p.11 #2 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
suteetat wrote:
Here is a series of comparison shots between Sigma and Plena. Sigma is on Z8 and Plena on Z9.
I imported all the raw files into PS to change WB to daylight (except one pair which I used cloudy).
I did not adjust anything else except one pair where exposure was different by 1 stop. On A mode, iso 64 so I had to lift exposure on Plena by +1.
All shot wide opened.
Thanks very much for this comparison! This is the best comparison I've seen so far where I can see actual differences between these two lenses. I have to agree with your summary also.....the Plena is better, but the difference does not justify the cost for someone like me who doesn't use 135mm as much and already has the Sigma. Thanks again for taking the time to do this!
p.11 #3 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
suteetat wrote:
This is what I see. I guess you are not counting the very top bar which is only half a bar anyway.
So by your count, 1st bar, Sigma is slight better. 2nd and 3rd bar, Nikon wins by a decent margin.
Also I would point out that nowhere did Sigma showed the kind of resolution that 2nd or 3rd bar on
Nikon has. However, if you think the difference is not significant enough, that's fine too.
Exact focus point is different but the very top half bar (bar 0 ) and 4th bar are out of focus so
optima focus is somewhere between 1st and 3rd bar for both lenses with Sigma slightly favoring 1st bar. ...Show more →
I admit the the first full Sigma bar almost but not quite equals the Nikon 3rd bar -- but the exact FP could have been between 1st and 2nd Sigma bars?
My point is that until I see an actual test target shot at slight angle to correct for any minor focus error, the verdict is still out. That may indeed show the Plena with a slight edge and I will accept that. Until that kind of test however, I will say 1) it's fairly apparent the two lenses are quite excellent as is, and having to go to 100% to try and find gnat's eyelashes of difference is also relevant, and therefore, 2) I think what this really means is that from a practical imaging standpoint, there is little between these two lenses.
However, as I said before, were I to buy a fast 135, I would buy the Plena simply for simplicity of color consistency and upgradeability, and being dedicated Z mount. (See, I'm still a Z fanboy too after all!)
p.11 #4 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
I'm rather surprised on how well the Sigma renders - and at $1,100 less to boot. I thought the Plena would be substantially ahead, but I honestly don't think so.
p.11 #5 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
gear-nut wrote:
I admit the the first full Sigma bar almost but not quite equals the Nikon 3rd bar -- but the exact FP could have been between 1st and 2nd Sigma bars?
My point is that until I see an actual test target shot at slight angle to correct for any minor focus error, the verdict is still out. That may indeed show the Plena with a slight edge and I will accept that. Until that kind of test however, I will say 1) it's fairly apparent the two lenses are quite excellent as is, and having to go to 100% to try and find gnat's eyelashes of difference is also relevant, and therefore, 2) I think what this really means is that from a practical imaging standpoint, there is little between these two lenses.
However, as I said before, were I to buy a fast 135, I would buy the Plena simply for simplicity of color consistency and upgradeability, and being dedicated Z mount. (See, I'm still a Z fanboy too after all!) ...Show more →
Here ya go:
Sigma on A1 (slight resolution advantage) and Plena on Z9
p.11 #6 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Agree that it is not a slam dunk and Sigma is holding up very well at significant price reduction to boot.
I have the Sigma for quite awhile but was never quite in love with it. Same for Sigma Art 50/1.4 . However i pretty love what I see with Plena and Zeiss apo sonnar pretty much from the first day. Objectively, there dont seem to be a 'huge' difference. I cant explain why, may be a bit of brand bias as well.
gear-nut wrote:
I admit the the first full Sigma bar almost but not quite equals the Nikon 3rd bar -- but the exact FP could have been between 1st and 2nd Sigma bars?
My point is that until I see an actual test target shot at slight angle to correct for any minor focus error, the verdict is still out. That may indeed show the Plena with a slight edge and I will accept that. Until that kind of test however, I will say 1) it's fairly apparent the two lenses are quite excellent as is, and having to go to 100% to try and find gnat's eyelashes of difference is also relevant, and therefore, 2) I think what this really means is that from a practical imaging standpoint, there is little between these two lenses.
However, as I said before, were I to buy a fast 135, I would buy the Plena simply for simplicity of color consistency and upgradeability, and being dedicated Z mount. (See, I'm still a Z fanboy too after all!) ...Show more →
p.11 #7 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
suteetat wrote:
Agree that it is not a slam dunk and Sigma is holding up very well at significant price reduction to boot.
I have the Sigma for quite awhile but was never quite in love with it. Same for Sigma Art 50/1.4 . However i pretty love what I see with Plena and Zeiss apo sonnar pretty much from the first day. Objectively, there dont seem to be a 'huge' difference. I cant explain why, may be a bit of brand bias as well.
Have you shot with the Sigma 40 Art? It’s superb (but large and heavy).
p.11 #8 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
CATProductions wrote:
Have you shot with the Sigma 40 Art? It’s superb (but large and heavy).
I have 14/1.8, 20/1.4, 24/1.4, 50/1.4 and 135/1.8 Art over the years. The one I used the most is 14/1.8 as there is no Nikon equavalent. I prefer Nikon 24/1.4G a bit more eventhough the Art is sharper by quite a bit. Sigma in my mind is sharp, there is no doubt about that but rendering is generally rather neutral ie as expected for the F stop but not outstanding. 135/1.8 probably has the best rendering of all the Sigma lenses that I have but before Plena, Zeiss is still my preferred 135 mm lens.
This is really more of a subjective and personal preference rather than an objective finding though. For me, yes, if you look as each aspect, Plena may not be that much better but the sum certainly wins me over.
40mm was never really in my radar as I generally really like 50mm focal lenght and have enough lenses for that. Lately I played a bit with Nikon 40/2 and actually find the focal lenght quite fun to use. Sigma size is still a concern though and I think
Voglander 40mm option looks a bit more interesting.
p.11 #9 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
suteetat wrote:
I have 14/1.8, 20/1.4, 24/1.4, 50/1.4 and 135/1.8 Art over the years. The one I used the most is 14/1.8 as there is no Nikon equavalent. I prefer Nikon 24/1.4G a bit more eventhough the Art is sharper by quite a bit. Sigma in my mind is sharp, there is no doubt about that but rendering is generally rather neutral ie as expected for the F stop but not outstanding. 135/1.8 probably has the best rendering of all the Sigma lenses that I have but before Plena, Zeiss is still my preferred 135 mm lens.
This is really more of a subjective and personal preference rather than an objective finding though. For me, yes, if you look as each aspect, Plena may not be that much better but the sum certainly wins me over.
40mm was never really in my radar as I generally really like 50mm focal lenght and have enough lenses for that. Lately I played a bit with Nikon 40/2 and actually find the focal lenght quite fun to use. Sigma size is still a concern though and I think
Voglander 40mm option looks a bit more interesting.
Yes, focal length preference is very important and of course subjective. I think the Plena examples are very impressive for sure. Beautiful rendering with excellent sharpness wide-open and extremely accurate AF with Z cameras is hard to argue with. I have Sigma 135 Art and Zeiss 135 APO.
p.11 #13 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Here ya go:
Sigma on A1 (slight resolution advantage) and Plena on Z9
Wow... the Plena in the corners is as sharp or significantly sharper (depending on aperture) than the Sigma in the center... even though the numbers should be higher since the Sigma was tested on a higher res camera.
The different of sharpness is simply huge, larger than what I remember ever seeing on comparable lenses. And the rendering being even nicer at the same time... mighty impressive.
p.11 #18 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
An important comparison detail is that the AF is massively different between the sigma and Plena. 135 is one of the slowest focusing lenses I've ever used. It couldn't even begin to keep up for sports. The Plena in contrast is accurate and instantaneous. For portraits this obviously doesn't matter much, but the 135 ART isn't a viable lens for moving subjects.
p.11 #19 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
nhmorgan wrote:
An important comparison detail is that the AF is massively different between the sigma and Plena. 135 is one of the slowest focusing lenses I've ever used. It couldn't even begin to keep up for sports. The Plena in contrast is accurate and instantaneous. For portraits this obviously doesn't matter much, but the 135 ART isn't a viable lens for moving subjects.
p.11 #20 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Basically means that if I ever go back to my street work, I'm not using the Sigma for it. Good to know. nhmorgan wrote:
An important comparison detail is that the AF is massively different between the sigma and Plena. 135 is one of the slowest focusing lenses I've ever used. It couldn't even begin to keep up for sports. The Plena in contrast is accurate and instantaneous. For portraits this obviously doesn't matter much, but the 135 ART isn't a viable lens for moving subjects.
