AlphaPhotography wrote:
Love this shot and rendering. One thing I'm still interested to see is more examples like this one comparing the 135 GM rendering for portraits to the 85 GM and if one holds an advantage at certain subject distances (i.e. is the 85 better at half body, is the 135 better at full body, etc.). Mark Galer's test was useful but he shot in APS-C mode with the GM for a similar working distance. I'm more concerned with the portrait rendering regardless of working distance (fully understanding that it changes what's included in the background).
I think the 85/1.4 GM makes a great ~128/2.8 lens (1.4x crop) when stopped down to f/1.8. When shot wide-open + cropped, I think it does not fare well as its noticeable LoCA gets amplified and the lens is not super sharp wide open to being with.
On the other hand, the 135/1.8 GM cropped to 190/2.8 is a different story and can definitely be kept wide open.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
It's hard to be certain, but this product shot of the lens seems to show a (somewhat) less shiny surface than your sample has. Let's hope this is just a pre-production lens.
Judged by the pics only, the 85GM's front looks similar. Yet it's not known to produce rainbows.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the 85/1.4 GM makes a great ~128/2.8 lens (1.4x crop) when stopped down to f/1.8. When shot wide-open + cropped, I think it does not fare well as its noticeable LoCA gets amplified and the lens is not super sharp wide open to being with.
On the other hand, the 135/1.8 GM cropped to 190/2.8 is a different story and can definitely be kept wide open.
Working distance and sharpness aside do you prefer the "look" of one over the other based on your tests so far? Have you had the chance to do any portrait comparisons?
vdo1 wrote:
Judged by the pics only, the 85GM's front looks similar. Yet it's not known to produce rainbows.
The 85/1.4 GM is designed the exact same way but the threads do not run as deep compared to the 135/1.8 GM.
I have a feeling the 85/1.4 will also show these reflections, so it could be something we never paid attention to.
Sorry guys have not been paying attention but Mark Galers video with 85 in crop mode looked identical in look to the 135. The 135 being sharper of course but the look was like a mirror of the other
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jannik,
I don't think this is related to lens flare. It's a reflection coming from the internal threaded barrel around the curved front element.
Use of the hood makes it go away though, correct? I always - always - use a hood on my lenses. Mostly, I'll admit, for protection...in Vancouver, from the rain; in life, from me. I had a lens hood self destruct to save a lens when my camera swung from my shoulder and into a door frame. Lens was perfectly fine, hood was not. Lesson learned, know thyself
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jannik,
I don't think this is related to lens flare. It's a reflection coming from the internal threaded barrel around the curved front element.
Yes, got it but I really move the camera in all awkward positions that I can think of when I try to judge flare resistance, also in positions where the sun is outside of the frame. I hate carrying hoods around and I always want to know if they are any useful. There is veiling flare when the sun is outside of the frame, that is all I know of in case of the 1.4/85 in that situation.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Use of the hood makes it go away though, correct? I always - always - use a hood on my lenses. Mostly, I'll admit, for protection...in Vancouver, from the rain; in life, from me. I had a lens hood self destruct to save a lens when my camera swung from my shoulder and into a door frame. Lens was perfectly fine, hood was not. Lesson learned, know thyself
Yes, when using the original hood, this is a non-issue
Jannik Peters wrote:
Yes, got it but I really move the camera in all awkward positions that I can think of when I try to judge flare resistance, also in positions where the sun is outside of the frame. I hate carrying hoods around and I always want to know if they are any useful. There is veiling flare when the sun is outside of the frame, that is all I know of in case of the 1.4/85 in that situation.
If the weather cooperates today, I will test the 85/1.4 GM for this. I've never seen these reflections with the 85/1.4 either but perhaps the effect is not as strong.
jtra wrote:
One more possible advantage of Sigma 135 would be that it can be used with TCs when you cut out baffle that is inside. I have tested my F-mount Sigma 135 on manual Novoflex adapter with both Sony TCs: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1582388/0#14748398
But ultimately I decided against modifying my E-mount Sigma when I tested flare difference between F-mount on adapter vs E-mount. Flare was much worse on F-mount when I shined light into lens from corner position. I am not sure if lack of baffle or adapter itself has caused that. Add to that that I would want fast AF at 189/2.5 or 270/3.6. I am not even sure if it would AF. ...Show more → Fred Miranda wrote:
If your adapter flocked?
I see it is ribbed inside, but I did not modify it.
Here are two samples where I put bright LED light pointing towards lens. For images with light inside of image, there was no significant difference, but for images where light was just outside of image corner it could be as bad as this:
Sony TCs do not fit into MC11. There is a baffle and some stuff behind it. On the other hand on E-mount Sigma 135, the baffle is there but nothing behind it so at least cutting into it should not break the lens.
I have no idea if Sony TC would AF with Sigma E-mount lens. TC acceptance could be signaled electronically.
But it probably works with Metabones V and several lenses including Sigma 135 based on https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1501034/0 where @AGeoJO wrote: "I can extend my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens using either the FE 1.4X and FE 2X minimal penalties in the AF department. And optically, it is still great in both modes; thiis lens is truly outstanding. That’s an extra bonus if you want to use that lens and occasionally need the FL to be extended."
So I guessed there is chance that it could work with native Sigma 135 after cutting baffle, but it could be just that Metabones is signaling TC acceptance, but Sigma 135 E-mount might not.
In the end I decided that I will not buy TC and modify Sigma 135. I have no other lens to use TCs with. Sigma has 4 year warranty here which I would lost by modification. But maybe if reports from other users are positive I might try it in future.
jtra wrote:
I see it is ribbed inside, but I did not modify it.
Here are two samples where I put bright LED light pointing towards lens. For images with light inside of image, there was no significant difference, but for images where light was just outside of image corner it could be as bad as this:
Sony TCs do not fit into MC11. There is a baffle and some stuff behind it. On the other hand on E-mount Sigma 135, the baffle is there but nothing behind it so at least cutting into it should not break the lens.
I have no idea if Sony TC would AF with Sigma E-mount lens. TC acceptance could be signaled electronically.
But it probably works with Metabones V and several lenses including Sigma 135 based on https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1501034/0 where @AGeoJO@ wrote: "I can extend my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens using either the FE 1.4X and FE 2X minimal penalties in the AF department. And optically, it is still great in both modes; thiis lens is truly outstanding. That’s an extra bonus if you want to use that lens and occasionally need the FL to be extended."
So I guessed there is chance that it could work with native Sigma 135 after cutting baffle, but it could be just that Metabones is signaling TC acceptance, but Sigma 135 E-mount might not.
In the end I decided that I will not buy TC and modify Sigma 135. I have no other lens to use TCs with. Sigma has 4 year warranty here which I would lost by modification. But maybe if reports from other users are positive I might try it in future....Show more →
Another benefit of the Sigma 135/1.8 E-mount versus Canon mount + MC-11 is that the former is 60g lighter.
EF mount + MC-11: 1254g (1130g+124g)
E-mount: 1194g
The EF mount version can be used with the Metabones V + Sony TCs without any modification. (Can also be used with Canon TCs)
The E-mount can be used with Sony TCs by slightly shaving the rear baffle. (I have not tried it though and I'm not sure if AF will work properly)
So, I tested the FE 85/1.4 GM for that ring flare and it also happens with the lens bare (no hood attached). The good news with the FE 85/1.4 GM is that shorter hoods remove the reflection entirely.
This does not happen with the Sigma 135/1.8 Art and Batis 135/2.8 APO lenses.
The sun is overhead
The original hood or shorter hoods like this one eliminate the issue for the FE 85/1.4 GM
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, I tested the FE 85/1.4 GM for that ring flare and it also happens with the lens bare (no hood attached). The good news with the FE 85/1.4 GM is that shorter hoods remove the reflection entirely.
This does not happen with the Sigma 135/1.8 Art and Batis 135/2.8 APO lenses.
But this type of bokeh doesn’t happen with them either
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, I tested the FE 85/1.4 GM for that ring flare and it also happens with the lens bare (no hood attached). The good news with the FE 85/1.4 GM is that shorter hoods remove the reflection entirely.
This does not happen with the Sigma 135/1.8 Art and Batis 135/2.8 APO lenses.
Kind of fascinating. Had never known this phenomenon was a thing before this thread. Thanks for your diligence in testing and tracking this stuff down.
