pasblues wrote:
The 135mm GM is a PERFORMANCE lens. It's for people who need super fast responsiveness plus sharpness in low light. I was fine IQ-wise with my 135 Sony ZA. But the GM performance is what I was after and that would be the tipping point for photographers who want to acquire the GM.
Exactly why I bought the GM 135. I need wide open sharp as shit and it’s killer at it.
Having used the sigma and the GM side by side I will respectfully disagree with that 😂 I own the GM for other reasons, but not for what you mentioned about focusing speed and low light focusing, if it was only for that I would have kept the sigma as it is 99.9% as good (or sometimes better) than the GM in that regards, from my limited test. I know I'll get bashed for saying this but it is what it is 🤷🏻♂️🤪😂
pasblues wrote:
The 135mm GM is a PERFORMANCE lens. It's for people who need super fast responsiveness plus sharpness in low light. I was fine IQ-wise with my 135 Sony ZA. But the GM performance is what I was after and that would be the tipping point for photographers who want to acquire the GM.
So, if people are confused about whether or not to get the GM vs. a different 135MM f1.8...those two focus motors in the GM are - IMHO - the tipping point. And those focus motors REALLY come into play in low light.
So...if you are not shooting in low light and super fast focusing is not a priority for you - there really ARE other 135mm f1.8 lenses for less money that have EXCELLENT IQ - which translates to excellent photographs that would be - side-by-side - likely indistinguishable from the 135mm GM. You in no way would be working with "lesser" equipment.
Photo gear is tools - that's it - that's all. If I won the lottery and could buy what ever I wanted, I'd own a garage full of car toys and a studio full of photo toys.
But until that happens, I have to ask myself questions when I own gear: what do I want to shoot the most often? What is the piece of gear that will do what I need for it to do? The ZA worked most of the time but the GM works ALL of the time - for me - in the low light situations I need for it to be super fast and razor sharp.
Daylight, slower-moving subjects and portraits? No, I wouldn't need the GM. ...Show more →
71sbeetle wrote:
Having used the sigma and the GM side by side I will respectfully disagree with that 😂 I own the GM for other reasons, but not for what you mentioned about focusing speed and low light focusing, if it was only for that I would have kept the sigma as it is 99.9% as good (or sometimes better) than the GM in that regards, from my limited test. I know I'll get bashed for saying this but it is what it is 🤷🏻♂️🤪😂
It's hard to believe that the Sigma can outperform the GM in low light focusing since many showed that wasn't the case before the new firmware. After the new firmware, I'm curious to see how much closer Sigma has closed the gap. Sony stated that the GM can benefit from a body with faster AF than the A9.
2 photographers, 2 bodies (wish I had my A9 on me at the time) same results, we were both very surprised but the GM just hunted while the sigma just caught focus right away. In studio when we shot them side by side they were about equal, no discernable difference other than the sigma focusing is a tad bit more audible. My reason for switching to the GM is for customer support which is something sigma still needs to work on!
hiepphotog wrote:
It's hard to believe that the Sigma can outperform the GM in low light focusing since many showed that wasn't the case before the new firmware. After the new firmware, I'm curious to see how much closer Sigma has closed the gap. Sony stated that the GM can benefit from a body with faster AF than the A9.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I tried 2 copies of the 135 GM and both had identical decentering. I also showed proof of it.
We are now a few months later and I decided to try my luck again. To my big surprise the 2 next copies are also decentered!
What makes it even stranger is that the decentering looks exactly the same on all. That's 4 identically decentered copies in a row! Crazy.
Whenever such a thing happens everyone would look at the camera. It would make more sense if the mount was slightly misalligned. However: I tried this on 3 different cameras (A7III, A7RIII and A9) and all show the same behavior.
Here's an example from copy #4.
Manually focused on the top right corner at infinity.
Then same shot with the camera upside down without changing focus. This shows a tilted focal plane right away.
Top right:
Bottom left:
Look how the focus is on the chimney instead of the building.
This is from copy #3.
A planar subject, shot at F3.2. Manually focused on the center.
Top right:
Bottom left:
There must have gone something wrong in the production line, with a least one batch of identically faulty lenses. The FE 55 also often had a weaker left side when it was just released. I reminds me of that.
I envy you guys with good copies. What's actually in focus looks great from this lens.
Jochenb wrote:
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I tried 2 copies of the 135 GM and both had identical decentering. I also showed proof of it.
We are now a few months later and I decided to try my luck again. To my big surprise the 2 next copies are also decentered!
What makes it even stranger is that the decentering looks exactly the same on all. That's 4 identically decentered copies in a row! Crazy.
Whenever such a thing happens everyone would look at the camera. It would make more sense if the mount was slightly misalligned. However: I tried this on 3 different cameras (A7III, A7RIII and A9) and all show the same behavior.
Here's an example from copy #4.
Manually focused on the top right corner at infinity.
Than same shot with the camera upside down without changing focus. This shows a tilted focal plane right away.
There must have gone something wrong in the production line, with a least one batch of identically faulty lenses. The FE 55 also often had a weaker left side when it was just released. I reminds me of that.
I envy you guys with good copies. What's actually in focus looks great from this lens. ...Show more →
I'd say bad luck! I tested 2 copies of this lens and they were both 100% centered. One was a review copy from Sony and the other, my personal copy which was a production model (first batch) from B&H Photo.
The only odd thing I noticed was that the review copy from Sony had many visible dust particles inside. I have not seen any dust in my personal copy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'd say bad luck! I tested 2 copies of this lens and they were both 100% centered. One was a review copy from Sony and the other was a production model (first batch) from B&H Photo. (My personal copy)
I've had bad luck so many times, but what makes this really unusual is that all 4 copies show exactly the same decentering. The plane of focus is tilted exactly the same on all.
With other "bad luck" lenses it really was random.
Jochenb wrote:
I've had bad luck so many times, but what makes this really unusual is that all 4 copies show exactly the same decentering. The plane of focus is tilted exactly the same on all.
With other "bad luck" lenses it really was random.
I remember your issues with the Loxia 21 when it came out. I went through 3 copies as well.
There are some lenses with very low copy variation. From my experience they are the Loxia 50/2, Voigtlander 65 and Batis 135/2.8. I would not hesitate buying these lenses from the used market.
PS: I thought the FE 135/1.8 also had very low variation but your experience tells a different story. Thanks for posting.
Jochenb wrote:
I've had bad luck so many times, but what makes this really unusual is that all 4 copies show exactly the same decentering. The plane of focus is tilted exactly the same on all.
With other "bad luck" lenses it really was random.
I’d check the lens mount alignment too, maybe it got out of whack recently?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I remember your issues with the Loxia 21 when it came out. I went through 3 copies as well.
There are some lenses with very low copy variation. From my experience they are the Loxia 50/2, Voigtlander 65 and Batis 135/2.8. I would not hesitate buying these lenses from the used market.
PS: I thought the FE 135/1.8 also had very low variation but your experience tells a different story. Thanks for posting.
Yes my third Loxia 21 finally was a good one. The 50 Loxia was great at first try. With the 85 Loxia I gave up after a few bad copies. And so on and so on.
The funny thing is I usually am more lucky with lenses that have bad reputation when it comes to copy variation (16-35 GM, FE 35/1.4, Voigtlander 15 III,...).
I share these examples because I want people that might encounter the same won't think they're the only one having problems.
Jochenb wrote:
Yes my third Loxia 21 finally was a good one. The 50 Loxia was great at first try. With the 85 Loxia I gave up after a few bad copies. And so on and so on.
The funny thing is I usually am more lucky with lenses that have bad reputation when it comes to copy variation (16-35 GM, FE 35/1.4, Voigtlander 15 III,...).
I share these examples because I want people that might encounter the same won't think they're the only one having problems.
I've encountered issues with pretty much all Loxia lenses (except for the 50/2), all Batis lenses (except for the 135/2.8) and all ZA lenses (no exception!). I just received a second copy of the 35/1.8 and it's badly decentered. (first copy was just 'ok')
On the Voigtlander side, my CV 21/1.4, CV 65/2 and 110/2.5 were perfect from the start. However, some members reported issues with the former. Great success with the Sigma 45 (tried 2 copies and they were both well-centered)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've encountered issues with pretty much all Loxia lenses (except for the 50/2), all Batis lenses (except for the 135/2.8) and all ZA lenses (no exception!). I just received a second copy of the 35/1.8 and it's badly decentered. (first copy was just 'ok')
On the Voigtlander side, my CV 21/1.4, CV 65/2 and 110/2.5 were perfect from the start. However, some members reported issues with the former. Great success with the Sigma 45 (tried 2 copies and they were both well-centered)
There’s a French saying $ “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien”. Like in the next 3 copies of 35mm are all terrible.
Zero chance to convince me to test my 35/1.8. I like worriless sleep
Wow... that is off a bit. That is why I don’t mail order my lenses, I go to a good photography retail store and test it before I buy it. I know most of you don’t because you don’t want to pay tax, but paying tax is better that trying to send it back and waiting on another if they exchange it. Hopefully you will be able to convince those where you bought it that is bad and get a good one...
Jochenb wrote:
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I tried 2 copies of the 135 GM and both had identical decentering. I also showed proof of it.
We are now a few months later and I decided to try my luck again. To my big surprise the 2 next copies are also decentered!
What makes it even stranger is that the decentering looks exactly the same on all. That's 4 identically decentered copies in a row! Crazy.
Whenever such a thing happens everyone would look at the camera. It would make more sense if the mount was slightly misalligned. However: I tried this on 3 different cameras (A7III, A7RIII and A9) and all show the same behavior.
Here's an example from copy #4.
Manually focused on the top right corner at infinity.
Then same shot with the camera upside down without changing focus. This shows a tilted focal plane right away.
There must have gone something wrong in the production line, with a least one batch of identically faulty lenses. The FE 55 also often had a weaker left side when it was just released. I reminds me of that.
I envy you guys with good copies. What's actually in focus looks great from this lens. ...Show more →
