Figure I'd start off this thread. Just got it for Sony.
AF tracked like a GM lens would, but hampered to ~15fps on the A9iii if using AF-C. In practical terms, it is totally sufficient for even fast-moving sports like fencing. You just won't get to pick the perfect frame. I have the 50-150 GM and 300 GM for that.
In a quick outdoor test, bokeh is as-advertised, and the sharpness is also on par with the 135 GM. Pixel peeping, I honestly can't tell the difference in sharpness.
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/2.01/200s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/2.01/200s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/2.01/200s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/320s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/320s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.81/20000s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.81/20000s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/4000s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/16000s250 ISO0.0 EV
Hodie wrote:
Figure I'd start off this thread. Just got it for Sony.
AF tracked like a GM lens would, but hampered to ~15fps on the A9iii if using AF-C. In practical terms, it is totally sufficient for even fast-moving sports like fencing. You just won't get to pick the perfect frame. I have the 50-150 GM and 300 GM for that.
In a quick outdoor test, bokeh is as-advertised, and the sharpness is also on par with the 135 GM. Pixel peeping, I honestly can't tell the difference in sharpness.
Very nice pics showcasing the lens' strengths!
Any thoughts vs 135GM or 50-150GM regarding rendering?
Is it worth getting for that extra blur ?
Thanks! I sold the 135 GM to help fund the 50-150 GM, so I never got to try them side-by-side, but F1.8 vs. F2.0 is really close, IMO. I chose versatility over that 1/3 stop gained from the 135. 50-150 rendering is wonderful for an F2.
If any of you early adopters have any input if it could track a child running straight towards the camera, I'd love to hear about first hand experience. I'd like the extra light gathering vs the Sony, but these days my photos seem to involve a lot of fast moving subjects.
formula4speed wrote:
If any of you early adopters have any input if it could track a child running straight towards the camera, I'd love to hear about first hand experience. I'd like the extra light gathering vs the Sony, but these days my photos seem to involve a lot of fast moving subjects.
I can test it out later. I suspect it will perform just like the Sigma 200 F2. Meaning, it should be pretty excellent. I have this exact scenario posted in this thread for the 200: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1915019/
Hodie wrote:
I can test it out later. I suspect it will perform just like the Sigma 200 F2. Meaning, it should be pretty excellent. I have this exact scenario posted in this thread for the 200: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1915019/
However, another member experienced more-than-expected misses.
That’s interesting. My brief experience with the Sigma 135 f/1.4 on the A9 III was less than stellar in tracking performance. It clearly lagged behind the 200 f/2, which was one of the main reasons I decided not to get it.
hiepphotog wrote:
That’s interesting. My brief experience with the Sigma 135 f/1.4 on the A9 III was less than stellar in tracking performance. It clearly lagged behind the 200 f/2, which was one of the main reasons I decided not to get it.
I haven't tested it out yet, but I will report back. I'll do the same kid-running-at-me test to see how it performs. I didn't get the 135 for sports, but it would be nice to be able to rely on it if needed. When used for fencing, it didn't have any trouble tracking the fencers moving back and forth, FWIW, but again, small sample size.
Hodie wrote:
I haven't tested it out yet, but I will report back. I'll do the same kid-running-at-me test to see how it performs. I didn't get the 135 for sports, but it would be nice to be able to rely on it if needed. When used for fencing, it didn't have any trouble tracking the fencers moving back and forth, FWIW, but again, small sample size.
I have to say I'm getting quite jealous of you owning BOTH these Sigma beasts! I think the 135/1.4 is the one I'll go for soon.
If you have the time, I would be interested to see how both lenses compare at 200/2, where the 135/1.4 is in crop mode and you're shooting the 200/2 of the same scene as a medium raw 26mp image to match the cropped 135. I think the 135 is the more flexible of the lenses if you don't need 61mp all the time and can have a 135/1.4 and a fantastic 200/2 all in one lens. Thanks!
mudlake wrote:
I have to say I'm getting quite jealous of you owning BOTH these Sigma beasts! I think the 135/1.4 is the one I'll go for soon.
If you have the time, I would be interested to see how both lenses compare at 200/2, where the 135/1.4 is in crop mode and you're shooting the 200/2 of the same scene as a medium raw 26mp image to match the cropped 135. I think the 135 is the more flexible of the lenses if you don't need 61mp all the time and can have a 135/1.4 and a fantastic 200/2 all in one lens. Thanks!...Show more →
Thank you, I did have to sell a few lenses to obtain these two but yes, you are allowed to be jealous . I will try to do the crop test as well when I have time. I am a full-time worker and full-time dad, but I got you guys.
I can see myself using the 135 more than the 200. The 200 is bigger and heavier, and obviously, the 200 makes it a bit more specialized. That said, both are very special, IMO.
The 135, while a big/heavy lens, is pretty well balanced on the body. I took the lens collar/foot off and replaced it with the provided rubber ring. I have no issue hand holding it. It's closer to the 135 GM's handling than the Sigma 105 1.4.
Hodie would probably do a more professional test than me but I have just taken 2 quick hand-held shots in our backyard with both lenses. I tried my best to do the exact framing but it's very hard without a tripod. I haven't done any post-processing, just imported and exported at LR. I took two shots with each lens just in case. 135s are crop mode. I hope this helps give you a sense of how the two lenses compare
Update: Added two more. No post-processing, just import, resize and export.
ILCE-1M2135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/1600s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/1600s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/1250s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/320s100 ISO0.0 EV
mtoroglu wrote:
Hodie would probably do a more professional test than me but I have just taken 2 quick hand-held shots in our backyard with both lenses. I tried my best to do the exact framing but it's very hard without a tripod. I haven't done any post-processing, just imported and exported at LR. I took two shots with each lens just in case. 135s are crop mode. I hope this helps give you a sense of how the two lenses compare
Nice job! From what I can see they look very similar at the 200/2 setting. I’ve owned many 135mm lenses in different flavors (Canon, Zeiss, Sony Batis) and sold them all because the focal length and or aperture weren’t my cup of tea. But this lens is so flexible with its wide aperture and using crop mode that it will be my next purchase. I think it will stay. 🙂
mtoroglu wrote:
Hodie would probably do a more professional test than me but I have just taken 2 quick hand-held shots in our backyard with both lenses. I tried my best to do the exact framing but it's very hard without a tripod. I haven't done any post-processing, just imported and exported at LR. I took two shots with each lens just in case. 135s are crop mode. I hope this helps give you a sense of how the two lenses compare
Update: Added two more. No post-processing, just import, resize and export.
Nice job doing the comparison. I also just did my very unprofessional test. I used the 135 on the A7RV and the 200 on the A9iii. I figure it's close enough when using the A7RV in crop mode. I did edit to match exposures as best as I can and I used daylight white balance.
I would try to ignore any color cast differences because I had just come back from a trip using the A9iii and had it set on a custom white balance and forget to set it back to AWB for this test. I don't think it impacted the images too much, though.
Hodie wrote:
Nice job doing the comparison. I also just did my very unprofessional test. I used the 135 on the A7RV and the 200 on the A9iii. I figure it's close enough when using the A7RV in crop mode. I did edit to match exposures as best as I can and I used daylight white balance.
I would try to ignore any color cast differences because I had just come back from a trip using the A9iii and had it set on a custom white balance and forget to set it back to AWB for this test. I don't think it impacted the images too much, though.
tsdevine wrote:
Did you use EFCS for these tests on the a7R V? The bokeh looks kind of mangled on the a7R V shots where the shutter speed is over 1/1000th.
Yes, I did because I always forget to turn it off. Like I said, my very unprofessional test. I can't tell what you're seeing, though.
Hodie wrote:
Yes, I did because I always forget to turn it off. Like I said, my very unprofessional test. I can't tell what you're seeing, though.
No worries, happens to me too. Sony is super silly for not having providing an automated way to handle this via settings. The dead giveaway is that the bokeh ball kind of fades as you look at the each ball top to bottom. So on those vertically oriented shots, each ball kind of fades away as you look from left towards the right.
It might be better you don't learn to see it...because once you do...you can't unsee it....
tsdevine wrote:
No worries, happens to me too. Sony is super silly for not having providing an automated way to handle this via settings. The dead giveaway is that the bokeh ball kind of fades as you look at the each ball top to bottom. So on those vertically oriented shots, each ball kind of fades away as you look from left towards the right.
It might be better you don't learn to see it...because once you do...you can't unsee it....
I went back to take the same shots but of course a car went to park there. How about these?
ILCE-7RM5135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/6400s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/10000s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5135mm F1.4 DG | Art 025 lens135mmf/1.41/6400s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-9M3200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/10000s250 ISO0.0 EV
?
