Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks Phillip! I will post more transition zone samples when comparing it to the Sigma 135/1.8 Art.
Thank you, Fred, this will be very interesting. I don't think it looks too bad, at least if you know how bad transition zones can look like. Nevertheless, the Lamp sample in #7 is the most critical with a bit of outlining so I would also be interested in a comparison to the 1.4/85 (and maybe also Sig 135) in a scene like that.
I can't emphasize enough how much I like your review(s) and providing it to you is the best possible way to use a review sample by Sony.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Thank you, Fred, this will be very interesting. I don't think it looks too bad, at least if you know how bad transition zones can look like. Nevertheless, the Lamp sample in #7 is the most critical with a bit of outlining so I would also be interested in a comparison to the 1.4/85 (and maybe also Sig 135) in a scene like that.
I can't emphasize enough how much I like your review(s) and providing it to you is the best possible way to use a review sample by Sony.
Hi Jannik,
Thank you and likewise!
Transition zone looks more abrupt with the 135/1.8 GM so it doesn't share the 85/1.4 GM's look. IMO, the latter was designed for best rendering in exchange for lower resolution/contrast wide open. (more aberrations)
It looks like the 135/1.8 GM was designed in a way that high IQ and rendering shared equal importance. So, the lack of aberrations makes it high contrast and optimally sharp wide open while specular highlights are clean with minimal outlining. Foreground bokeh shares a similar look.
I'm curious to see how the Sigma 135 compares. Everyone seems to love this lens' rendering.
I haven't dug into the results in great detail but it looks like it really shines in the AF department and secondarily in sharpness across the frame from at or near WO.
The results look pretty nice so far, but I’m not blown away - probably as a result of having excellent image examples from the Batis and Sigma Art 135 lenses.
I'm kind of hoping my impression doesn't change, as I can keep my Batis, a little sanity, and pocket the 2K.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Jannik,
Thank you and likewise!
Transition zone looks more abrupt with the 135/1.8 GM so it doesn't share the 85/1.4 GM's look. IMO, the latter was designed for best rendering in exchange for lower resolution/contrast wide open. (more aberrations)
It looks like the 135/1.8 GM was designed in a way that high IQ and rendering shared equal importance. So, the lack of aberrations makes it high contrast and optimally sharp wide open while specular highlights are clean with minimal outlining. Foreground bokeh shares a similar look.
I'm curious to see how the Sigma 135 compares. Everyone seems to love this lens' rendering.
It's really a design balance and this time we get very high contrast for the focal plane with a fast transition zone. Together with the right lighting, I can definitely see that subjects stand out. It's a different look that works well for portraits but I think this lens was also designed for sports photography. ...Show more →
Also your doing a lot of heavy sunlight so that is also effecting the contrast too. That one shooters images we saw under more diffused lighting images appeared to be softer in look more like the GM 85 but a touch sharper wide open. Some of us actually said if it was not for the Exif data they would have said it was the GM 85.
Lighting is going to play a key role here too. That is something we have to keep in mind.
For me personally the GM 85 is a no go because the lack of AF speed. So this lens is it. Maybe I’ll look at the new Samyang 85 1.4 for that speed
GMPhotography wrote:
Also your doing a lot of heavy sunlight so that is also effecting the contrast too. That one shooters images we saw under more diffused lighting images appeared to be softer in look more like the GM 85 but a touch sharper wide open. Some of us actually said if it was not for the Exif data they would have said it was the GM 85.
Lighting is going to play a key role here too. That is something we have to keep in mind.
For me personally the GM 85 is a no go because the lack of AF speed. So this lens is it. Maybe I’ll look at the new Samyang 85 1.4 for that speed ...Show more →
Lighting can definitely change contrast but all the portrait examples I posted so far were not under harsh lighting. They were taken right before or after sunset.
I will compare the rendering to the 85/1.4 GM. I think this stuff is highly subjective and side-by-side examples can help us visualize better.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Jannik,
Transition zone looks more abrupt on the 135/1.8 GM so it doesn't share the 85/1.4 GM's look. IMO, the latter was designed for best rendering in exchange for lower resolution/contrast wide open. (more aberrations)
I think so too and I think this is a tribute or side effect of the fast AF.. I think that sports photographers will probably prefer the best punch to their images.
Furthermore I was wondering if less SA in the bokeh also helps for better focus acquisition because of more contrast in the OOF area?! Just a vague theory of course.
Nevertheless, I think that the backgrounds look very good in your samples, I am still not convinced that this lens has neutral bokeh to put it gently. The 1.4/85 GM on the other hand has this high SA bokeh magic at f1.4, this really helps in the transition zone and makes this lens special in my opinion. The slow AF makes it unuseable for me, the 1.8/135 is meant as a replacement for the hard portrait work. The 1.8/85 does the 85mm job better for me because of the more useable AF.
Jannik Peters wrote:
I think so too and I think this is a tribute or side effect of the fast AF.. I think that sports photographers will probably prefer the best punch to their images.
Furthermore I was wondering if less SA in the bokeh also helps for better focus acquisition because of more contrast in the OOF area?! Just a vague theory of course.
Nevertheless, I think that the backgrounds look very good in your samples, I am still not convinced that this lens has neutral bokeh to put it gently. The 1.4/85 GM on the other hand has this high SA bokeh magic at f1.4, this really helps in the transition zone and makes this lens special in my opinion. The slow AF makes it unuseable for me, the 1.8/135 is meant as a replacement for the hard portrait work. The 1.8/85 does the 85mm job better for me because of the more useable AF. ...Show more →
I’m right there with you as well. I do like the look of this lens but it does have punch to it and I’m kinda glad it does. A lot of us have the 50 1.4 which may work as the softer look. But again we may look at this Samyang 85. The Sony 85 1.8 is fast but it’s not a look lens. Same really with the Batis 85. We know what the issue is and that’s the GM 85 needs these new motors in it. But that ain’t happening. Also for me I like 135 far better. Honestly the Sigma is out for me.
I really like your work, especially the detailed 85mm comparison that you posted a while ago.
I have been using the 85mm GM for some time now and, I don't recall having any autofocus issues (except for one time when I was shooting outdoors well after sunset in a terrible light). It seems to me that the lens focuses properly and fast enough to keep up with movement of any model I have shot. It's not blazingly fast but with eye autofocus on my Sony A7iii, I have never felt I needed it to be faster than that (for portrait work). Earlier firmware was pretty bad. Now it's very good.
You maybe talking about different applications though.
Jannik Peters wrote:
I think so too and I think this is a tribute or side effect of the fast AF.. I think that sports photographers will probably prefer the best punch to their images.
Furthermore I was wondering if less SA in the bokeh also helps for better focus acquisition because of more contrast in the OOF area?! Just a vague theory of course.
Nevertheless, I think that the backgrounds look very good in your samples, I am still not convinced that this lens has neutral bokeh to put it gently. The 1.4/85 GM on the other hand has this high SA bokeh magic at f1.4, this really helps in the transition zone and makes this lens special in my opinion. The slow AF makes it unuseable for me, the 1.8/135 is meant as a replacement for the hard portrait work. The 1.8/85 does the 85mm job better for me because of the more useable AF. ...Show more →
"You maybe talking about different applications though."
That is the key - I am mostly using it for kids in action. Kids are so unsteady and move unforeseeable that AF starts to struggle. Posing models are not an issue at all with the 1.4/85 GM of course.
135 GM TCA is pretty minimal for a super-speed tele. Based on the info from snapsy, disabling TCA correction will also reveal the true linear distortion.
I'm excited to see comparisons with the Sigma 135mm, 85mm GM, and Sigma 105mm. I think these are probably the most popular portrait lenses for the system at the moment. It seems the consensus so far is that the GM still has a "better" rendering with its smooth transition area so I'm curious to see if that's true when viewed side by side. I love my Sigma 135mm rendering and from Manny's test they appear to have a very similar look.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Jannik,
Transition zone looks more abrupt on the 135/1.8 GM so it doesn't share the 85/1.4 GM's look. IMO, the latter was designed for best rendering in exchange for lower resolution/contrast wide open. (more aberrations)
It looks like the 135/1.8 GM was designed in a way that high IQ and rendering shared equal importance. So, the lack of aberrations make it high contrast and optimally sharp wide open while specular highlights are clean with minimal outlining. Foreground bokeh shares a similar look.
I'm curious to see how the Sigma 135 compares. Everyone seems to love this lens' rendering.
