RyanFlynn wrote:
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask, but does this lens work with any teleconverters?
This lens will not work with a Tele converter because the rear element is right at the back of the lens mount just like it is on the 105mm ... sorry to disappoint but no it will not work that way
Another thing is, this lens is optically so well behaving that adding any additional glass to the formula can only make things worse. It would be a real shame to sacrifice optical quality for range using a tele converter. I'd rather advise to pick up a 300mm f4 or 180mm f2,8 (or Sigmas 120-300 f2,8) for longer range stuff.
Kristina keeps telling me how the lens has more contrast then the 85mm f1,4 and 180mm f2,8 AF-D, resulting in hardly having to do anything to these photos in PP
Todd wrote:
This lens will not work with a Tele converter because the rear element is right at the back of the lens mount just like it is on the 105mm ... sorry to disappoint but no it will not work that way
Ah, gotcha, thanks for the info anyway!
---------------------------------------------
the solitaire wrote:
Another thing is, this lens is optically so well behaving that adding any additional glass to the formula can only make things worse. It would be a real shame to sacrifice optical quality for range using a tele converter. I'd rather advise to pick up a 300mm f4 or 180mm f2,8 (or Sigmas 120-300 f2,8) for longer range stuff.
I hear you (and already have the 180/2.8D) but it's mainly about minimizing the lenses I need to lug around. I'd sacrifice a bit of quality for the rare occasions when I need longer than 135mm.
This last picture shows bokeh profile quite nicely on the highlight on the rail on left side. Bokeh of a lens is often hard to judge from pictures on internet because because various amount of sharpening may affect its appearance, but with full transition visible, it can be judged somewhat. This picture shows that front bokeh is smoother than background bokeh by a small amount (at this focus distance), indicating slightly over-corrected spherical aberration. Rail highlight makes similar picture to my bokeh-test-lines target in my page on bokeh.
Anyone here also used Zeiss 135/2 APO? I wish to know how the 2 compares. I am leaning towards the ZF but if the Sigma is as good I would consider it instead. Also wondering if the Sigmas has more "cat eyes" than the Zeiss.
ytwong wrote:
Anyone here also used Zeiss 135/2 APO? I wish to know how the 2 compares. I am leaning towards the ZF but if the Sigma is as good I would consider it instead. Also wondering if the Sigmas has more "cat eyes" than the Zeiss.
I had this Zeiss 135 before I got the Sigma, and I got rid of my Zeiss and purchased the Sigma. The Sigma seems to be just a sharp if not sharper wide open and there is no chromatic aberration at all whatsoever in the Sigma or the Zeiss. The Zeiss will vignette heavier, at least twice as much wide open compared to the sigma 135. The Sigma is such a well corrected lens that I didn't need the Zeiss anymore because it just seemed overall better. The auto focus was a no-brainer because the manual focus of the Zeiss kind of slowed me down to be honest with you especially on portrait shoots. I took my sigma 135 out in the front yard at night and put it on my tracking platform and shot a photograph of the stars for a three minute exposure wide open and there were no purple halos around any of the stars meaning, no chromatic aberration at all. It looked just like the Zeiss. Also the stars all the way to the Corner's were very pinpoint, although there was a tiny bit of field curvature but hardly none. Equivalent to the Zeiss.
I love my Sigma lens, I shot some sample side-by-side with the Zeiss and I really couldn't tell any difference. The sigma is a great choice!
Thanks Todd.
Yous stars photos are very impressive. I do have 2 smallish tracking devices (although rarely used) so I do know astro photos are torture test to any lens.
A 7 foot Westcott umbrella with diffuser (Silver inside) was used here called cross light and a fill card was on the right, just a silver reflector. The sigma lens is amazing....so sharp and clear!!! This is Hope, charcoal gray background and I used the Phottix Indra 500 strobes.
The umbrella was perpendicular to the subject but moved forward towards me to where the right (Her right) was even with the edge of the umbrella, in other words, the center of the umbrella was not even with her. This helps with the wrap around light. There were just practice shots, I need to work on my posing some and hair & details.
The second shot was with the Westcott beauty dish by Joel Grimes.
I have been in need of a longer lens for podium speakers, announcers, hand shakers, couples.
...Anyone using this 135 instead of a 70-200? The speed is very enticing, especially coming from the f4 zoom. These early shots in this thread are simply A+, great work.
I'd sacrifice a bit of quality for the rare occasions when I need longer than 135mm. 
