fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 13

15 end

Archive 2017 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

ariel777
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #1 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

No adjustments were necessary on my 810.....focus was right on straight out of the box. The images were sharp and rendered extremely well without any adjustments required.

May 13, 2017 at 09:45 PM

fetopher
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #2 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

fetopher wrote:
Got my copy on Friday and I've had some time to test it out. When it hits, it's a stunner. Sharp as everyone is saying and I find the OOF areas quite pleasing. See attached examples.

But...

I noticed quite a few shots had missed focus so I ran it through FoCal. Turns out, my copy needs AF fine tune adjustments of between -17 and -24 (out of range). The USB dock can fix many things, but not -24. I will be returning it to the retailer in the coming days.

My other Sigma lenses are all awesome (35mm Art and 50mm Art)...Show more →

Update from me...

I bit the bullet and purchased a second copy of the Sigma 135mm Art. I just ran it through FoCal and it's giving me fine tune values of -10 and -11, which is well within what I can adjust for using the dock. So, it's a keeper! Now I need to get shooting with it!

May 18, 2017 at 05:05 PM

fetopher
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #3 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Yep, it's sharp!

2017-05-18-_DSC4543 by Chris Fenison, on Flickr

May 18, 2017 at 10:01 PM

Mmntog
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #4 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

I like this lens but there is just something about the 105 that makes the subject really pop!

Jun 11, 2017 at 09:22 AM

Lightsearcher
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #5 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Mmntog wrote:
I like this lens but there is just something about the 105 that makes the subject really pop!

Don't judge the lens for the pictures in this thread, all the pictures I posted are OOC with any processing on it.

I found the rendering on both lenses very similar, with small differences in AF speed and sharpness.

Jun 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM

jtra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #6 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Hi, I received my 135/1.8 today and did some tests.

At first I estimated AF tune at +12 (50m distant target in adhoc testing), after shooting late home I noticed it is more like +6 (3m distant target) so I still need to validate it and perhaps adjust with dock for different distances. But even like that I got good pictures.

Here are some test shots. I was not really interested in measuring sharpness. It is already clear that this lens is very sharp. My copy is too, at least on 24MP D750.
I was mostly interested in bokeh. I'm bokeh aficionado. I like pictures from 105/1.4E, but I don't like its cost. Sigma has cost me half of what Nikons sells for here. Also I have 85/1.4 (old Sigma EX DG) so I wanted something longer than 105 anyway. 105 has undercorrected spherical aberration to make smooth background bokeh. I wondered how is the Sigma. I can say that it is similar, perhaps not as undercorrected, but still good.
I edited the shots in LR 5.7 with default settings (except where mentioned) plus adjusted exposure (I usually shoot with EC -0.7 to protect highlights so I need correct after).
You can see aperture, shutter speed and ISO in filenames.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613122017_0912-f1.8-1_2000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
LR: Shadows +50
Sharp enough and bokeh is ok.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613122504_0927-f1.8-1_2500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Mild cats-eye shape of bokeh due to small optical vignetting creates weak circular motion effect.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613122903_0940-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Bokeh at distance is reasonably smooth.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613122946_0946-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Bokeh at distance is reasonably smooth.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613123009_0954-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Bokeh at distance is reasonably smooth.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613123345_0961-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Bokeh at distance is reasonably smooth. Notice how sharp it is. I could bring more details by increasing default sharpening but I did not apply more. Notice how highlights are free of chromatic aberrations.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180012_0972-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
That metal sheets reflected sun very harshly, yet almost no sigh of chromatic aberrations.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180108_0973-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Highlight in background bokeh. Reasonably smooth.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180123_0975-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Highlight in foreground bokeh. Notice how highlights on rail in the middle have pronounced edges implying slightly undercorrected SA that makes background bokeh smooth.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180312_0978-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
There are some very weak chromatic aberration here: green in background, pink in foreground. But very weak.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180420_0987-f3.5-1_2000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
LR shadows +95. Against sun. Looks great.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180427_0991-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
LR shadows +100. Against sun. There is some discoloration on the right side. It would not be really visible without pushing shadows.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613180859_1004-f1.8-1_2000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
There are some very weak chromatic aberration here: green in background, pink in foreground. But very weak.


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613181052_1015-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
Background bokeh is smooth.

Hare aperture series #1:


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183717_1560-f1.8-1_2500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/1.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183719_1564-f2.2-1_1600s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.2


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183721_1567-f2.8-1_1000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183723_1570-f4.0-1_500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/4

Hare aperture series #2:


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183736_1573-f1.8-1_2500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/1.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183737_1577-f2.2-1_1600s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.2


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183739_1579-f2.8-1_1000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613183741_1584-f4.0-1_500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/4

Strong highlights:


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191327_1627-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
LR shadows +50. At f/1.8 (green thing on right is just out of focus, not flare).


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191330_1630-f8.0-1_400s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
LR shadows +50. At f/8.

Handheld sharpness tests at infinity:


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191647_1652-f1.8-1_4000s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/1.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191658_1654-f2.2-1_3200s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.2


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191709_1657-f2.8-1_2500s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/2.8


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191741_1662-f4.0-1_800s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/4


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613191748_1666-f5.6-1_400s-iso100.preview.jpg

fullres
f/5.6

Family shots (all f/1.8, all have LR shadows and highlights adjusted):


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613194415_1693-f2.5-1_320s-iso400.preview.jpg

fullres


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613195813_1711-f1.8-1_320s-iso400.preview.jpg

fullres


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613195852_1715-f1.8-1_320s-iso400.preview.jpg

fullres


	http://jtra.cz/foto/20170613-sigma135-tests/20170613200034_1722-f1.8-1_500s-iso400.preview.jpg

fullres

Bokeh test chart results (distance 2.8m) show better background bokeh than foreground bokeh:

f/1.8
f/2.0
f/2.2
f/2.5
f/2.8
f/3.2

Jun 13, 2017 at 05:31 PM

Todd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #7 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

jtra wrote:

Hi, I received my 135/1.8 today and did some tests.

At first I estimated AF tune at +12 (50m distant target in adhoc testing), after shooting late home I noticed it is more like +6 (3m distant target) so I still need to validate it and perhaps adjust with dock for different distances. But even like that I got good pictures.

Here are some test shots. I was not really interested in measuring sharpness. It is already clear that this lens is very sharp. My copy is too, at least on 24MP D750.
I was mostly interested in bokeh. I'm bokeh aficionado. I...Show more →

That was an excellent post with lots of info for others that don't have it I'm sure they will appreciate this. I have this lens also and love it to pieces. Somebody posted the difference in the background softness (Bokeh) with the 105 and they decided to take the 105 image and crop it to match the 135 image and the background bokeh was exactly the same between the two. The bokeh Will look different because of the differences in focal length. And also subject to lens distance. Thanks for the extensive post...

Jun 13, 2017 at 06:22 PM

johnmondy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #8 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

I purchased one and it was a bit big for my taste and I tried to offer it on buy and sell (Vendor was charging a re-stocking fee so wanted to pass on the savings) no one jumped on it so I guess I will be keeping it.

All shots on DF with no focus tune- All Jpeg most at 1.8 a few at f2.2

Thanks, John

Jun 15, 2017 at 08:37 PM

jtra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #9 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Sigma 135 is plenty sharp beyond current sensors as measured here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/

Jul 08, 2017 at 07:14 AM

jtgray
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #10 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

I sold my 105mm f1.4 after I got the 135. I like the focal length better and the background compression is better with the longer focal length. oh did I mention im selling my 200mm f2 VR1?
im a big fan of the 135mm

Jul 18, 2017 at 07:12 AM

JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #11 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Todd wrote:
OMG! I just picked up my sigma 135mm F/1.8 and I have to tell you, that is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen. It's sharper than the Nikon 105 F/1 .4, appears to be just a sharp or sharper than a Carl Zeiss 135 F2!
Todd

Nope, the Sigma 135mm is not as good as the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T" 135mm ... only gets as sharp by 5.6 ... never renders as well ... never has the same-class of bokeh ... does not produce the same micro-contrast as the Zeiss.

Chris Court wrote:
Has anyone done a back-to-back with the Zeiss yet?

C

Yes, Dustin Abbott:

&t=517s

Jul 18, 2017 at 09:08 AM

eke2k6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #12 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

JohnK007 wrote:
only gets as sharp by 5.6

Please go back under the bridge from whence you came. Every review outlet, and every photographer who has used the 135 Art has waxed poetic about its unprecedented wide open sharpness levels. I've personally used my own copy at several weddings and events (including Miss America pageants), and the lens is astoundingly sharp and well corrected. Plus the bokeh is at least on the Nikon 105E's level.

Let's not even talk about the absurdity of comparing an autofocusing stud of a lens like the 135 Art, to a lens you have to manual focus while fighting a ridiculously thin depth of field. Even if the Zeiss is 2% sharper, I guarantee you'll end up with 200% less keepers, especially in situations that require keeping up with even the tiniest of movements.

Jul 18, 2017 at 10:00 AM

JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #13 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

eke2k6 wrote:
Please go back under the bridge from whence you came.

First of all, the word, "whence," means "from where," so saying, "from whence," is redundant.

Secondly, I am not trolling, I am responding to two direct questions regarding the comparison of two specific lenses, answering those questions on-topic.

If you can't handle the truth of a direct comparison of the Sigma to the best 135mm lens ever made, that's your problem. The conclusion is the Sigma 135 is a very good lens, but not quite at the level of the Zeiss. Is this really a surprise? The Sigma is superior to the Zeiss, at mid-ranges, wide-open, in the area of vignetting only, but cannot compare to the Zeiss at close distances (~6 ft).

eke2k6 wrote:
Every review outlet, and every photographer who has used the 135 Art has waxed poetic about its unprecedented wide open sharpness levels. I've personally used my own copy at several weddings and events (including Miss America pageants), and the lens is astoundingly sharp and well corrected. Plus the bokeh is at least on the Nikon 105E's level.

You just saw one that didn't wax as much praise for the Sigma as for the Zeiss.

Also, I didn't just say, "sharpness," did I? ... I am talking about the composite whole: rendering, micro-contrast, bokeh, etc.

Further, I wasn't comparing the Sigma to the Nikon 105, was I? I was comparing it to the Zeiss Apo Sonnar, which eclipses the Nikon 105 also.

eke2k6 wrote:
Let's not even talk about the absurdity of comparing an autofocusing stud of a lens like the 135 Art, to a lens you have to manual focus while fighting a ridiculously thin depth of field. Even if the Zeiss is 2% sharper, I guarantee you'll end up with 200% less keepers, especially in situations that require keeping up with even the tiniest of movements.

For your type of shooting this may be true (hand-holding moving subjects). Losing a little bit of fine detail may be okay for you, because AF is important for what you do.

For my type of shooting (Live View on a tripod), close focusing, AF is irrelevant ... I want the best detail and rendering I can possibly get ... and, with these criteria, the Zeiss is by far the better lens.

Different strokes.

Bottom line: two people asked for a direct comparison of the Sigma 135 and the Zeiss 135, and I provided one.

Jul 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM

eke2k6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #14 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Don't try to back track. You said:

JohnK007 wrote:
Nope, the Sigma 135mm is not as good as the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T" 135mm ... only gets as sharp by 5.6 ... never renders as well ... never has the same-class of bokeh ... does not produce the same micro-contrast as the Zeiss.

Which implies that the Sigma is soft until f/5.6.

Secondly, "from whence" has been used for 200 years. It can be found in literature going back to the early 1800s.

Thirdly, bokeh is such a subjective thing. I find the Sigma's bokeh to be smoother.

Fourth, I have doubts about Dustin's focusing methods on this second ttest. I know the Sigma is capable of more than his samples show, from personal experience. Even so, far be it from me to buy a 135mm 1.8 lens to use at a distance of 6 feet, unless I'm a headhsot photographer who specializes in chopped off heads.

But all that aside, I'm responding to your asinine comments about the 135 Art being unsharp until f/5.6

Jul 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM

JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #15 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

eke2k6 wrote:
Don't try to back track. You said:

Which implies that the Sigma is soft until f/5.6.

Not backtracking, you just don't know how to read.

Saying the Sigma 'isn't as sharp as the Zeiss' (the best 135mm ever), doesn't make it a 'soft' lens in general (just not as sharp as the very best); so learn how to assimilate what is actually said.

For that matter, neither lens is as sharp as an Otus ... but that doesn't mean both aren't much sharper than average.

eke2k6 wrote:
Secondly, "from whence" has been used for 200 years. It can be found in literature going back to the early 1800s.

Correction, misused for 200 years.

The very definition of whence = "from where" ... so all you're confirming is centuries of ignorance by quoting anyone who says, "from whence it came" ...

It's a common blunder, nothing more: http://grammarist.com/usage/whence-from-whence

eke2k6 wrote:
Thirdly, bokeh is such a subjective thing. I find the Sigma's bokeh to be smoother.

I doubt seriously you've ever compared them.

eke2k6 wrote:
Fourth, I have doubts about Dustin's focusing methods on this second ttest. I know the Sigma is capable of more than his samples show, from personal experience. Even so, far be it from me to buy a 135mm 1.8 lens to use at a distance of 6 feet, unless I'm a headhsot photographer who specializes in chopped off heads.

Dustin actually bought a second copy of the Sigma, because there were many others who cried "boo-hoo" at his results. The second copy also was not in the same class. If you want to do your own test, buy a Zeiss and critically-compare the two. The same results obtain when the Zeiss 85 Otus is compared with the Sigma 85 ... the latter just can't compare in rendering and micro-detail.

I agree with you, that for your kind of shooting, the Sigma would likely be the better option. Its AF alone would make you get more keepers, and it is a way-above-average lens.

However, placed on a tripod, and compared critically, it is not quite what the Zeiss is. This really should be no surprise. Since this is how I shoot, and I don't need AF, the Zeiss is the better choice.

eke2k6 wrote:
But all that aside, I'm responding to your asinine comments about the 135 Art being unsharp until f/5.6

Your attitude and inability to read is what's asinine.

I didn't make any bad statements in my original post, and tried not to make any in my second post (only corrected your many errors). At the end of the day WATCH THE VIDEO and you will see it was a fair, reasonable test of the Sigma against what has been considered the finest 135mm lens ever made to date. The Sigma did well in many respects, bested the Zeiss in a few respects (vignetting at moderate distances, wide-open), but fell short in most respects.

No reason to turn this personal.

Jul 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM

eke2k6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #16 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

JohnK007, meet JohnK007. I don't think you two have met.

JohnK007 wrote:
The Sigma is superior to the Zeiss, at mid-ranges, wide-open, in the area of vignetting only, but cannot compare to the Zeiss at close distances (~6 ft).

JohnK007 wrote:
Nope, the Sigma 135mm is not as good as the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T" 135mm ... only gets as sharp by 5.6 ... never renders as well ... never has the same-class of bokeh ... does not produce the same micro-contrast as the Zeiss.

So, JohnK007, the Sigma is not as sharp as the Zeiss until f/5.6. But JohnK007 seems to think the Sigma is better wide open.

What say you, JohnK007?

Jul 18, 2017 at 01:40 PM

Todd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #17 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

I used to have the Zeiss 135 APO (old version) but got rid of it when the Sigma 135 came out. I did enjoy the Zeiss it was great, however the manual focus really slowed me down for portrait work so the main reason I got the Sigma over the Zeiss was auto focus and just easier to use. Most people don't have the patience to sit there and pose while you wait to achieve perfect focus at f/2 manually and I was running out of patience doing so. I saw Dustin's video, he uses cannon, I use Nikon so I'm not sure how the sensors differ between image quality... my 36.3mp vs his 24mp. The main issue I had with my Zeiss 135 was the heavy vignetting it produced. For Astrophotography that was bad. Had to stop it down to f/3.5 to nix most of it. My Sigma clears up at f/2.5.

Even if the Zeiss was or is better than the Sigma by small margin, the Sigma meets my needs pretty well with the ability to auto focus. Autofocus makes the Sigma a winner in my book. However I would totally use the Zeiss for landscape and nature photography because manual focus is easier that way when you use MF since nature doesn't move much. I'm thinking some of the micro contrast can be fixed in post processing. Maybe it can maybe at can't, But anyway I'm happy with my Sigma and I guess that's all that matters. Plus it's easier on my pocketbook

Jul 18, 2017 at 02:48 PM

Yairt
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #18 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

I want to express my tests finding of the Sigma 135 ART vs the Milvus 135 On Nikon D810
First i own Zeiss and Sigma Art lenses , so i am not biased at all.

I rented both and bought the Sigma since i found it is the better lens , not because anything else.

First facts
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/

The sigma is a little better than the Zeiss wide open according to the only valid test , which takes into account large amount of samples and it is Not depended on the camera sensor.

So please stop being religious about zeiss it is a tool noting more.

The 135A is the first ART lens that its auto focus is consistent and accurate.
My results are on Nikon D810 and Not on Canon 5DMk4 which is 30MP and has an anti aliasing filter which masks details by default.

IMHO , The Sigma has an inconsistent behavior near MFD and that is where most of the criticism comes from.
Near MFD the Zeiss is simply light years a head in all aspect , it is not even close.

On normal shooting distances from 8 to 25 feet my findings change.
The Sigma is clearly sharper (on the D810) and with less CA and better and smoother out of focus rendering.
The zeiss has different color balance but you can not say it is better since it doesn't have larger color range just different balance. ( not the case with the ART 85 and the Milvus 85 where the Milvus is much more transparent and with a richer color range )
with careful matching i couldn't tell the difference.

once the color and exposure are matched global and local contrast are super close to me.

Infinity
I am sorry but unless some has an eye sight of a superman ( or wonder woman) i dont see a difference when both lenses are match and focused tightly.
(One mistake i saw on many reviews is the focusing on infinity. It is hard to only look at one point since your DOF should be match.
i carefully make sure the DOF start around the same place and goes to infinity.)

The best professional article on line is not free and is on :

https://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Sigma135f1_8A/Sigma135f1_8A.html

If someone is interested in facts and doesn't have emotions in it i advice reading this site prior to making a purchase.

All The best
Happy Shooting.
Yair

Jul 18, 2017 at 04:23 PM

JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #19 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

eke2k6 wrote:
So, JohnK007, the Sigma is not as sharp as the Zeiss until f/5.6. But JohnK007 seems to think the Sigma is better wide open.
What say you, JohnK007?

I would say that critical reading would have enabled you to note the differences: one was a statement about close distances, the other a statement about mid-ranges.

Dustin's video found the Zeiss trouncing the Sigma up close ... but the comparison became a hair-splitter mid-range (where the Zeiss' vignetting made it less appealing wide-open) ... but once again the Zeiss had the edge at the longer range.

The Zeiss' heavy vignetting is most noticeable at mid- to longer ranges, less so up close. Up close the difference in micro-contrast, detail heavily-favored the Zeiss.

If you watch the whole video you can see this.

Jul 18, 2017 at 08:14 PM

JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #20 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

Todd wrote:
Even if the Zeiss was or is better than the Sigma by small margin, the Sigma meets my needs pretty well with the ability to auto focus. Autofocus makes the Sigma a winner in my book. However I would totally use the Zeiss for landscape and nature photography because manual focus is easier that way when you use MF since nature doesn't move much. I'm thinking some of the micro contrast can be fixed in post processing. Maybe it can maybe at can't, But anyway I'm happy with my Sigma and I guess that's all that matters. Plus it's easier...Show more →

That is a fair assessment.

If my livelihood depending on wedding shots, or similar, I would definitely go for the Sigma: superb results, AF much more reliable to nail the shot in ever-changing conditions. The posted images here prove the lens is very good at this.

However, for nature (flowers, landscapes, rivers, fall leaf foliage, etc.), I would absolutely prefer the Zeiss + Live View to get every single tiny detail possible. I don't think you can re-capture these in post: they're either captured or they're not by the lens/sensor.

Jul 18, 2017 at 08:15 PM

1 2 3 … 13 14 15 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 13 14 15 end