Really surprised how fast this lens went from people waiting for theirs and the first sale discount. It looks like quite a lens. I guess it's also quite a niche lens for many shooters.
Really surprised how fast this lens went from people waiting for theirs and the first sale discount. It looks like quite a lens. I guess it's also quite a niche lens for many shooters.
And yet I've been looking for one in stock in the US and can't seem to find it.
Couple more of my kids playing outside on a cloudy day. I'm still impressed with this lens. It rarely misses focus when shooting action and I like the rendering.
I have to go back through the thread, but was there a comparison of the rendering of the 135 1.8 GM vs the 100mm STF GM? I know the f stops are 1.8 vs 2.8 and the t stops are significantly different, but I'm just wondering if the 135 can replace the 100 STF in my kit or if I should keep both when the 135 arrives (Yes, I know there is a difference in FL).
How do you guys rate the pop of the new 135mm GM? I am used to the 50mm ZEISS Planar 1.4 and 35mm Zeiss Distagon 1.4. Can this lens also generate equivalent results with plenty of pop?
Mirror wrote:
How do you guys rate the pop of the new 135mm GM? I am used to the 50mm ZEISS Planar 1.4 and 35mm Zeiss Distagon 1.4. Can this lens also generate equivalent results with plenty of pop?
Think about Sony GM lenses as Zeiss lenses with AF. Buttery smooth BG, sharp what is in focus, good colours and contrast exactly as with Zeiss lenses.
saxguy wrote:
I have to go back through the thread, but was there a comparison of the rendering of the 135 1.8 GM vs the 100mm STF GM? I know the f stops are 1.8 vs 2.8 and the t stops are significantly different, but I'm just wondering if the 135 can replace the 100 STF in my kit or if I should keep both when the 135 arrives (Yes, I know there is a difference in FL).
I won't give away STF if I could afford to keep both. I fall in love with STF rendition every time I watch images taken with it...
Mirror wrote:
How do you guys rate the pop of the new 135mm GM? I am used to the 50mm ZEISS Planar 1.4 and 35mm Zeiss Distagon 1.4. Can this lens also generate equivalent results with plenty of pop?
As a long time Zeiss fanatic, I have to give credit to Sony for their primes. The 135 GM has beautiful background separation, with plenty of pop and resolution. I would have wanted the colours to be a bit warmer, more on the Zeiss Hasselblad / Voigtlander / Classic Zeiss style, but there is no shortage of micro-contrast, so the "classic" look should be achievable with minor post-production tweaks. The rendering is different, a bit more neutral, but still with a distinct look and beauty. Plenty of "pop", you don't have to worry about that.
On top, it's AF/ MF integration, ergonomics and functionality are top-notch. Unmatched by anything out there in this price / weight range (think long telephoto quality).
To give you some additional perspective:: The 135 GM replaced my 135 Batis which replaced my 135 Apo Classic, and the versatility I've gained with this painful switch is really welcome. I finally have a do-it all 135 prime in my bag, at all times.
Vs the 135 APO Classic: a lot more portability / less weight and volume (adapter included), better infinity IQ performance, AF
Vs the 135 APO Batis: more than 1 additional stop of light, useable MF (I hated the MF by wire implementation in the Batis), better functionality and ergonomics, higher (maybe perceived) quality build
The only thing I'm not sure is if I'll miss something in terms of APO IQ: while I was able to shoot with the lens enough not to worry about fringing, I have yet to test it under mixed / artificial light, to see if the IQ (resolution) is seriously impacted by those.
Thank you. I just received the lens yesterday and what should I say. Since the first A7, I don't remember the year when I started I bought and sold really a lot of glass but this lens blows everything away. The sharpness, the contrast... I replaced it with my 85GM because it was often a bit too short. I like the colors and rendering better although the bokeh might a bit smoother with the 85GM. Really happy with it! I use it together with the 35mm 1.4 SZ and 21mm Loxia in a 2-body setup to avoid a heavy and still relative slow standard zoom such as the 24-70GM.
saxguy wrote:
I have to go back through the thread, but was there a comparison of the rendering of the 135 1.8 GM vs the 100mm STF GM? I know the f stops are 1.8 vs 2.8 and the t stops are significantly different, but I'm just wondering if the 135 can replace the 100 STF in my kit or if I should keep both when the 135 arrives (Yes, I know there is a difference in FL).
The difference in OOF rendering is HUGE in most cases. My suggestion would be to keep both for a while and test yourself in various scenarios and only then take a decision.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Couple more of my kids playing outside on a cloudy day. I'm still impressed with this lens. It rarely misses focus when shooting action and I like the rendering.
In the second pic (where there are no bright specular background spots), I'd say the background looks pretty much like the 85GM.
Here's what I have right now - I'm thinking maybe sell the 85GM and keep everything else. I still need an ultra wide and a good long lens, but I think I have most of my gaps covered.
24 GM
Batis 40 (need for close up capability)
Sony 50 1.4 ZA
85 GM
100 STF GM
Waiting for the 135
nazdravanul, the 135 GM sure is a lot heavier than the 135 Batis; 11oz, 336g or 1/3 heavier. You haven't found that off putting after a couple hours or when traveling?
goodbokeh wrote:
nazdravanul, the 135 GM sure is a lot heavier than the 135 Batis; 11oz, 336g or 1/3 heavier. You haven't found that off putting after a couple hours or when traveling?
Nope. I've just carried the lens today, for around 6 hours, in a 4 lens setup.
Compared to the Batis, the ergonomics and functionality are vastly superior, with very comparable IQ. Switching fast from AF/MF and being able to properly tweak / check focus with MF, or achieving and holding correct focus for shots with "fuzzy" areas (think skies or water), are things which were either 1. not possible or 2. a pain in the ... with the Batis. I missed important shots because of that, with the Batis.
I hated using that lens, Zeiss really got the ergonomics, (looks), and functionality of the whole Batis line really wrong. The "sleek" design looks bland and even cheap, compared to other Zeiss designs, the metal build looks and feels worse than the plastic / polymer build of the GM lenses. And the functionality is crippled due to poor design choices. Even the rubber focusing ring is stupid, I hate it even on my Otus lenses.
The only things I did like about the Batis 135 were the IQ and the portability. I don't feel I've lost on any of them with the 135 GM, but I did gain a significantly more versatile, sturdy and functional package.
Again, I need to test it more in demanding APO territory. That would be a critical miss but hey, I've got this covered ... I got myself the 110 Voigtlander APO for that true classic Zeiss IQ, build, feel and ergonomics )
And all that was prompted by the fact that ... I couldn't afford (the weight and cost) of the new 100mm Otus ))
I too have the 135/1.8 Gm and love it. Focus is so fast, and it's the first lens I've owned that is sharper than my old Canon 300/2.8L IS
Now I just wish that Sony would bring out a v2 of the 85GM with the AF mechanism of the 135. I'd be there in a flash. Until they do, I'm staying with my Batis.
I bought and sold really a lot of glass but this lens blows everything away. The sharpness, the contrast... I replaced it with my 85GM because it was often a bit too short. I like the colors and rendering better although the bokeh might a bit smoother with the 85GM. Really happy with it! I use it together with the 35mm 1.4 SZ and 21mm Loxia in a 2-body setup to avoid a heavy and still relative slow standard zoom such as the 24-70GM. 
)
