Just received the Sony 135 about two weeks ago. It is a fun lens with which to shoot!
For me, having fast autofocus is very important. I enjoy shooting things that move quickly and with minimal depth of field. Getting something like this below that moves very quickly, with the eye(s) in focus at 1.8, shows how great this lens works.
pulper11 wrote:
For me, having fast autofocus is very important. I enjoy shooting things that move quickly and with minimal depth of field.
I fully agree on wanting fast AF. Not sure about the shallow DOF, though. I rarely shoot this lens fully open.
Daran wrote:
I fully agree on wanting fast AF. Not sure about the shallow DOF, though. I rarely shoot this lens fully open.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53034267569_8014e17f2c_o.jpg
Details: https://flic.kr/p/2oNsu4B
That's a cool picture!
The beauty of limited or large DOF is subjective, of course. The nice thing is that with the 135, you CAN do very limited DOF if you want.
For me, if it wasn't for the shallow depth of field, I would probably just be using my 70-200 2.8 version 2. A great sharp lens that also focuses very fast.
The beauty of limited or large DOF is subjective, of course.
Yeah, it also depends on circumstances. I can appreciate isolating the subject. But if an otherwise cute bird has a soft mush in front of its face (instead of a beak), then I've clearly overdone it. Besides with my usual subjects I tend to have the background far enough. And the bird can leave the DOF *very* quickly. So I'd virtually always aim to err on having too much DOF. Of my 79 favorite shots with the lens, only 13 were faster than f2.8 and only a single one was wide open.
The nice thing is that with the 135, you CAN do very limited DOF if you want.
For me, if it wasn't for the shallow depth of field, I would probably just be using my 70-200 2.8 version 2. A great sharp lens that also focuses very fast.
That zoom wasn't around when I got the 135. Not sure which I would have chosen. The zoom is supposedly the best zoom of that type out there and obviously more flexible. It would certainly narrow the gap to my longer prime. But then again in those cases where I can match the subject distance to 135mm, the prime still has an edge. And unlike humans my models rather don't mind the extra sharpness. Besides the zoom is twice as expensive (at least where I live).
InFocus2014 wrote:
Some months ago, I was able to acquire a new Samyang 135mm lens for under $600, so I acquired it, just for fun. I tested it against my GM 135 and was really surprised with the results. Using an MTF 50 chart at 20' under very controlled conditions on an A1, I could not discern any visible difference between the lenses, across-the-frame, in terms of resolution when viewing the test images at 100% on a 5K 27" monitor.
Your post, and the current sale at Amazon is tempting , also for fun ... I have the Sony 70-200 GMII, so don't think I would use the 135mm a lot. Do you use the 135mm only for portraits ? I would only use it only for some street photography, I think
Fboss wrote:
Your post, and the current sale at Amazon is tempting , also for fun ... I have the Sony 70-200 GMII, so don't think I would use the 135mm a lot. Do you use the 135mm only for portraits ? I would only use it only for some street photography, I think
Donbioh wrote:
I borrowed the 135 GM to test it, but I also have this ugly reflection. Where exactly do you have to stick the felt?
I never use the lens hood, and I don't want to on the 135 GM either because it gets so big.
To prevent "ring flare" with this lens, you can opt for a shorter third-party metal hood. These hoods are available online and are shorter than the original OEM hood.
Fred Miranda wrote:
To prevent "ring flare" with this lens, you can opt for a shorter third-party metal hood. These hoods are available online and are shorter than the original OEM hood.
