With the Sigma pretty much being half the price of the GM I'm getting quite tempted to just get a Sigma. What are the pros and cons?Is it just low light AF and a bit of sharpness that nobody's going to notice (and size)?
JadedWriter wrote:
With the Sigma pretty much being half the price of the GM I'm getting quite tempted to just get a Sigma. What are the pros and cons?Is it just low light AF and a bit of sharpness that nobody's going to notice (and size)?
Since your in New York you could rent them and see what you like first. For me GM is the ticket I need sharp sharp sharp wide open and I need the fastest AF but more importantly be consistent in every way. I had the Sigma a long time ago and did not work out. Times have changed but when it comes to AF I'm just more inclined to stay native with Sony . I do have a Rokinon but use it little. Of course I paid 1800 so the price difference was not as great but I do see some used GM on the board
I venture to say that optically, they are close to each other with the GM maybe being sharper by a hair. For portraits, you don’t have to have a lens with razor sharp rendition. Especially, your female models will appreciate a slightly softer look anyway. Most of the time, I lowered the sharpness level during PP. Somebody posted in the GM 135mm thread that his Sigma focuses even better without hesitation relative to the GM lens. Check that thread out and ask the poster what he meant by that in further details, I would say.
If you buy new, the price difference is approximately $600. The difference is more noticeable in the used market.
The difference between the Sigma adapted before updates vs the one with updated firmware is pretty big.
I remember the first time I tested 2 copies of the 85mm Art with MC-11 vs the GM and other 85mms that I was so disappointed about its lack of accuracy missing shot after shot. Times surely have changed.
The recent Sigma firmware is giving me accuracy with their lenses that match or in some cases even beat what I was getting with Sony. For instance when I tested the 85mm 1.4 Art vs the GM, I was surprised that the Art was able to match or even beat in some cases (margin of error) the accuracy of the GM. Same goes for the 135mm which rarely misses and the 105mm. The 40mm Art is also very accurate.
Now this is testing on the R3. Not sure how the differences in AF will show on the A9 with its superior autofocus though. I expect the focusing to scale better with the GM with faster focusing cameras.
I would be getting the FE version, I'm really doing my best to not invest in Canon glass and I would be shooting on the RIII. I would be using it for portrait work as well as event work if need be. GabrielPhoto wrote:
The difference between the Sigma adapted before updates vs the one with updated firmware is pretty big.
I remember the first time I tested 2 copies of the 85mm Art with MC-11 vs the GM and other 85mms that I was so disappointed about its lack of accuracy missing shot after shot. Times surely have changed.
The recent Sigma firmware is giving me accuracy with their lenses that match or in some cases even beat what I was getting with Sony. For instance when I tested the 85mm 1.4 Art vs the GM, I was surprised that the Art was able to match or even beat in some cases (margin of error) the accuracy of the GM. Same goes for the 135mm which rarely misses and the 105mm. The 40mm Art is also very accurate.
Now this is testing on the R3. Not sure how the differences in AF will show on the A9 with its superior autofocus though. I expect the focusing to scale better with the GM with faster focusing cameras.
Bottom line the both are very good and with the new A7RIV coming maybe even better performance wise. Why I said rent as it may come down to price , size and weight and that all depends on you. I they and leave price out of it to get my head on what i need first than figure a way to pay for it. But Im a working Pro so it takes little too get my return back
I like the size and added physical features of the GM and I like the price of the Sigma. This isn't a situation like what I had with the Sigma 35 vs the Sigma 35 where outside of one specific use case the Sigma was hands down better. I'm not much of a renter for non exotics, I'd only rent something I know I'm not going to use on the regular or ever afford like a sports telephoto prime. GMPhotography wrote:
Bottom line the both are very good and with the new A7RIV coming maybe even better performance wise. Why I said rent as it may come down to price , size and weight and that all depends on you. I they and leave price out of it to get my head on what i need first than figure a way to pay for it. But Im a working Pro so it takes little too get my return back
Optically, the differences are about as negligible as you can get. The GM might measure a hair sharper in MTF tests, but I doubt you'd ever see a difference. The Sigma 135/1.8 is razor sharp at f/1.8. I actually slightly prefer the rendering of the Sigma as well.
AF is improved on the latest firmware, but the Sony will still likely be a bit faster. Biggest difference is size. If you are OK with the bulk, the Sigma is a no brainer given the cost IMO.
I'm thinking about one of these lenses as well because I'm pretty sure I would've used this for a wheelchair basketball event that my job set up. Mainly to shoot at something lower than 2.8 so I could drop my iso below 2500.
Personally I don't think you could go wrong with either one. I've owned both but currently I only have the GM, I prefer the focus speed of the GM compared to the adapted Sigma, IQ wise they are pretty much the same but their is a significant price difference between the two.
Yeah I could do that, but I really don't think in store tests lead to real world results. I honestly have to use something for at least a couple of weeks to a couple of months before I know how much I like something. naturephoto1 wrote:
If you are in NYC, it may make sense to run into either B&H or Adorama and test both lenses on your camera.
JadedWriter wrote:
Yeah I could do that, but I really don't think in store tests lead to real world results. I honestly have to use something for at least a couple of weeks to a couple of months before I know how much I like something.
That may be true, but you could at the very least make an initial side by side comparison that you would/could not do unless you purchased or rented both.
JadedWriter wrote:
I like the size and added physical features of the GM and I like the price of the Sigma. This isn't a situation like what I had with the Sigma 35 vs the Sigma 35 where outside of one specific use case the Sigma was hands down better. I'm not much of a renter for non exotics, I'd only rent something I know I'm not going to use on the regular or ever afford like a sports telephoto prime.
He is not suggesting you rent as a long term solution but rent both as a way of evaluating the two of them then buy the one you prefer. I just did that with the Batis vs GM 135s.
I'm mostly opinion gathering to be honest. I like what I see from both lenses, I'd get the Sigma if I wasn't so bad at doing Sony updates. Though I think I prefer GM build quality since my Sigma 35 has more scratches than it should from use. pfoiles wrote:
He is not suggesting you rent as a long term solution but rent both as a way of evaluating the two of them then buy the one you prefer. I just did that with the Batis vs GM 135s.
I bought the Sigma so I could have a fast 135mm for low light action right away. I thought I might swap it out when the Sony came. But the Sigma has been working just fine for many months now. I shoot the 25mP A9 so I don’t imagine the extra little bit of Sony IQ would show. The difference now is $890 more for the Sony. I have more important things to spend $900 on.
MaTiHH wrote:
For sports the difference ist 20fps versus 10fps. That‘s dramatic.
Actually, it's 12fps I believe still a big difference but remember even with the GM you need to shoot compressed RAW to get the 20fps.
I owned the 135 Art Canon mount adapted to Sony, don't recommended that setup, I owned the 135 Art in Sony mount and now the 135 GM
Here are my findings:
You can't go wrong with either
The size and weight difference in real life are negligible, I had a friend put one in each of my hands with my eyes closed and I couldn't tell a weight difference.
The GM I have had a few issues with AF "pumping" before acquiring focus, one day I was even shooting low light in a forest where the GM had a hard time getting focus whereas the Art focused right on. I have had times when I only used the sigma before I got the GM where the sigma had a hard time in very low light (I'm talking 30 minutes after sunset using the light from a window, less than what a candle would provide. The GM in the forest it just hesitated a lot, I missed a few shots because of it. I shoot in AF-C with AF priority and spot focus, the spot was on the face of the model and still had a hard time. I'd post pics to show how low light it was but there's nudity so I don't think I can lol.
The sigma was a tad less sharp in the center but the sharpness appeared equal across the frame, the GM is more apparent that the center 1/3 or so is sharper and then it goes down but then again at 24mp you won't notice that.
I found that the sigma gave warmer tones and very slightly less contrast, but the bokeh in the background was smoother than the GM, however the foreground was harsher than the GM. The GM bokeh is about equal between foreground and background.
Really, in the end, they're very close.
The one deciding factor for me was customer support. The Sony is super easy for me with Sony pro support, fast and effective and always very helpful. Sigma ..... not as much 😂😂😂 That's just my own experience and my 2 cents
