Access sample RAW files right here froknowsphoto.com/sigma135/ Download MyGearVault FREE for Apple iOS right here mygearvault.com/#download Get 11 Days To Better Photography here froknowsphoto.com/11days
Jared Polin so focusing on the eye to get a really sharp shot if you're shooting @f1.8 will both eyes be tac sharp? If not is there a proffered eye to focus on?
KrUzEpArX you need to focus on the eye closest to the camera. At 1.8 if the subject isn't dead on you more than likely won't have both eyes in focus. That's why it's important to focus on the eye nearest the camera.
KrUzEpArX at wide open aperture like 1.8 you can make only one eye sharp if it's an angled shot. Both eyes can be sharp only if you pose the model flat straight which is often boring. A rule of thump is to get the near eye, to camera, should be in focus though you can change that rule to have some creativity at times based on the situation and light.
Jared Polin folks offering advice as if this man isn't a paid, working photographer. I think he was focusing on the eye farthest from camera purposefully, perhaps just to put the lens through it paces and see what's possible, let's get crazy and try different points of focus
Daddysports79 I think either I misunderstood your comment or you misunderstood theirs buddy. I was asking advise and they answered me. They aren't talking to Fro :)
Have had both the Canon 135 and this 135. No contest for me. The Canon is a great lens, but the IQ and build is just that much better with the Sigma. For what I do, it's a fantastic lens and I'm very happy to have it in my bag.
Great video and education content! I like Fro's style and delivery execution on his videos. For me it's not just about technically talking about how a piece of hardware does what but on suggesting how to better realize it's full potential.
I like how Jared talks about the great contrast the lens gives but then you look over at the Lightroom panel and the contrast slider is bumped up quite a bit. So it could be taken as misleading if it's not clarified that we're looking at the edited jpeg shots during the shoot. However, this is why he also supplies us with the RAW files so we can so our own research. Regardless, it was a nicely done review!
I actually use the Canon 135 f2 every single shoot. I am a dance photographer, and it does pretty well with action. It can be a pain to get that tack sharp focus while using the AI-servo mode on my 5D mark iii. But I don't know if that is the camera's problem or the lens. I recommend it to every wedding photographer or portrait photographer because it is a beast of a portrait lens! I never leave it at home!
Christian Moore This lens blows the Canon 135L out of the water. It is sharper at the edge at f1.8 than the Canon at the center at f2. Sold my L and bought this. Worth every penny. Really fast and accurate AF too, unlike the L at f2. I use it on a 6D. www.lenstip.com/501.11-Lens_review-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Summary.html
The Sigma is sharp, but I don't see image samples really much better, if any, that I find in my Tamron 70-200mm files that some people say are too sharp. And there's no "blowing away" for sharpness. I can see subtle differences. The weight increase is certainly not subtle. I don't think people can go wrong on the Sigma. I think the choice will boil down to factors other than image quality. The f/1.8 is almost meaningless, because that's almost too shallow a depth of field more many couple photos. I find f/2 to be risky sometimes with single individuals.
Thanks for the review Fro. I was just thinking a couple weeks ago if you would review this lens. Now I'm probably going to buy it. Keep the great content coming.
Hard to compare the two since they are fairly far apart in terms of focal length. For what its worth, the relative difference feels like of like a 35 to a 50mm.That said, there are lots of reviews like that out there! The 85mm is somewhat sharper than the 135mm, but the 135 has better tonality, less vignetting, and almost no CA. You'll also get a shallower DOF with the 135 at 1.8 than you will with the 85 at 1.4 from the same shooting distance... if that matters to you. Both are fabulous lenses though.
I have an old Nikkor-Q 135mm lens (converted to AIS) that is f2.8. I use it on my Nikon D750 and D7100. I was curious about the new 135mm lenses. Since I rarely shoot portraits, I was wondering about getting a new 135mm lens. This video answers that question with a resounding "No!" Thank you for the great video with such a clear demonstration and explanation about the pros and cons. I'll just keep playing with my old 135mm. It is a lot of fun. BTW, I sure like the commonsense evaluations in your videos!
MchalesNavy who told you that Tony Northrup? So you're basically saying when you take a Picture then crop it in post it becomes darker too? Have to multiply Aperture there too? Nah, I don't think so. Cuz on Crop bodies its just croped version of the field of view. Aperture doesn't change.
That is very misleading. The light falling on image circle of a crop sensor and that of the DX image circle of the Fx sensor is identical. What they are referring to is total light aggregated over a larger sensor is greater. But the light reflected from your subject is the same. If you are taking images of white walls and total all the light falling on the larger sensor it might be right but that is not how we use cameras. Maybe your advisor is thinking only of equivalent isolation, and not light. The same lens on a Dx sensor will appear to have more depth of field than when used on a Fx and reframed to fill the same proportions of the frame. But that is due to the all-important sensor to subject to background ratios. You have to move closer to the subject to fill the Fx frame which means the greater ratio between camera>subject>background. Not a a lens issue but a subject distance issue. With any lens, increase the ratio of camera to subject versus subject to background and subject isolation is under your control by your feet. Too many camera video personalities out there and not enough common sense.
Bro. I purchased my first dslr a few months ago and subscribe to a few channels for tutorials and advice. I get most of it from you. You know your stuff!
Most of my equipment is used. I picked up a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro (2nd gen) lens to replace a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 . The ONLY reason I traded the Rokinon 85mm for the Tamron is that Rokinon was manual focus only and I wear glasses. Subjects did not like waiting longer while I attempted to get the lens tack sharp. At 1.4 on the 85mm, there was such a shallow depth of field, that if I slightly moved while taking the photo, I could throw the subject out of focus. But I love the 90mm. I would assume that the Sigma is a similar type lens.
at 1:27. The glare on his glasses would be reduced dramatically with a polarizer filter. It's likely there would be some glare left but, as you pointed out, those purple rectangles were pretty cool. Perhaps leaving some of the glare intact would be a decent effect.
It is about build quality and how long it is going to last, Sigma has aperture sticking problems over time so Sigma are not recommended, Nikons are proven to last. So your criteria for best lens is flawed if you are just basing it on sharpness. Was tempted to get the Sigma but then researched their durability. Still looking for a good sharp 135mm and the Nikon DC does not cut the mustard.
Jared, At around 4 mins in this video you go into the close focusing distance of the lens. You definitely can get closer than 3 ft. from the front element of the lens, but the number is also accurate. You probably already know this, but the close focusing distance is typically measured from the sensor plane, not the front element, so it's actually 3 ft. from the sensor, which seemed about right from what I saw in the video. Hope this comment doesn't annoy you :) Cheers!
I shoot alot of sports photo (Running) under low light condition (8pm-9pm) i know this is not an ideal lens for sports but when the lens nailed the focus during the running test shot, i was sold. what are your thoughts Jared? Maybe you can do a follow up sports test under low light in your next video? Cheers
Hey Jared, Ive been hearing a lot about the Rokinon 14MM EF AF. Some are saying that it is a must have for the Sony a7. I know there a ton of lenses out there and it is impossible to test them but at $600 this lens is beating its competition by about $1100 and it seems like it may spark the interest of a lot of us Sony shooter. Thanks for what you do I love your style and am learning a lot from it all!
One of the most amazing lenses I ever shot with was the Nikon 200mm F2 (Canon version is equally awesome, shot with that too) on a full frame camera. I had the pleasure of shooting Little League baseball and Pop Warner football with them. They are truly remarkable due to blazing AF, sharpness, and wonderful bokeh. It helped make everything pop. Here is where I am going with this. I normally shoot Nikon D500's and my usual subjects are dogs. I am wondering if this would be a good lens for shooting dogs in action? Do you think it is fast / accurate enough for that use? Of course, I do take pet portraits with their people and it would be useful for that as well. This isn't essential because I have lenses that do a great job with that. My dream would be to be able to use it in place of the 70-200 for some action shots and to use it as a long portrait lens to get even softer bokeh then the 70-200. Note that I would be shocked if it met those expectations because I am comparing a $1400 to a $5700 lens.
Jared ,Pleeease make a review of it is already on the market but i'm still wondering if its worth it so i will be more than appreciated if you do the review ! Thank you for being that honest in you reviews! Best regards!
Hi Jared. Have you heard Canon is supposedly announcing a new 135L f.2 IS in August? I'm very interested in this Sigma 135 but as a canon shooter I think I should wait for the reviews on the new Canon as having that IS in a fast 135 would be great. But that 1.8 would help when subjects aren't close to camera to get that extra separation. I hope you can review the new Canon lens once there's some pre release test copies around and perhaps compare it to the Sigma. Thanks for all the great reviews. *Oops my bad! I was confusing the upcoming Canon 85 1.4 L IS. They are rumored to also be making a 135 f2 L IS but I think that's early next year. I guess I'll be seriously considering the Sigma option now. My biggest concern was the AF acquisition as that's been the Achilles heel with Sigma and you've demonstrated that it's good on this newer offering.
This is dope. I bought my 135mm F2 from canon 1 week before they announced this. My canon lens has REALLY huge issues with flaring and its autofocus is slow as fuc*, but I can use it to shoot basketball and some sports, except when they run towards me. Its a fantastic piece of glass, but if I were to chose between them, Sigma all the way: more advance optics, probably better focus but its more expensive.
Great video, expecting this lens today and owning the 50mm and the 85mm Art lenses makes my portrait lenses complete. Really a big Sigma Art lens fan and prefer them above the Nikon lenses, well for portraits that is..............
+Paul McElligott being using Sigma lenses for over 30yrs way back in london.. the sigma 135 prime is one of my very favorite lens ever....just breathtakingly spectacular
Wait...you said you own a "copy" of the 24-70 2.8 but now you say you actually pre-ordered. Stop being a liar and bashing a product you've never used in real life.
Okay folks nikon shooter sigma 1.8 or nikon f2? Nikon used is significantly less costly, but have thing improved enough to make the additional cost necessary
After mft cameras and the panasonic ff "macro" zooms, i just can't ever go back to "normal" close focusing distances like 80-100cm. Not gonna switch lenses every time i want to get a closeup. I see it as a design flaw really.
I was thinking about getting this lens already even though I have the 85 1.8G. I feel like I want more compression! But is that really what I want? I mainly use that 85 I mentioned and the 24-70mm 2.8 without the VR for weddings.
If you want more compression or want to shoot from greater distance with the same framing. Some people like to shoot farther/further (which is it...) away for inter-personal space issues. Whatever works for you. Try it with a zoom of same length and see which distance you prefer in the situations you shoot...
Are you expecting that this 135mm f1.8 has less accurate or consistent focus than the Nikon 105mm f1.4? I have actually had a lot of focus issues with my Sigma Art 35mm f1.4, but my Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 is a lot more reliable (on par with any Nikon I use).
I thought about the 135mm ART In the end i chose to go the Samyang 135mm F2 - its stellar and the price is unbeatable. That said i have it in nikon mount but adapt on Sony, focus peaking aids make MF a breeze
Look, it's still a 1.8 lens no matter what camera you put it on. Is the effective aperture slightly different sure, but a 1.8 is a 1.8 is a 1.8. Don't over complicate things.
You get the same amount of light but you'll have to move further away to get the same framing. At that point you increase the dof. It's not a 200mm F/2.8, but it looks like it is.
the reflections are in the same point of focus that the glases or mirror, if you want the reflections out of focus you need the glasses out of focus. am i correct?
"Put your hands up and look through your eyes" was my favourite part lol . Great lens ... i have the 85 F1.4G .. but now i dont know what to get the 105 or this new 135.
It depends, the 105mm 1.4E and 135mm 1.8A are of very similar rendering and bokeh. Both are far better corrected for CA and bokeh fringing, than the 85mm 1.4G, but neither is quite APO lens. With the 105mm you will have to step back and with the 135 even more since it’s noticeably tighter. 135 AF is around 2x faster than the 105.
Casey Schneider You mean CLOSING the aperture… CLOSING the aperture would make more in focus. 1.8 is wide open. Going higher in f-stop closes the aperture (hole or iris). Semantics, but still…
Jared Polin micro contrast, distortion (if there is any) color saturation... Your review is fine but, a lot of times in modern lenses, especially at this price, it goes without saying that they are going to be sharp. They're made for 50.6+ mp sensors, they have to render a ridiculous amount of detail, of course it's going to be sharp. What about build quality? Is the focusing motor silent? .... Maybe I'm just nitpicking.
Jared, I would challenge you to test the Canon 135 version. Yes, it's only 2.0 and a few years old, but I DO know that it can hold it's own against the new Sigma Art.
Hey Jared what was the keeper rate of images in terms of sharpness. I'm really interested in adding this lens to my collection, however I've been hearing stories of focus issues with this lens. What's your take. I'll be using this lens on a D750, D600 and a D7000
Me. Polin, I was lucky enough to just purchased a new Nikon D850, and trying to pick out a great portrait lens. Would you recommend spending money on this sigma 135, or focusing more on a true 70 to 200 mm lens? My portraiture is typically friends, family, local jobs. Some events mixed in there as well as shots for local businesses of employees etc. appreciate any thoughts!
Hi Jared: watching this video helped me immensely as I took your advice and opted to NOT buy this lens and instead, use my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 in its place. As you said, based "on the style of shooting..." That simple statement is the light bulb that when turned on, helped with the decision.
hi Jared, when do you think you'll make a real world review for the sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG OS HSM for canon just to confirm my test that this lens is really soft focus at 2.8 at any focal lenght thanks
Regardless of price difference, compared to the Nikon 105 f/1.4, which would be your first choice to purchase? Nonetheless you captured some great photos 👍🏾
Any thoughts on this lens vs. the Nikkor 135mm f2 DC? I'm of the mindset that the sharpness of this, along with wider aperture, will likely make for a more noticeable impact than the defocus control of the Nikkor, but if anyone has used both and can provide insight, that'd be awesome!