1.4 for now
Please please pleaseeeeeeeeeeee have good auto-focus accuracy, especially for animals and indoor sports. Prettty pleaseeeeeeeeeee.
Fro says it's super fast. Hopefully it's accurate.
Dustin has some shots tracking moving subjects, but, not great results with his cat walking too him, which is a super bummer to me. That means dogs and possibly sports may struggle? If that's the case, it's just not worth it in my opinion. I really want this for indoor school sports.
C-frost says it's accurate.
I think time will tell.... we need someone to actually stress test the lens.
71sbeetle wrote:
I got to hold the new 135 f/1.4 last week when I picked up my 200 f/2, it's definitely smaller and lighter than the 200 f/2, and it felt surprisingly light in hand, picking up my 105 f/1.4 right after and it felt heavy. It's really nice but I too would have preferred a new mirrorless version 105 f/1.4 in a more compact and lighter body, the 135 f/1.4 is nice though but I'll stick to my 105 f/1.4 for now
If they can make a 135mm f1.4 then theoretically, a 105mm 1.2 is possible.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Please please pleaseeeeeeeeeeee have good auto-focus accuracy, especially for animals and indoor sports. Prettty pleaseeeeeeeeeee.
Fro says it's super fast. Hopefully it's accurate.
Dustin has some shots tracking moving subjects, but, not great results with his cat walking too him, which is a super bummer to me. That means dogs and possibly sports may struggle? If that's the case, it's just not worth it in my opinion. I really want this for indoor school sports.
C-frost says it's accurate.
I think time will tell.... we need someone to actually stress test the lens.
Yea...lacrosse games (high school & club) in low light I was thinking this thing in crop mode would be a great option on my A1, even at 15fps. And help me justify one as it'd be a dual-use with portraits being the obvious other role. Looking forward to more real-world results.
Another thought is for those not worried about size and/or wanting a 105mm instead, might be some cheaper 105 1.4's popping up on the B&S for people making the change to the 135.
The 105’s seem to hold their price very well, while I agree there may be some showing up in the used market, I don’t think they will be much cheaper than when new. Now the lens is discontinued, the rarity factor might come into play.
This lens *and* TC compatibility IMO would make it a no-brainer decision compared to the 200/2. At least for me, 135 is more usable for communicating with the subject than 200mm. Combined with a TC and it would provide broader options covering low light indoor sports.
But very cool to finally see a 135/1.4 with AF. IMO the bokeh advantage over f/1.8 isn't significant enough to sway me from using a smaller diameter, lighter 135/1.8 instead. I mean, as a gear-head photographer, one could always find differences/advantages for the f/1.4. For other viewers of the photos... they won't care.
Got to try out the new Sigma 135mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.2. Despite having dual linear motors, the 135mm occasionally lost focus during my shots, something the Sigma 200mm f/2 or any of the latest Sony lenses would have easily held. That said, the lighter weight of the 135mm made it far more enjoyable to maneuver than the 200 2.
Those full body dancing shots are fantastic examples of how to use the background separation available from fast lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
Got to try out the new Sigma 135mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.2. Despite having dual linear motors, the 135mm occasionally lost focus during my shots, something the Sigma 200mm f/2 or any of the latest Sony lenses would have easily held. That said, the lighter weight of the 135mm made it far more enjoyable to maneuver than the 200 2.
I mean, as a gear-head photographer, one could always find differences/advantages for the f/1.4. For other viewers of the photos... they won't care.
