I’ve been shooting the Batis 40 for the last 6 weeks and it makes me badly want a 40/1.4. Unfortunately the Sigma is so large I’d be worried about injuring somebody while using it. Hoping for a GM in this range.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Aside from IQ, the 135/1.8 GM is unique for its AF performance. I wish we had a 40-50mm f/1.4 that was just as fast and accurate. I can't complain about the 50/1.4 ZA's IQ and rendering but AF is not in the same level as the 135 GM's.
It may not be as fast focussing, but it is still quite fast. So far I wasn't let down a single time up to now using it.
As long as you don't shoot extremely fast paced action, it is more the shooter than the lens being the limitation in my opinion.
Having a faster focussing lens is of course more convenient. I just think that using the 135 a lot might distort ones expectation on AF and will give you the impression of using a slow focussing lens when using the 50 thereafter.
Holger wrote:
It may not be as fast focussing, but it is still quite fast. So far I wasn't let down a single time up to now using it.
As long as you don't shoot extremely fast paced action, it is more the shooter than the lens being the limitation in my opinion.
Having a faster focussing lens is of course more convenient. I just think that using the 135 a lot might distort ones expectation on AF and will give you the impression of using a slow focussing lens when using the 50 thereafter.
The 135/1.8 GM's AF is faster, quieter and more accurate but that advantage may not be important to your needs. I agree that the 50/1.4 ZA's AF is adequate for most situations. It's one of my favorite lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 135/1.8 GM's AF is faster, quieter and more accurate but that advantage may not be important to your needs. I agree that the 50/1.4 ZA's AF is adequate for most situations. It's one of my favorite lenses.
What lenses to you regularly use Fred? I have seen recent posts mentioning the 135GM and the SY85. What else is in the regular rotation?
Jannik Peters wrote:
We definitely need more samples in this thread
I shot my 135GM at a concert last night. My purpose was to push the lens hard to failure.
It fought back.
I aimed through mic stands, cords, instruments in crappy lighting, fast moving subjects - all over the place. FOR ME, and the purpose I want for this lens, I felt a bit like I was handling a pedigree horse and I suddenly had deep respect for it.
What set this lens apart, again, for me, was it's PERFORMANCE under difficult conditions and its rendering - its sheer sharpness under duress.
I don't think that everyone in the world needs to jump on this lens - as a matter of fact, there's going to be a windfall of happy people picking up the absolutely stellar other 135mm choices out there that will hit the used market. For lots of light, for portraits and controlled situations - and even for the conditions I've shared here - there is no LOGICAL compelling reason to get the GM over the rest of the 135 f1.8 available (or your other favorite focal lengths).
But, IMHO, for my purpose, the 135GM did what I hoped it would do in conjunction with the Sony's camera engine - it latched on to the faces I wanted and tracked them quickly without a struggle. About three times over three hours, the lens hunted but the speed at which it snapped back was a testament - to me - to the build that Sony has put into this lens.
Even for some frames that are not PERFECTLY TACK - I mean the subjects were erratically moving with hair flying around in front of the face and instruments waving in front of the face plane of focus - even then - IMHO, the lens is so sharp that a little bit off tack is still acceptable quality.
I am sharing some images that are intended to show how I challenged the lens to fail. It didn't. Overwhelmingly, it did not.
I particularly like the MFD of the GM it's perfect for floral stuff. From a recent walk in the woods for the annual Trillium bloom. DSC06773 by Jose Raposo, on Flickr
Almost forgot - I also photographed some people in the crowd at the concert. It was quite darker than this photo is going to appear. The lens had no problem latching on and holding the focus. This has never been an easy task in the past so this was a delightful surprise.
Yes, I too have this lens and aside from my Canon 300/2.8L IS I've never experienced anything like it. Focus is so fast and unerringly accurate. Shooting wide open it is superior to my Canon 135/2L on all aspects, maybe except price
Jesse Evans wrote:
I’ve been shooting the Batis 40 for the last 6 weeks and it makes me badly want a 40/1.4. Unfortunately the Sigma is so large I’d be worried about injuring somebody while using it. Hoping for a GM in this range.
Not me. I am very happy with my Batis 40/2 with it light weight and really nice CF ability. I use my Zony 50mm f/1.4 ZA as well where I can typically live with the AF speed which is not that bad. I would have to see what a GM would brings. I certainly don't want a lens as big and heavy (almost 4x the weight of the Batis) as the Sigma.
Took it for a quick spin at my son's soccer practice. I have the Sigma and am evaluating the Sony for events and sports. This Sony lens is SHARP with loads of contrast and flawless focus tracking on the A9. The bokeh can be distracting at times, which is the one drawback I find with this lens. These are all edited from camera JPEGs.
All photos at f1.8, 1/6400s, ISO100, electronic shutter.
oddjobprime wrote:
Took it for a quick spin at my son's soccer practice. I have the Sigma and am evaluating the Sony for events and sports. This Sony lens is SHARP with loads of contrast and flawless focus tracking on the A9. The bokeh can be distracting at times, which is the one drawback I find with this lens.
I see what you mean about the bokeh... that first shot has some weird stuff going on with the power lines in the background
Took it for a quick spin at my son's soccer practice. I have the Sigma and am evaluating the Sony for events and sports. This Sony lens is SHARP with loads of contrast and flawless focus tracking on the A9. The bokeh can be distracting at times, which is the one drawback I find with this lens. These are all edited from camera JPEGs.
I was expecting or hoping the bokeh in the background of the GM would be smoother.... . But I noticed that these are contrasty conditions. Did you do any editing of the RAW files? If you did, did you apply the contrast adjustment globally, meaning evenly throughout the entire frame? Thanks!
AGeoJO wrote:
I was expecting or hoping the bokeh in the background of the GM would be smoother.... . But I noticed that these are contrasty conditions. Did you do any editing of the RAW files? If you did, did you apply the contrast adjustment globally, meaning evenly throughout the entire frame? Thanks!
There was heavy post processing on the images. When that's combined with harsh lighting and busy background at mid-distance, no lens would really fares well imo. (Even the 85GM)
. But I noticed that these are contrasty conditions. Did you do any editing of the RAW files? If you did, did you apply the contrast adjustment globally, meaning evenly throughout the entire frame? Thanks!