bbvaj wrote:
Fred, I was following that thread until it turned into a bickering contest.
In my honest opinion, based on the samples in that thread, I did feel the 105 rendering is more pleasing than Sigma 135, but not by a lot though.
Yes, I was enjoying the images until that happened. They were mainly comparing it to the 105/1.4 which should always yield more blur. To me, the 135/1.8 is better technically but its out of focus rendering at mid/long distances is a little harsher in comparison.
As always it comes down to the shooter being careful on subject,distance and background. I have seen some other images that are the look of let's say a Nikon 200 F2 or other 200 fast lenses. Really quite beautiful and unique. For me this lens bokeh is not my main goal but that's me. I'm after speed and good AF. Of course distance away from subject. Sometimes the further the better in PR stuff. I'm exited to get it and try it out.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I was enjoying the images until that happened. They were mainly comparing it to the 105/1.4 which should always yield more blur. To me, the 135/1.8 is a better technically but its out of focus rendering at mid/long distances is a little harsher in comparison.
GMPhotography wrote:
I wonder if you get in the mid/long distances if your better served to stop down a touch
I didn't find it harsh though. It's just harsher when comparing to the Nikon 105/1.4 which is really amazing there.
Still not comparing apples to apples as I wrote on that thread.
Fred Miranda wrote:
They were mainly comparing it to the 105/1.4 which should always yield more blur.
Actually both lenses have same entrance pupil diameter: 105/1.4 = 135/1.8 which means for the same subject magnification* you will get the same blur radius for distant backgrounds.
Background blur is proportional to entrance pupil * (background distance - subject distance) / background distance. So if the background is 5x the subject distance, the blur is 80% of the entrance pupil, at 10x it's 90%, and at 100x it's 99% etc.
This of course assumes what is written on the barrel is correct - which is true some of the time at infinity focus and none of the time everywhere else. So a key factor in comparing blur for portraiture especially headshots is what is the real focal length at the minimum focus distance.
*e.g. you are shooting a head and shoulders portrait with both lenses, adjusting camera distance to make up for the difference in focal length)
Matt Grum wrote:
Actually both lenses have same entrance pupil diameter: 105/1.4 = 135/1.8 which means for the same subject magnification* you will get the same blur radius for distant backgrounds.
Background blur is proportional to entrance pupil * (background distance - subject distance) / background distance. So if the background is 5x the subject distance, the blur is 80% of the entrance pupil, at 10x it's 90%, and at 100x it's 99% etc.
This of course assumes what is written on the barrel is correct - which is true some of the time at infinity focus and none of the time everywhere else. So a key factor in comparing blur for portraiture especially headshots is what is the real focal length at the minimum focus distance.
*e.g. you are shooting a head and shoulders portrait with both lenses, adjusting camera distance to make up for the difference in focal length) ...Show more →
Thanks for that Matt.
All things considered, the 105/1.4 should still render more blur whenever the background is not very far from the subject. It should be a small difference though. However, from the samples I've seen, I still think the Nikon has smoother OOF rendering which is different than blur.
Getting nervous . Adorama already shipped the MC-11 but not my 135 yet. I have separate orders. Really hope they get it out today so I have it for the weekend. It's getting late in the day, 5 NY time.
My MC-11 and dock are supposed to arrive today.
Lens was shipped, and is supposed to arrive on Friday.
So, from what I'm reading, if the lens and adapter combo hunt or misfocus in good lighting, it's likely that the lens needs to go back? (no adjustments via the dock? and probably not the adapter?)
p.6 #13 · Sigma 135 1.8 thoughts? AF functionality
I thought we can make focus adjustments in the software.
bluloo wrote:
My MC-11 and dock are supposed to arrive today.
Lens was shipped, and is supposed to arrive on Friday.
So, from what I'm reading, if the lens and adapter combo hunt or misfocus in good lighting, it's likely that the lens needs to go back? (no adjustments via the dock? and probably not the adapter?)
p.6 #14 · Sigma 135 1.8 thoughts? AF functionality
The bottom line is it's a beast but I owned almost every 180 1.8,F2 or 200 F2 made and you really just love them. But hate carrying it. Just have to get over that I guess.
p.6 #15 · Sigma 135 1.8 thoughts? AF functionality
GMPhotography wrote:
The bottom line is it's a beast but I owned almost every 180 1.8,F2 or 200 F2 made and you really just love them. But hate carrying it. Just have to get over that I guess.
I loved my Canon 200/1.8L but it was a beast to carry around. The Sigma 135/1.8 is a great compromise.
p.6 #18 · Sigma 135 1.8 thoughts? AF functionality
Fred Miranda wrote:
I loved my Canon 200/1.8L but it was a beast to carry around. The Sigma 135/1.8 is a great compromise.
Wow that 200mm is a legend! I just got my hands on the non IS 300mm 2.8 and for a great price so I wont complain
p.6 #19 · Sigma 135 1.8 thoughts? AF functionality
lol I had three Canon 200 1.8. I kept upgrading them as I went along. Kept trying to get cleaner copies of it since they stopped making them. They are legendary. So was the Leica R 180 F2
