Folks your expecting a very corrected lens to act under corrected for the sake of bokeh. That’s not going to happen. At 1.8 this lens is so well corrected that there no aberrations to create smoother bokeh which usually comes from under corrected lenses. You asking this lens to be two faced and it’s not. Bottom line closer the background to focus point is the best solution to soften the bokeh. Shoot accordingly. Really none of the 135 we have out there right now are really not much better, if anything maybe the edge to Sigma in this area. Batis is well corrected also. If anything the sigma is maybe a little under corrected from memory.
Your really asking a very modern lens to act with a lot of aberrations for the sake of ultimate bokeh. That won’t work.
From a shooters viewpoint. Stop picking busy backgrounds it’s not going to help.
Gents you're touching the subject of what is a bad or good lens or what is bad or good bokeh etc.
Once you start struggling trying to define an absolute metric for expressing "goodness" or "badness", you realize that there's no such absolute scale. It's all relative to your purpose. And, after and only after that purpose is clearly defined, you may decide which is better - Trioplan or STF, and you have to be aware that the resulting judgment is valid only for that particular purpose.
There is no lens universally "good" for all purposes.
I think many folks are expecting the 135/1.8 GM to provide similar rendering to the 85/1.4 GM. IMO, it's closer in rendering to the 50/1.4 ZA.
If you stop down the 85/1.4 GM to about f/1.8 or f/2, where spherical aberration and CA is better corrected, their rendering will indeed look very similar. (Both wide open, not so much)
At resized for the web sizes, it's difficult to distinguish 135/1.8 GM and Sigma 135/1.8 Art images apart. The GM is a bit sharper and the Sigma is a tiny bit smoother but that's not noticeable unless analyzing images at 1:1. So, if bokeh rendering does not look good for the GM, it won't look any better for the Sigma or Batis 135mm lenses. The latter is even better corrected lens so if "SA bokeh" is your thing, perhaps the Canon 135/2L could be a better option.
It looks like Sony wanted the 135/1.8 GM to be a dedicated portrait 'and' sports/action lens in one.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think many folks are expecting the 135/1.8 GM to provide similar rendering to other GM lenses like the 85/1.4.
If you stop down the 85/1.4 GM to about f/1.8 or f/2, where spherical aberration and CA become better corrected, their rendering will indeed look very similar. (Both wide open, not so much)
At resized for the web sizes, it's difficult to distinguish 135/1.8 GM and Sigma 135/1.8 Art images apart. The GM is a bit sharper and the Sigma is a tiny bit smoother but that's not noticeable unless analyzing images at 1:1. So, if bokeh rendering does not look good for the GM, it won't look any better for the Sigma or Batis 135mm lenses. The latter is even better corrected lens so if "SA bokeh" is your thing, perhaps the Canon 135/2L could be a better option.
It looks like Sony wanted the 135/1.8 GM to be a dedicated portrait 'and' sports/action lens in one....Show more →
The last sentence seems to be right on the money and yes, apparently some folks were hoping that it would be more a portrait lens, similar to that of the 85mm brother or similar to the Sony 135mm ZA (Sony A-mount), whether "right" or "wrong".
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think many folks are expecting the 135/1.8 GM to provide similar rendering to other GM lenses like the 85/1.4.
If you stop down the 85/1.4 GM to about f/1.8 or f/2, where spherical aberration and CA become better corrected, their rendering will indeed look very similar. (Both wide open, not so much)
At resized for the web sizes, it's difficult to distinguish 135/1.8 GM and Sigma 135/1.8 Art images apart. The GM is a bit sharper and the Sigma is a tiny bit smoother but that's not noticeable unless analyzing images at 1:1. So, if bokeh rendering does not look good for the GM, it won't look any better for the Sigma or Batis 135mm lenses. The latter is even better corrected lens so if "SA bokeh" is your thing, perhaps the Canon 135/2L could be a better option.
It looks like Sony wanted the 135/1.8 GM to be a dedicated portrait 'and' sports/action lens in one....Show more →
I've been studying the samples from the 135GM (thanks guys for posting!) and have the same sense about how the 135GM renders for portraits. In a nut shell, its more similar to the Sigma 135 than the 85GM.
As someone who often shoots outdoor portraiture, I was never fully happy with the way that the Sigma 135 renders ended up selling it. I had high hopes that the eventual 135GM would render similarly to the 85GM or the a-mount 135ZA (my favorite portrait lens of all time), as those two lenses can render whatever contrasty mess of a background you throw at it very pleasingly.
That isn't to say that one lens is overall better or worse than another....just that they are different. There are always trade-offs in rendering, and what is 'good' or 'bad' is very much subjective and each person really needs to think about what they need/want out of the photos they are trying to create. i.e. where the 85GM's rendering is superlative for portraiture, it can be overly flat for everything else. Like you said it seems that the 135GM lens designers positioned this to be more of a jack of all trades lens vs the 85GM which feels very much like a dedicated portrait lens....slow-ass AF system and all.
AGeoJO wrote:
The last sentence seems to be right on the money and yes, apparently some folks were hoping that it would be more a portrait lens, similar to that of the 85mm brother or similar to the Sony 135mm ZA (Sony A-mount), whether "right" or "wrong".
This was tricky for Sony. They knew the Sigma 135 Art was a very sharp and well corrected lens from wide open, so for a more expensive 135 GM lens to succeed, it could not be under corrected for SA like the 85/1.4 GM and had to exceed in the AF department.
IMO, the 135/1.8 GM renders beautifully with an overall look very similar to another beauty, the 50/1.4 ZA.
It renders clean specular highlights (no onion ring) with minimal outlining. I find myself lowering contrast and texture for both lenses in post when shooting portraits.
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.
Would you edit your post and click the box to show exif data on the photos? Did you shoot f1.8 on all the shots? I just wondered if you stopped down on anything - or felt you could have - and what effect that might have had on the boken distraction?
Where I'm going with that is: would you still have the lens for its quick AF performance even if you didn't find the f1.8 aperture an advantage? OR, would you have preferred to use the 100-400GM for these soccer shots?
Ok updated my post with basic EXIF info. All were shot wide open just to see. I would have shot wide open for most anyway (except for the ball closeup - would have gone to f4-f5,6).
I edited using the same changes I would have used with my 70-200 GM. In the end, I prefer the rendering of the zoom for most of my soccer photos. Maybe I’m more used to the 70-200 files, I don’t know. I will probably stick with the zoom and keep my Sigma for events which I find very flattering on people.
I will say this, with a 50Mp A9, you could get away with just the Sony 135 and simply crop to 200mm without a resolution penalty and less weight than the 70-200.
As for the 100-400, I have been using it but might sell it. I am satisfied with my results using the 70-200 with 1.4x and prefer the look of it when shooting up to 280mm. 400mm is cool but having both zooms is a bit crazy and the 100-400 just doesn’t have the aesthetic I like. I also much prefer zooming with the 70-200’s internal zoom.
pasblues wrote:
Would you edit your post and click the box to show exif data on the photos? Did you shoot f1.8 on all the shots? I just wondered if you stopped down on anything - or felt you could have - and what effect that might have had on the boken distraction?
Where I'm going with that is: would you still have the lens for its quick AF performance even if you didn't find the f1.8 aperture an advantage? OR, would you have preferred to use the 100-400GM for these soccer shots?
Only edited JPEGs. Yes, I applied global contrast - as you can tell I have a heavy hand with contrast and blacks...
I didn’t post any here, but using Lightroom’s new “texture” slider at around -40 really helps smooth out Bokeh without too much effect on in-focus content.
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!
oddjobprime wrote:
Only edited JPEGs. Yes, I applied global contrast - as you can tell I have a heavy hand with contrast and blacks...
I didn’t post any here, but using Lightroom’s new “texture” slider at around -40 really helps smooth out Bokeh without too much effect on in-focus content.
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.
Well...lets say, I bought the Sigma and it is a jaw dropping lens for sure. I am doing a shoot tomorrow for a Youtube video and plan to use it a lot for the shoot. Sure it is big but I love the no compromise size approach of its design.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Based on lens rental test...looks like I sort of have one already
The 50/1.4 ZA is way sharper in the center compared to both Otus 55 and Sigma 40...However, it does not fare as well across the field compared to them.
. I am aware of the shooting conditions alright but..
[/just kidding]
. 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!
