Hi Jefonyx, fantastic set of photos as always !
Just a question - since you do also have and use the sony 135mm GM , how do these two compare?
Rendering-wise they are a little different of course, which one do you prefer?
How about sharpness and CA‘s LoCa‘s etc. Sony seems to be the technically slightly better lens...?
nikonos6 wrote:
Hi Jefonyx, fantastic set of photos as always !
Just a question - since you do also have and use the sony 135mm GM , how do these two compare?
Rendering-wise they are a little different of course, which one do you prefer?
How about sharpness and CA‘s LoCa‘s etc. Sony seems to be the technically slightly better lens...?
Hi, thanks
I don't have the Sony 135 GM but the Sigma 135 1.8 Art for Sony FE. More or less the same you might say...
First of all a 105mm 1.4 should be considered as a super 85mm 1.4, kind of...and a 135mm is a more of a typical tele-lens. The spirit behind them are different even if they render with a huge amount of bokeh.
The 105 1.4 is more aimed at smoothing the subject with buttery transitions whereas the 135mm will have very sharp subjects and more "brutal" transitions.
For example if you take 2 persons with a half body horizontal framing with the 105 at 1.4, if their eyes are not perfectly in the same plane of focus it will be off. The 135 at f1.8 will be much more forgiving for that.
Compression is not the same, 135 tends to have bigger backgrounds.
Sorry for the long explanation, so, on a technical stand point the Sigma 135mm is a better lens optically : sharper by a fair margin, smooth bokeh (much smoother than the Canon 135 f2L), strong contrasts even wide open, very low LoCa's and CA (a bit of purple if you raise vibrance). But my personal preference in terms of rendering goes to the 105mm f1.4 -> I like to draw my pictures so it fits more my style. I am using the 135 mainly because the AF of Nikon lenses on Sony bodies are a real pain...I didn't chose the Sigma 105 because I'm not Hulk and the bokeh seems to be harsher than the Nikon counter part...
Dj R wrote:
This page is on another level. Raising the bar, all!
Would be on an even higher level had I still owned this mini chub..
Was going through my archives... This image was only corrected for WB, tone and presence in LR (their new terms in the editing module)
On the first image, the flare is perfectly natural, none added in PS!
and the bokeh seems to be harsher than the Nikon counter part...
