Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
p.1 #1Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Starting here: I own the 135mm Plena and am considering purchasing the 135mm 1.4 Sigma. Not looking for a flame war, I’m mount agnostic, just looking for honest opinions of shooters that have used both extensively. Also curious to hear anyone who’s made the switch, why, and are you happy with the change?
Edited on Aug 31, 2026 at 07:54 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Aug 31, 2026 at 07:54 PM · View previous versions
Aug 31, 2026 at 09:24 AM
p.1 #2Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
I'd rent the Sigma for a day in SLC, use it and determine if I wanted to buy it. I don't think the Sigma has that many users and while you might get a little bit of info here you will get a lot more by using it for a day imo. Good luck.
Aug 31, 2026 at 09:35 AM
p.1 #3Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
That’s my next route; just poking the bear first.
BillD208 wrote:
I'd rent the Sigma for a day in SLC, use it and determine if I wanted to buy it. I don't think the Sigma has that many users and while you might get a little bit of info here you will get a lot more by using it for a day imo. Good luck.
BillD208 wrote:
I'd rent the Sigma for a day in SLC, use it and determine if I wanted to buy it. I don't think the Sigma has that many users and while you might get a little bit of info here you will get a lot more by using it for a day imo. Good luck.
Aug 31, 2026 at 09:42 AM
p.1 #4Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
I see this in the Sony forum? Anyway, back when I shot Nikon, I owned the Plena. I have not shot the Sigma, but the Plena was simply put, glorious. If I was still shooting Nikon and owned the Plena, I wouldn't be wasting my time looking at any other 135, but that's me...
I shoot Sony now so Sony's 135 GM is probably what I'd buy; but for the money I'd take a hard look at the Viltrox -- the images I've seen from it in the Viltrox thread look impressive, and the cost savings is equally impressive
Finally, my own personal nit with the Sigma is while it has the extra ⅔ stop, it is by comparison MASSIVE -- and I'd much rather sacrifice the bit of aperture for the weight and dollar savings, but that's me. If you want f1.4 in a 135, then it makes sense. I wouldn't expect miracles from it over the Plena though; and I definitely wouldn't sell the Plena until I was darn sure I actually preferred the larger, heavier Sigma over it.
I shoot Sony now so Sony's 135 GM is probably what I'd buy; but for the money I'd take a hard look at the Viltrox -- the images I've seen from it in the Viltrox thread look impressive, and the cost savings is equally impressive
Finally, my own personal nit with the Sigma is while it has the extra ⅔ stop, it is by comparison MASSIVE -- and I'd much rather sacrifice the bit of aperture for the weight and dollar savings, but that's me. If you want f1.4 in a 135, then it makes sense. I wouldn't expect miracles from it over the Plena though; and I definitely wouldn't sell the Plena until I was darn sure I actually preferred the larger, heavier Sigma over it.
Aug 31, 2026 at 09:50 AM
p.1 #5Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Yes(?), I’m buying it for the Sony mount. Cheers
Jack Flesher wrote:
I see this in the Sony forum? Anyway, back when I shot Nikon, I owned the Plena. I have not shot the Sigma, but the Plena was simply put, glorious. If I was still shooting Nikon and owned the Plena, I wouldn't be wasting my time looking at any other 135, but that's me...
I shoot Sony now so Sony's 135 GM is probably what I'd buy; but for the money I'd take a hard look at the Viltrox -- the images I've seen from it in the Viltrox thread look impressive, and the cost savings is equally impressive...Show more →
Jack Flesher wrote:
I see this in the Sony forum? Anyway, back when I shot Nikon, I owned the Plena. I have not shot the Sigma, but the Plena was simply put, glorious. If I was still shooting Nikon and owned the Plena, I wouldn't be wasting my time looking at any other 135, but that's me...
I shoot Sony now so Sony's 135 GM is probably what I'd buy; but for the money I'd take a hard look at the Viltrox -- the images I've seen from it in the Viltrox thread look impressive, and the cost savings is equally impressive...Show more →
Aug 31, 2026 at 09:58 AM
p.1 #6Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Haven’t owned the Plena but have owned a number of 135mm primes going back 20+ years. Have looked at lots and lots of photos from the Plena and it is no doubt outstanding but outside of slightly rounder bokeh balls have seen little to distinguish the look from the Plena as compared to most of the 135mm primes I've owned over the years including some 135mm primes I’ve owned recently including the Sony 135mm prime which is EXCELLENT and also the Samyang 135mm which is ridiculously good for the price. Earlier this year I picked up the Sigma 135mm 1.4 because as a 135mm prime addict I just had to try it. It is simply the BEST rendering 135mm I’ve ever owned in terms of bokeh, subject separation, yada yada. It is in a league by itself in terms of the look it yields among the 135mm primes from any mfg IMO.
The decision to buy the Sigma 135mm 1.4 IMO boils down to what you plan on using it for. If you are looking for a well rounded 135mm to use for portraits, low light sports or if you plan on toting it around on a frequent basis I’d probably stick with the Plena or Sony 135mm. On the other hand if you are someone who doesn’t mind carrying more weight and or makes $$ with the lens and does a lot of outdoor portrait work there is NO QUESTION the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the one I would choose. Not even a question as the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the only sub 200mm prime (including 85mm 1.2’s and 105mm 1.4’s) that as best as I can recall comes very very close to matching the magical look that you get from a 200mm f2 prime in a fairly large but smaller package than the 200mm f2 primes.
The decision to buy the Sigma 135mm 1.4 IMO boils down to what you plan on using it for. If you are looking for a well rounded 135mm to use for portraits, low light sports or if you plan on toting it around on a frequent basis I’d probably stick with the Plena or Sony 135mm. On the other hand if you are someone who doesn’t mind carrying more weight and or makes $$ with the lens and does a lot of outdoor portrait work there is NO QUESTION the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the one I would choose. Not even a question as the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the only sub 200mm prime (including 85mm 1.2’s and 105mm 1.4’s) that as best as I can recall comes very very close to matching the magical look that you get from a 200mm f2 prime in a fairly large but smaller package than the 200mm f2 primes.
Aug 31, 2026 at 10:01 AM
p.1 #7Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
I haven't seen a 135mm that I didn't like (I've got the Sony 135GM and for my Canon R6MKII--the EF 135/2 L)----so I say go for it. Mind you, f/1.8 is more than good enough (blurring the background) for me with a 135mm lens.
Aug 31, 2026 at 10:37 AM
p.1 #8Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
I don't have either, but from looking into them, if you care about the smoothest bokeh or lens weight, go with the Nikon. If you care about the light gathering of f1.4 above all else, go with the Sigma. In most other ways, they seem very similar.
A more nuanced consideration is whether you prefer the rendering of your Nikon lenses or Sigma lenses. The Nikon 135mm f1.8 will probably match your Nikon 85mm f1.2 better. While the Sigma 135mm f1.4 will probably match your Sigma 200mm f2 better.
Especially since you already have the Nikon, it might be worth renting the Sigma and trying them both side by side.
A more nuanced consideration is whether you prefer the rendering of your Nikon lenses or Sigma lenses. The Nikon 135mm f1.8 will probably match your Nikon 85mm f1.2 better. While the Sigma 135mm f1.4 will probably match your Sigma 200mm f2 better.
Especially since you already have the Nikon, it might be worth renting the Sigma and trying them both side by side.
Aug 31, 2026 at 11:01 AM
p.1 #9Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Hmm everyone has an opinion but no one actually used both lenses.
I actually did and the comparison will be part of my upcoming Plena review.
Long story short: get the Sigma.
I actually did and the comparison will be part of my upcoming Plena review.
Long story short: get the Sigma.
Sep 01, 2026 at 01:05 AM
p.1 #10Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Tom RC wrote:
The decision to buy the Sigma 135mm 1.4 IMO boils down to what you plan on using it for. If you are looking for a well rounded 135mm to use for portraits, low light sports or if you plan on toting it around on a frequent basis I’d probably stick with the Plena or Sony 135mm. On the other hand if you are someone who doesn’t mind carrying more weight and or makes $$ with the lens and does a lot of outdoor portrait work there is NO QUESTION the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the one I would choose....Show more →
This is a good point.
I have Lens A, which weighs 1.4 kg, and Lens B, which weighs 0.4 kg less and is also a bit smaller. Lens A allows for more blur—maybe it’s even sharper (but we’re probably splitting hairs here)—but if I have to carry it around, which one should I choose?
The decision to buy the Sigma 135mm 1.4 IMO boils down to what you plan on using it for. If you are looking for a well rounded 135mm to use for portraits, low light sports or if you plan on toting it around on a frequent basis I’d probably stick with the Plena or Sony 135mm. On the other hand if you are someone who doesn’t mind carrying more weight and or makes $$ with the lens and does a lot of outdoor portrait work there is NO QUESTION the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the one I would choose....Show more →
This is a good point.
I have Lens A, which weighs 1.4 kg, and Lens B, which weighs 0.4 kg less and is also a bit smaller. Lens A allows for more blur—maybe it’s even sharper (but we’re probably splitting hairs here)—but if I have to carry it around, which one should I choose?
Sep 01, 2026 at 01:51 AM
|
p.1 #11Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Ripolini wrote:
This is a good point.
I have Lens A, which weighs 1.4 kg, and Lens B, which weighs 0.4 kg less and is also a bit smaller. Lens A allows for more blur—maybe it’s even sharper (but we’re probably splitting hairs here)—but if I have to carry it around, which one should I choose?
I would appreciate seeing the same composition using f1.4 and f1.8 from the Sigma to compare the output looks. This would be the missing puzzle piece for me. Something like a simple still life subject like a vase or fruit bowl at say a 2 meter portrait distance, with a busy-ish background a good 2 to 3 meters behind it. If easily done, then possibly something with a larger, further away subject like a tree or statue perhaps and a background more significantly behind.
Tom RC wrote
The decision to buy the Sigma 135mm 1.4 IMO boils down to what you plan on using it for. If you are looking for a well rounded 135mm to use for portraits, low light sports or if you plan on toting it around on a frequent basis I’d probably stick with the Plena or Sony 135mm. On the other hand if you are someone who doesn’t mind carrying more weight and or makes $$ with the lens and does a lot of outdoor portrait work there is NO QUESTION the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the one I would choose. Not even a question as the Sigma 135mm 1.4 is the only sub 200mm prime (including 85mm 1.2’s and 105mm 1.4’s) that as best as I can recall comes very very close to matching the magical look that you get from a 200mm f2 prime in a fairly large but smaller package than the 200mm f2 primes.I have Lens A, which weighs 1.4 kg, and Lens B, which weighs 0.4 kg less and is also a bit smaller. Lens A allows for more blur—maybe it’s even sharper (but we’re probably splitting hairs here)—but if I have to carry it around, which one should I choose?
I would appreciate seeing the same composition using f1.4 and f1.8 from the Sigma to compare the output looks. This would be the missing puzzle piece for me. Something like a simple still life subject like a vase or fruit bowl at say a 2 meter portrait distance, with a busy-ish background a good 2 to 3 meters behind it. If easily done, then possibly something with a larger, further away subject like a tree or statue perhaps and a background more significantly behind.
Sep 01, 2026 at 07:40 AM
p.1 #13Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
I don’t have Nikon system.
I owned the 135mm GM and 85mm GM II. I bought the Sigma 135mm f1.4 as it is a first of its kind.
Image quality, sharpness and rendering is excellent, comparable to GM lenses.
Continuous AF for photos is subpar. A1ii body, in good light and contrast, slow moving subject, the critical focus hit rate is around 50%. If you focus far then near on a still subject, which is what most reviewers do, the focus is almost instant. Thats why everyone says the AF is “good”. For video, I was surprised the CAF is better compared to stills. It shows the focus motors isn’t the problem. I suspect the AF calculations per second is also throttled.
I owned the 135mm GM and 85mm GM II. I bought the Sigma 135mm f1.4 as it is a first of its kind.
Image quality, sharpness and rendering is excellent, comparable to GM lenses.
Continuous AF for photos is subpar. A1ii body, in good light and contrast, slow moving subject, the critical focus hit rate is around 50%. If you focus far then near on a still subject, which is what most reviewers do, the focus is almost instant. Thats why everyone says the AF is “good”. For video, I was surprised the CAF is better compared to stills. It shows the focus motors isn’t the problem. I suspect the AF calculations per second is also throttled.
Sep 01, 2026 at 08:24 AM
p.1 #14Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
BastianK wrote:
You will get that.
I might skip that one as every time I see your reviews I bought the lens(es) i.e. old Sigma 35/1.4 HSM ART and Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB :-) Great reviews!!
You will get that.
I might skip that one as every time I see your reviews I bought the lens(es) i.e. old Sigma 35/1.4 HSM ART and Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB :-) Great reviews!!
Sep 01, 2026 at 08:35 AM
p.1 #15Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Here you go:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
Sep 22, 2026 at 11:41 PM
p.1 #17Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
BastianK wrote:
Here you go:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
EXCELLENT comparison images, thank you! My 2-cent conclusion is there isn't much between them on sharpness or color. The main difference is in the character of the bokeh and IMHO they're all pretty great on that front. The Sigma at 1.4 literally butters the background, at 1.8 it harshens up a tad, but nothing approaching anything negative. But then we get to the Plena, and here I think one has to --or at least I certainly do-- admire the Plena's "roundness" on the bokeh balls. Speaking for myself, if I still owned Nikon and wanted a fast 135, hands down I'd still do the Plena.
Here you go:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
EXCELLENT comparison images, thank you! My 2-cent conclusion is there isn't much between them on sharpness or color. The main difference is in the character of the bokeh and IMHO they're all pretty great on that front. The Sigma at 1.4 literally butters the background, at 1.8 it harshens up a tad, but nothing approaching anything negative. But then we get to the Plena, and here I think one has to --or at least I certainly do-- admire the Plena's "roundness" on the bokeh balls. Speaking for myself, if I still owned Nikon and wanted a fast 135, hands down I'd still do the Plena.
Sep 23, 2026 at 02:37 PM
p.1 #18Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
BastianK wrote:
Here you go:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
Thank you for the great comparison!! Seeing them head to head at f1.8 changes my opinion on the Sigma a bit. I still do prefer the Nikon bokeh at f1.8 to the Sigma bokeh at f1.4 but when the sigma is steped down to f1.8 it's so close to the Nikon. It's almost like the Sigma is two lenses is one. Wide open at f1.4 you can get maximum light and background separation, and at f1.8 you can get rounded bokeh in the corners like the Nikon.
Here you go:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/
Direct link to bokeh comparison with Sigma 135mm 1.4:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-z-135mm-1-8-s-plena/#Compared_to_Sigma_135mm_14_DG_Art
Thank you for the great comparison!! Seeing them head to head at f1.8 changes my opinion on the Sigma a bit. I still do prefer the Nikon bokeh at f1.8 to the Sigma bokeh at f1.4 but when the sigma is steped down to f1.8 it's so close to the Nikon. It's almost like the Sigma is two lenses is one. Wide open at f1.4 you can get maximum light and background separation, and at f1.8 you can get rounded bokeh in the corners like the Nikon.
Sep 23, 2026 at 03:32 PM
p.1 #19Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Why not add the Viltrox Lab 135 f/1.8 or 7Artisans 135 f/1.8 into the mix,they are a bargain and optically excellent. 7Artisans has done sone fw updates to improive hit rate of the AF.
Sep 23, 2026 at 07:41 PM
p.1 #20Sigma 135mm 1.4 VS Nikon 135mm 1.8 Plena
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Why not add the Viltrox Lab 135 f/1.8 or 7Artisans 135 f/1.8 into the mix,they are a bargain and optically excellent. 7Artisans has done sone fw updates to improive hit rate of the AF.
No one pays me to do these comparisons, I do that in my free time.
Adding another lens increases the time that is needed significantly.
So to add another lens I need to have a very good reason to do so.
The Viltrox and the 7Artisans are not excellent lenses, they are good lenses.
And I already know that they fall short in the bokeh category compared to the Sigma and the Plena,
so there was no reason to include them to begin with.
Why not add the Viltrox Lab 135 f/1.8 or 7Artisans 135 f/1.8 into the mix,they are a bargain and optically excellent. 7Artisans has done sone fw updates to improive hit rate of the AF.
No one pays me to do these comparisons, I do that in my free time.
Adding another lens increases the time that is needed significantly.
So to add another lens I need to have a very good reason to do so.
The Viltrox and the 7Artisans are not excellent lenses, they are good lenses.
And I already know that they fall short in the bokeh category compared to the Sigma and the Plena,
so there was no reason to include them to begin with.
Sep 24, 2026 at 12:53 AM