I wish I hadn’t sold my Sigma 135mm 1.8 dg hsm to buy the New Sigma 85mm 1.4 dg dn. To me the on real world scenarios the Sigma 135 1.8 is sharper than the new Sigma 85 1.4 dg dn. Also when shooting into the sun I think the 135 1.8 produces better images. Do a review on those two lenses because I know alot of people that are debating in buying between those two Sigma focal lengths for portrait photography.
Funnily enough I have a video coming out soon that is along those lines (not exactly, but will answer many questions people have about these lenses). Don't feel too bad about selling the 135mm. I'm fairly confident Sigma will be releasing a DG DN version of this lens soon (hopefully this year) which may solve your problem!
Hmmm, tough one. The biggest advantages the 135mm would offer over your 70-200mm are thicker background blur and better low light performance. If these are two areas you're hoping to improve then it would be worth considering the 135mm.
Great review! It finally helped me decide whether I wait or not and since I own the mind-blowing Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN Art, I can't wait for its 135mm big sister! I think, and a lot thanks to your review, I will "police" myself to be patient and not buy the Sony and wait for the Sigma! Thanks again
Thanks for your comment - glad the video helped! Sigma have just filed a patent for a 135mm f/1.8 DG DN so hopefully you won't have to wait too much longer for a refreshed version of this great lens.
Great video! I'm sure you'll get a Sigma 135mm 1.8 DG DN soon. Both lenses are amazing. But I think the flare resistance and minimal focus distance is also a bit better on the Sony...?
You're probably right, but most people tend to shoot with cameras that produce images between 20mp-30mp, so that's why I test using an A7III or A7IV. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for the comment.
@@TomCalton I wish that Sony will make a 1.4X teleconverter for the 135mm :) When I hd Canon DSLR, I had Canon EF 135mm 2.0 L and a Canon 1.4X, a very good combo
@@TomCalton I would NOT but a premium lens and put a third party converter on it :D Then I could have bought a cheap lens or a zoom, but I only want the absulutely best of the best lenses. Bad third party converters are no go.
1:00 It seems you forgot about Sony CZ Sonnar 135mm F/1.8 through the LA-EA5 adapter, which is pretty darn cheap to buy now, but performs just as well, apart from the slow focusing speed (but usually enough for portraits).
I don't include non native E-Mount lenses within tests, typically speaking. Just because otherwise it gets very convoluted very quickly. Plus, with the AF tests, you then have to debate whether it's the lens that's slow or the specific lens adapter I used? All gets very complicated 😅
Used to own the Sigma 135mm f1.8 when I was using Nikon, my favorite lens EVER but it's a hard focal length to use, and it was hard to warrant keeping it when I had a tele zoom too
Totally understand where you're coming from. If you don't have two camera bodies then a 135mm is a bit of a commitment in most scenarios. A zoom would offer a lot more flexibility for sure.
All I meant by the comment about the Batis is that it's maybe not an even match up against these other two f/1.8 lenses. Maybe in a future video we'll include the Batis and see how it does though.
What a mistake from zeiss!! What were they thinking! , that lens even has oss!! . I’m big fan of the Batis line ( own 40 and 85), but will get the sony because of indeed the 1.8 f. And suscribed! 🙂
Some sport shooters are saying that sometimes they prefer 135mm 1.8 GM over 70-200 2.8 GM for low light performance, AF and sharpness. Have you got any experience with shooting sport or some more "dynamic" events with 135?
I'm not a sports photographer, so I don't unfortunately. The most movement I shoot with a 135mm is weddings, and the Sigma manages to keep up just fine. Though, I don't think someone walking around is the same as tracking an athlete moving at full speed, tbf! 😂
First off, nice haircut 😁👍 second, I actually ended up selling my Sony 135 in favor of using my sigma 105 which I felt had a little bit more 3D pop, even though it was not a sharp and was also heavier. Good comparison though
Thanks 😉 I'm desperate to give the 105mm f/1.4 a try, but Sigma are all out of loan copies at the moment. Hopefully I can get hold of one in the new year though 🤞 I've heard it's a bit of a bazooka though!
I know GMs are more expensive, but I have found the AF and overall IQ to be better on the Sony lenses. Particularly when I compared the 24-70 of Sigma vs Sony. For these 2 reasons I typically go with Sony.
I have had both for a couple of weeks at the same time, and the Sony is - specifically if it is not bright (inside, darker parts of a forest etc.) - not only considerably faster but also more reliable in focusing (talking about 1-2 missed shots out of 10 with the GM versus 6-8 !!! missed shots under same conditions with the Sigma). Again, under difficult light conditions. I have to add, that I had better results with the A7R3 and eye-focus (only 3-4 missed shots - with the GM having practically none), but the underwhelming performance of the Sigma on the A7R2 without the eye-focus, used on kids inside (in direct comparison with the GM) was really a bummer. Where I still got 5-6 sharp images with the GM, the Sigma produced only 1 or 2 top). If conditions are favorable however - bright light, outside, not too cloudy - I am with you, they both perform equally, in any way. I would recommend the Sigma to everyone who is on a budget (or does not make a living out of 135mm pictures) AND has a camera body capable of eye-AF. Without eye-AF, the GM is unfortunately the only choice imo.
😅 Lucky I just bought the a7c... I am planning on using the Sigma 135mm at a concert next year so hopefully it won't be a total disaster. (😐if I will be allowed in with the massive lump of a lens that is... 🤔 I have seen people with huge Canon tele lenses in the audience (and I KNOW they are not professional photographers with permits or something, just obsessive fans like myself) of the previous concerts I went to and if they get in then I should be allowed in as well. Is my thinking... 😬)
I shot Sony as well , it was what i started with , Alpha 55 SLR , great sensor , fantastic everything , but every single picture i took was as ugly as these that you show , its a Disaster , the Shadows are all Dark , making everything look ugly especially people not so much for Landscape , then i took Canon that has lower Dynamic range but every single portrait beautiful straight out of camera , with a bit of Lightroom edits gets fantastic . And so i shoot Canon , and then i got Canon 5D Classic , yes 13Mpix old Sensor , but boy the colors , the portraits , just fantastic with very little edits . So i shoot Canon tho i know Technically its not as good as Sony , not even close but i care only about Pictures .
Thanks for the review. I have the Sony 135/1.8 (absolutely peerless pictures !) and the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN. Yes, if they come up with a 135/1.8 DG DN, and if the design language adopted for the 85mm is applied to it, then it will be a smaller/lighter lens, even versus the Sony, and I will certainly switch to it.
I’ve been shooting with the HSM Sigma for about 3 months (primarily sports) and it is a FANTASTIC lens, although my back would argue. I think the REAL comparison will be when Sigma launches the [DN] version of the 135. I’m confident it will be as small and light (possibly smaller and lighter) than the 135GM and of course, it will be less expensive. THAT will be the true test and I think MANY will choose the Sigma, assuming it has the same results as their 85 DN launched last year. I am in the process of making my own comparison video of the same lenses. Mine will be more sports / action focused. (No PUN intended)
Love the content! :) im actually debating buying the 135mm gmaster or save up a bit and get the 70-200mm gmaster. I'm a car photographer, which would you recommend of the 2?
Thanks! Interesting question. The 70-200mm would give you more flexibility for sure, especially if you only use one camera body. Plus if you don't shoot in low light, the f/1.8 maximum aperture of the 135mm probably wouldn't make much difference to you. I haven't tested the 70-200mm though, so it's hard to say which would be the better option in terms of image quality.
Sigma ART lenses are certainly amazing bits of kit, but they are SO darned heavy! I 'officially' retired a couple of years ago, having been a pro for over 45 years, and my spine is also like butter. I use an old Canon FD 135mm on my Sony system, which is every bit as sharp as the two lenses on offer here. However....... it's manual focus, with all that entails, but that Sony certainly looks inviting. Shame I no longer have a granny to sell at my age! Great stuff.....
Haha! Thanks Keith! I used to be a Canon shooter and I owned the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM - that lens we great! Super sharp and lightweight. I'd happily sacrifice the 0.2 of an f-stop if it would make my Sigma 135mm even just a fraction lighter!
Tom, I need fast focusing for STILL ACTION Shots for Animal running & Sports (I don't care about video performance). Would this be great for fast STILL shots with Eye Tracking and (non Eye) Continous AF tracking? PLEASE Reply, I'm looking to purchase this week. Most Sincerely
I wouldn't feel 100% confident shooting sports or fast moving animals with either lens to be honest. They're not the fastest and both are due an upgrade soon. For sports you'd be better off getting a dedicated sports lens - like the new Sigma 150-600mm - as it's geared specifically towards keeping up with fast subjects. They're heavy and don't have as wide maximum aperture, but at least it'll keep up with the action. Here's my Sigma review if you're interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zUrZMEGQ2WI.html
