Now, the motorsport season I photograph isn't starting until May, so I went out and took some pictures on the road where I live.
The lens did well. I didn't feel any difference compared to my old 70-200 GM. I don't think I'll miss it.
Can't wait to try it out on the track.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Quite nice samples. Thanks for posting. Some of the images show how neutral the rendering is with a great balance of SA correction.
Thanks, Fred! I have a hard time adjusting to the current style of outdoor family snaps :
Pretty much the reason the 135 GM is right now my absolute favorite portrait lens if you like 135mm focal length. I also really love the samyang 85 1.4 and sigma 105 1.4. Both have their special purpose and rendering but 85mm is definitely easier to shoot with. Different tools Must say though the 135GM images have a bite to it. Also the sigma 105 1.4 really makes the person pop at F/1.4 that I really love. The full body images of 105 1.4 and 135 1.8 are super special. I gradually got better at 135m. I started portraits more at 35, then 105, added 85 and then 135. I think the 135 and 85 go really well together. Normally when I take the 135 GM I do not take the sigma 105 as well. Heavy stuff all together!
Pretty much the reason the 135 GM is right now my absolute favorite portrait lens if you like 135mm focal length. I also really love the samyang 85 1.4 and sigma 105 1.4. Both have their special purpose and rendering but 85mm is definitely easier to shoot with. Different tools Must say though the 135GM images have a bite to it. Also the sigma 105 1.4 really makes the person pop at F/1.4 that I really love. The full body images of 105 1.4 and 135 1.8 are super special. I gradually got better at 135m. I started portraits more at 35, then 105, added 85 and then 135. I think the 135 and 85 go really well together. Normally when I take the 135 GM I do not take the sigma 105 as well. Heavy stuff all together! ...Show more →
Could you tell me what do you think about the focal length difference between 135mm and 105mm? I find 135mm a bit too long indoors, while 85mm is mostly okay, so I'm wondering if 105mm is the sweet spot. Also, is the handling of 105mm much different than 135gm (weight & bulk)?
Thanks and obviously great pictures btw .
Honestly 135 is very difficult to use indoors. I think it's at home in an outdoor situation because you need a good distance between you and your subject but when you have that room oh man the images this lens creates are incredible. Funny thing is that I actually use this lens a lot for close up and landscapes. It's pretty versatile and it's a welcoming change to hold compared to the sigma 105 1.4 lens which is heavier. When I first held it I actually was surprised how much lighter it felt. I thought it was going to be a tank but it isn't.
Back to versatility; I can use it for shots like this:
I almost never will use a 135mm in doors since its just way too long but when it's outdoors oh it's absolutely THE lens I grab immediately. It's got a special place in my heart and I just am so happy I got it after reading so many insanely good reviews about it. I always thought the hype must not be real....but after I used it first time and saw just how fast the focus is and the images it renders in the store, it took me some time to make up my mind. But I walked out a super happy kid coming out of a candy store
Back to your question. I do think 105mm is a really sweet spot. I always found 85mm a bit boring. I love the background compression you get with the 105 and especially 135! I say you should rent it or play with it in the store but you will hate giving it back haha My wife is in love with that shot I posted and I am highly considering printing it out. Oh yea, 135mm full body portraits are SWEET!
For close up candid tight crops I find the 135/1.8 does great indoors - I don't like being too close to my subject for such things. If you want full body length shots, the 135 needs some distance - it's just the reality of the focal length.
Honestly 135 is very difficult to use indoors. I think it's at home in an outdoor situation because you need a good distance between you and your subject but when you have that room oh man the images this lens creates are incredible. Funny thing is that I actually use this lens a lot for close up and landscapes. It's pretty versatile and it's a welcoming change to hold compared to the sigma 105 1.4 lens which is heavier. When I first held it I actually was surprised how much lighter it felt. I thought it was going to be a tank but it isn't.
Back to versatility; I can use it for shots like this:
I almost never will use a 135mm in doors since its just way too long but when it's outdoors oh it's absolutely THE lens I grab immediately. It's got a special place in my heart and I just am so happy I got it after reading so many insanely good reviews about it. I always thought the hype must not be real....but after I used it first time and saw just how fast the focus is and the images it renders in the store, it took me some time to make up my mind. But I walked out a super happy kid coming out of a candy store
Back to your question. I do think 105mm is a really sweet spot. I always found 85mm a bit boring. I love the background compression you get with the 105 and especially 135! I say you should rent it or play with it in the store but you will hate giving it back haha My wife is in love with that shot I posted and I am highly considering printing it out. Oh yea, 135mm full body portraits are SWEET!...Show more →
Thanks for the detailed answer.
I have similar feelings regarding 85mm, but I hope (as evidenced by some great shots here) that with enough practice it becomes less boring and the results more interesting .I'm trying to put an upper limit on my lenses size/weight (I'm up to Sigma 35 f1.2 at the moment), but I'll have to try the "bigger" lenses one day (thinking of the Sigma 105 f1.4 and GM 100-400).
jhinkey wrote:
For close up candid tight crops I find the 135/1.8 does great indoors - I don't like being too close to my subject for such things. If you want full body length shots, the 135 needs some distance - it's just the reality of the focal length.
That's a good point and also why I like using 135mm to shoot my kids, as I can be far enough for them not to be immediately aware of it (and the best AF I've used also helps in 135 GM ).
j4nu wrote:
Could you tell me what do you think about the focal length difference between 135mm and 105mm? I find 135mm a bit too long indoors, while 85mm is mostly okay, so I'm wondering if 105mm is the sweet spot. Also, is the handling of 105mm much different than 135gm (weight & bulk)?
Thanks and obviously great pictures btw .
Though I come from the Nikon land, I. did have those focal length and in my opinion the 85mm is the easiest to use, though the 105mm 1.4 ( Nikon version for me) was the greatest ! It really makes thinks pop and the bookeh is just amazing!
There are situation when 135mm lenses do have their advantages but for me, quite often it is just a bit too long a focal length ( or in between in a way, though great for details ! ) .
That`s why I got rid of this focal length when I got a 70-200mm 2.8!
So - for me either a 85mm or the rather bigger and more expensive 105mm 1.4 ( though the Sigma is huge and I personally would not get it for this reason ! ).
nikonos6 wrote:
Though I come from the Nikon land, I. did have those focal length and in my opinion the 85mm is the easiest to use, though the 105mm 1.4 ( Nikon version for me) was the greatest ! It really makes thinks pop and the bookeh is just amazing!
There are situation when 135mm lenses do have their advantages but for me, quite often it is just a bit too long a focal length ( or in between in a way, though great for details ! ) .
That`s why I got rid of this focal length when I got a 70-200mm 2.8!
So - for me either a 85mm or the rather bigger and more expensive 105mm 1.4 ( though the Sigma is huge and I personally would not get it for this reason ! )....Show more →
Thanks for your input, I also have the impression that 85mm is easier to use, but I think that's what makes it a bit boring at times ... Regarding 70-200 f2.8, I was eyeing the new Tamron 70-180, but will probably stay with my 135 gm due to the rather high price of the Tamron in EU.
I'll rent Sigma 105mm at some time probably just to get the feel of it, together with 100-400 gm to see if I like the added range at the cost of speed .
j4nu wrote:
That's a good point and also why I like using 135mm to shoot my kids, as I can be far enough for them not to be immediately aware of it (and the best AF I've used also helps in 135 GM ).
Do I miss my A7R3 with 70-200 GM?
No, I don't miss that 200mm reach. I do miss 280mm from my 1.4x teleconverter, but I have access to the whole track and can position myself wherever I want.
But I do however feel that I messed up somewhere.
I only shoot this previously on A7R3 with 70-200 GM. This time I used A7RIV with 135 GM.
I did not get tack sharp photos as I hoped. I turned off SteadyShot and 135 doesn't have panning mode. I did get more keepers, but I miss that "perfect photo" that you can zoom in and behold.
I'm gonna do next event on Saturday, turn on SteadyShot and see if I get better results.
:
Must say though the 135GM images have a bite to it. Also the sigma 105 1.4 really makes the person pop at F/1.4 that I really love. The full body images of 105 1.4 and 135 1.8 are super special. I gradually got better at 135m. I started portraits more at 35, then 105, added 85 and then 135. I think the 135 and 85 go really well together. Normally when I take the 135 GM I do not take the sigma 105 as well. Heavy stuff all together! 
