Sigma 135 "A" Review BY Darren Miles 

Thanks Nils!

Thank you! Please subscribe!

+Darren Miles bought a copy off your amazing review....can you share the first 3 numbers in of your copys serial number. i hear inconsistencies is the bane of the art lens!

Thanks Phillip! Glad it helps!

Thanks Yair! Not sure how or why the AF on the 135 is so much better than the 85 - I just know it is. This 135 is incredible... Didn't really test the MFD, but now that you mentioned it, I'll take a look.

dvds59 I have noticed with my d810 I have more focus issues than with my d500. Many more missed shots for sure because the new af system in the d500 and d5 are just that more accurate. But the af fine tune needs more plus and minus adjustments than the d500. I had a d7000 that was even worse in the af department than the d810. It seems each in a ration of Nikon bodies the AF just gets better and better. The D850 seems great and I think the new Mirrorless will be phenomenal and the best af Nikon has ever done.

Thought about that - it's just incredible to me that this thing is so awesome, but that little nit drives me up a tree - because it's not an issue with any of the other sigma art lenses.... Gaff tape here I come!

Thank you very much!

I saw a video somewhere that compared the two. It was really hard to tell the difference, though you get a bit more saturation and sharpness with the Sigma.

I would likely keep the canon - legendary lens - this review was definitely aimed at those who miss that little piece of awesome... like me! :-)

Darren Miles Good to hear. Thanks!

Shlomi Cohen The sigma is Miles ahead of the old outdated Canon in every single area. Do yourself a favor and at least rent it ;)

I don't own the Canon 135 yet, the question is if the Sigma is worth twice the price (of a used Canon 135) and such a weight which I might not even bother carrying...

Thank you very, very much!

That’s awesome!! Which games your fav my guy?

Thanks man! I think life is a lot easier if you are able to laugh at yourself...

yes, a balance is a good thing between reality and "RU-vid"-isms. i hope you do a lot more of these, and, yes, this glass is terrific, even at low res video settings on YT. (i'm in Oz and our net is 10yrs behind anywhere else in the world. ) as you might have gathered, i'm an audio guy and, at least, your audio has been consistently good from day one. really makes a big difference to the enjoyability. (no need to reply). thanks. j.

Thank you! And you won't be sorry!

Thank you very much!!

I prefer the 135 - but I shoot a ton of professional portraits. The 85 is GREAT, but I can't get my copy to focus consistently...

senaritra dutta if you haven’t gotten a lens yet I’d stay away from the 85mm art for several reasons. It (the 85) is sharper . I’ve just seen many reviews complaining about the af . Also it’s bokeh is not as nice as the 135 art. I believe Sigma worked hard on the 135 to create a phenomenal portrait lens with a creamy and softer oof area. The 85 like the 50art , which I do own is more clinical where the foreground and the background very sharp edged. And my 50 art has major af problems.

Right now? Probably the 135 from Sigma. Amazing!

Thanks Darren, Would you please help me decide to choose between D810 and D750 currently both on sale for portraits, landscapes and a bit street.

D810 is are much better body than the D750.

If you have the budget for the 200, then go for it’. I was just using it less - as awesome as it is, and I still don’t use it that much as I find it impractical - it’s big and unwieldy, always requires a tripod or monopod, handholding can only be tolerated for so long.... but the results……. Amazing!

@@DarrenMiles I can save for it in 6 months, but you said it's impractical and unwieldy,those are equally serious points to consider. For me what really matter is to get gorgeous bokeh at full length ,if the 135 can do that am good.

Okwy Ugonweze I think you’d be just as pleased with the 135 - and I promise your clients won’t notice the difference :-)

I have not, I'm going to ask B&H to send me the 105 for a test...

Jay J Hi , on my copy of the 135 the AF /MF switch works great with normal resistance to moving.

That would be cool!

Based on others responses, it seems I might have a light AF/MF switch..

D. Johnson Thank you for commenting! It’s difficult for me to say as I’ve really only had enough time with the 135. The 105F/1.4 stopped working about halfway through my review. I’m having B&H send me another one, but I do have to say the pictures I was able to capture were pretty awesome! Speaking for myself I prefer the 135 mm focal length for portraits, but that’s just a personal preference.

Not really, I would just bump up the ISO to get the shutter to at least 1/125th

Thank you very much!!

There are no absolutes in photography. Just personal preferences, that said common "portrait" or "headshot" focal lengths USUALLY run between 85-135mm full frame equivalent field of view. - meaning slightly shorter focal lengths on crop sensor cameras.

Right, so since I'm using a 50mm on crop censor camera that is roughly equivalent to 85mm on fullframe I guess. Which is therefor deemed good for portraits? I guess I might've mixed it up with the notion that 50mm gives you the most real world view/eyesight equivalent in the camera world, but does that refer to 50mm on a fullframe camera and it's then the 35mm that gives "eyesight equivalent" on crop censored cameras? I have a Canon 70D with a 50mm F1.8, the pancake lens 24mm STM and both 18-55 and 18-135 kit lenses. I'm looking into maybe getting the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 next, since I want a lens that will work in less light for video purposes.

prebenlm the 18-35 is my go to lens on my crop body. Especially for the type of video I do. It like all sigma lenses can have focus problems on certain camera bodies. And it’s best to use the center focus points for focus accusation. The outer point are usually different than the center or center cluster of af points. At least on my Nikon bodies. And about 42mm ff is the natural human fov. 50-58 mm portraits, especially 50 can elongate the nose on head shots. Even on your crop sensor camera. So if I were you and shooting 50 mm portraits sit the 50 for full body and half body portraits. It will still distort half body pics too. 85-135 or even up to 300mm is great for head shots . Over 135mm can start to flatten the face though. Learn the focal lengths qualities and use each one to it optimal characteristics. Say if someone has an extra long nose and you want to compress that look for a more pleasing look . You can do a head shot with the 200 or 300 mm lens . Even the 135 can subtly flatten the face . I believe the 75-85 mm range is the human eye perspective of what we naturally see as distortion free in a chest up head shot.

It’s a total piece of awesomeness! Dying to see what you do with it!

@@DarrenMiles I hope to use it for my up and coming ELLE shoot in June. :-)

Live Aeons Really depends on what I was doing. If I was just taking head shots, then I would likely get the 135. If I were doing a combination of things like weddings events and Headshots I would probably get the 70-200...

@@DarrenMiles , I do weddings, sports, landscape, concerts, and this is my current dilemma, since I sold my VR1, and a friend of mine lend me a 135mm ART and I really love it, but I also have a good deal on a used 70-200mm f/2.8 FL

@@LiveAeons Sounds like versatility is what you really need, I think the 135 is a slightly better portrait lens, but the 70-200 FL ED is no slouch in the optics department... In your specific situation, it looks to me like the better option is the 70-200...

@@DarrenMiles , thanks a lot for the reply. Is the 70-200 more accurate and faster at tracking moving subjects?

Tough call - the Canon 85 f/1.2 - to me - is kinda dreamy at f/1.2 and it's SO SLOW to focus... I might consider the 135 A and wait and see on the 85 f/1.4 L...

Thanks .I was thinking the same .Is the 135 Art much sharper than the 135 L lens at its widest aperture ?

Honestly for Canon, I might hold on to the Canon 135L - it's not a better lens, its jus that I don't think there's enough of a difference between the L and the A to justify the price difference - whole different story if you shot Nikon....

Thanks for the inputs and the review.Appreciate it :)

fsahouri I have this same problem with both of my Sigma art lenses. The 18-35 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.4 art. The 18-35 f/1.8 nails the focus and is pretty fast at af. The 50 is so inconsistent I hate to even use it. Guess I need to sell it .

I have no idea how it would perform on the a9, but I have tested the a7 + MC11 + Sigma 135 f/1.8 combo. The AF is accurate, but the speed is quite low. You will not be able to shoot sport with this lens, but it should be capable enough to cover indoor events like weddings.

I had the Nikon 200mm f/2 for several years, but to me it's not the right focal lens for portraits, I prefer the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 or this Sigma 135mm f/1.8 for portraits, yes the Nikon 200mm f/2 is ultra sharp and have a beautiful bokeh but the d.o.f is so shallow that you end up using the lens at f/2.8 so what's the point to pay $5500 for a f/2.0 lens if you don't use it wide open ! I did try the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC for a while but it does have a lot of chromatic aberrations.

Pratik Doshi wouldn’t sell the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 . Crazy good lenses. With a better (real) look. If you look at Sigma lenses you’ll have a slight cartoonist look.

Indeed it is...

Keep your eyes peeled.... Specifically the next review :-)

GH5 right?

Another M43 lens... A really good one!

Hah!

Both are great, slight edge to the sigma.

@@DarrenMiles thank you! I've been trying to decide between the two. Do you have a recommendation for an ef mount macro lens in the 90mm to 180mm range? I'm looking for sharpness and color rendition.

@@glenngolter5603 YES! Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro - LOVE it - and it's reasonable. Check my review on it.

@@DarrenMiles I definitely will! Thank you so much!

Thanks Dan! This lens is not a cure for GAS! But it is amazing...

Hah! I hadn't heard that one before, but I'd heard there's "no substitute for cubic inches" from car guys for years... Specifically, muscle car guys speaking to things like the 426 Hemi or the Chevy 427... Just sayin'... That said, I do like the "no replacement for displacement."

Darren Miles wow weird, maybe it's a Florida thing haha

Hah! It's dusty in the studio still since the buildout of the wall - but thank you for noticing - LOL!

Depends on how good your eyes are. My eyes a deteriorating by the day...I need AF

What a ridiculous statement. Photographers have always used advancements in camera technology to get better results. AF is no different. For someone claiming that MF is mandatory, you seem rather clueless on the history of cameras and photography. You want us to go back to the darkroom too? Using the 1-use flashes? How inconvenient do you want us to make photography to be what you want it to be?

You want to try it on your gfx?

This Sigma lens won't fit on the GFX. The Fotodiox adapter will not be able to open the aperture due to the change in design.

What's up phony? You're a hoot. You've been claiming lately that you're pretty much broke. However, you're ordering the GFX 100, a $10k camera that you don't need. Do yourself a favor and cancel the order and use the money to get yourself out of the financial hardship your currently in. Also, can you make a video about the Leica Sl2? Thanks Phony!

It was the first thing that came to mind :-)