grahamgibson wrote:
Ooh, I wonder if the texture slider is like C1's "Structure". Will look forward to checking it out.
On the topic of the GM 135, has anyone replaced their Batis 135 but then regretted the change due to larger size/weight?
I love the 135mm focal length but don't miss the Batis 135/2.8 after acquiring the new 135 GM. They are pretty much the same size but the GM is ~320g heavier. I get more flexibility with the GM shooting wide open or at f/2.8 for very round specular highlights even towards the edge. So, if it wasn't for the GM, I would still still be shooting with the Batis 135.
If I want lighter weight for portraits or travel, there is nothing really beating the 550g Samyang 85/1.4 FE.
daniel.in.la wrote:
I shot this little number yesterday. This lens just blew past most of my current glass into my top 3, with only primes in my kit. I now rank my top 3:
1. Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
2. Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM
3. Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
Fast car and a private jet waiting for me in the hanger 😁 Now this could be my new top two kit 🤩 ( Great image too BTW)
daniel.in.la wrote:
I shot this little number yesterday. This lens just blew past most of my current glass into my top 3, with only primes in my kit. I now rank my top 3:
1. Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
2. Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM
3. Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
smpetty wrote:
Just curious, could you rank your top ten lenses?
Sure:
1. Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
2. Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM
3. Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
4. Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM
5. Sony 90mm f/2.8 Macro
6. Sony 35mm f/1.4 ZA
7. Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM
8. TBD (wishing for fast ultra-wide GM)
9. ?
10. ?
I’m down to 7 lenses, so this is all based on what’s in my bag. Before the 135, I would’ve bumped the 24 to #3
That image of Abby looks incredibly sharp. Scary sharp. But the bokeh looks kind of funky to my eye. Pretty darned busy. A bit of outlining. The transition zone has a kind of "double exposure" look to it. Creamy is not the first word that comes to my mind.
Any thoughts on the bokeh of this lens? Is it a weak spot?
I'm not trying to find fault. I've got one on the way to replace my Batis 135. I'm just a bit concerned because this isn't the first image I've seen from this lens where the background blur looked kind of iffy.
Would love to hear what others who have had a chance to use this lens for a while think about the bokeh. And I'm not talking about cat's eyes or onion rings. I'm talking about busy background blur, outlining and CA. Thx.
Can any of you techies shed some insight as to why Sony didn't make this an IS lens? Believe me, this is not a criticism at all - but it's more of a question to help me understand the limitations or expectations of IBIS when it comes to stabilizing longer lenses. Is there a sort of tipping point where IBIS becomes a necessity and when it is not a necessity?
lunar module wrote:
That image of Abby looks incredibly sharp. Scary sharp. But the bokeh looks kind of funky to my eye. Pretty darned busy. A bit of outlining. The transition zone has a kind of "double exposure" look to it. Creamy is not the first word that comes to my mind.
Any thoughts on the bokeh of this lens? Is it a weak spot?
I'm not trying to find fault. I've got one on the way to replace my Batis 135. I'm just a bit concerned because this isn't the first image I've seen from this lens where the background blur looked kind of iffy.
Would love to hear what others who have had a chance to use this lens for a while think about the bokeh. And I'm not talking about cat's eyes or onion rings. I'm talking about busy background blur, outlining and CA. Thx. ...Show more →
I think you are over analyzing this image as we don't know what was done in post-processing. Also, foliage under high contrast lighting, located right behind the subject will never give us optimal rendering.
IMO, the 135/1.8 GM has a neutral bokeh. It's not "SA" smooth but specular highlights are clean with minimal outlining. There is pretty much zero CA. On this thread, I've compared it side by side with lenses with pleasant rendering like the Sigma 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 GM and things were quite similar rendering-wise.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm sure it is. It was my favorite Canon lens but the problem is that these people keep increasing sensor MP and I'm a sucker for that!
I know what you mean. I had 2 copies of it and high MP cameras have not been very kind to that lens for sure. Canon should have updated that lens a while ago after they did the great 35mm 1.4 L ii for example.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think you are over analyzing this image as we don't know what was done in post-processing. Also, foliage under high contrast lighting, located right behind the subject will never give us optimal rendering.
IMO, the 135/1.8 GM has a neutral bokeh. It's not "SA" smooth but specular highlights are clean with minimal outlining. There is pretty much zero CA. On this thread, I've compared it side by side with lenses with pleasant rendering like the Sigma 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 GM and things were quite similar rendering-wise.
Can any of you techies shed some insight as to why Sony didn't make this an IS lens? Believe me, this is not a criticism at all - but it's more of a question to help me understand the limitations or expectations of IBIS when it comes to stabilizing longer lenses. Is there a sort of tipping point where IBIS becomes a necessity and when it is not a necessity?
I'm shooting portraits at 1/60s and static objects at 1/30s with sharp results. I can see in the viewfinder that the lens is well stabilized when IBIS is on. Previously I was getting similar results with the Batis 135/2.8 APO which is stabilized.
Adding OSS would yield a different optical design, perhaps compromising IQ slightly and increasing size/weight.
