Sony 100mm 2.8 STF GM Vs Sony 135mm 1.8GM | Which Is Best? 

I have both lenses. I don't know that I think this is a good apples-to-apples comparison, mainly because these are specialty lenses that appeal to different needs for various shoots. Miguel compares a given solo scenario, a single model for one shoot on an overcast day. What about flash? What about studio work? What about a brighter day? Also, there is no discussion about the STF technology on the 100mm. I really like shooting with the 100STF on a bright day. It's like having a built-in ND filter with the lens, also with the creamy background and isolation it provides. I am surprised at the LR comparison-yes the 135mm has MAGNIFICENT bokeh wide open, but my images wide open at 2.8 on the STF100 does not look like the background in the side by sides in this video. Weird! In my shots, the background on the 100 STF is blurred to an unbelievable creaminess, so much so that reviewers suggest that the BOKEH blur is too much. I will have to kick up lightroom and look at the EXIF data on my 100mm pics at 2.8. Doesn't that translate and register at 2.8 in the LR application instead of 5.6 in the EXIF of this video? I can't say that my individual experience with both lenses matches what this reviewer points out. Honestly, you will get unbelievably sharps pics from both lenses, it will be overkill for most imaging needs with both of them. Of the 2 the "better" lens is the 135, at least in terms of resolution; some reviewers call the 135 the sharpest full-frame lens ever. But the STF technology on the 100mm is a different bird than that. There is no "best" because the imaging solutions that the lenses provide are different. YMMV. Thank Miguel for this interesting video, which made me think about my kit and how I use different tools for different needs.

I’ve been waiting for a video like this!! Thanks!

This addressed exactly what what I was wondering about. Thanks!

Thank you Miguel! Again, very informative as I am getting prepared to select my Sony 1st purchases!

The 135mm to maintain the same FoV as the 100mm you have to shoot it from a longer distance; this makes a large difference when combined with the f/1.8 concerning their respective DoF and thus the background blur. So let us say that if you shoot the 100mm f/2.8 from 5 meters from the model you get a DoF of 0.42cm; whereas to get the equivalent FoV with a 135mm you need to go back one meter to 6 meters your DoF drops to 0.21. Which is half of what you had with the 100mm. Which is why you have the problem with the model's top when she was turning side ways (looking busy with areas in and out of focus). A similar story can be seen in one of the other shots (which you did not comment upon) where the model's jeans are seen a bit and because her legs are not in the same plane of focus as the model's eyes the jeans look a bit strange as they also go in and out of focus. So ultimately it depends on what you are shooting most of the time; if you are shooting tight portraits (strictly head and shoulders kind of thing) then the 135 is to be preferred. If you have 'complex' clothing and body parts sticking in and out and because you need to shoot one meter further away (at six meters) you will need to be shooting your 135 at f/3.6 to get the same DoF as your 100mm at f/2.8 at five meters. However your fall/off background may not look as pleasing. So for me the real test would be some more 'complex' poses/clothing with the 135 at f/3.6 vs the 100 at f/2.8 and then see how the 135mm renders the background and clothing - if that makes sense. Cause the max you showed in this video was f/2.5. Of course if one does not mind clothing and body parts being in and out of focus no problem the 135 seems clearly to be the better lens in terms of IQ, sharpness, micro-contrast, etc.

I prefer the background and foreground Bokeh in the 100mm STF lens. I enjoy the way it keeps the subject's eyes, nose, lips, and forehead in sharp focus while having a soft rounded bokeh in background without the distracting football-shaped edges requiring tons of work in post. This gives the subject a 3-D pop to the overall photo. Colors are great as well when there is enough light. You just have to ensure that the background and foreground has enough adequate separation, light and balance. You cant just shoot any kinda way with this lens. Pictures with this lens must be well-planned ahead and well thought out artistically before touching this lens. This lens is a gem when you let it shine and its a specialty and one of a kind and will make your pictures stand out from the rest. That is the secret of this lens. This lens also seems great for group shots and you don't have to worry about out of focus subjects so much. I also like how you pretty much are just using the lens wide open on portraits all the time.. No need to worry about the settings. This lens could also dubb as a macro lens as well, allowing you to get more use out of the aperture ring by stopping down at close focusing distance while maintain creamy bokeh. Yeah I know this lens is not as fast as the other GM primes, but you just have to turn up the heat, turn on the light, find the light. That what photography is all about - the study of light. We need to slow down and experiment with getting more light into the lens to see its glory. Get light into this lens and it will pay for itself with far less shots with just a little more forethought and effort. To get larger bokeh balls, get closer to the subject and experiment with the background separation distance to get the right size. This is one lens I would have fun practicing and honing my skills. Cheers!!! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IqcmNEPOW0g.html

you could shoot Julianna with a Logitech webcam and she would look great, where's the challenge?

Thanks for a great side-by-side review. I'm definitely leaning towards the 135mm. Challenge will be can I find one to purchase!?!

Thanks, The 135mm f1.8 GM all the way. I have it and it is stunning. I almost never touch my 85mm f1.4 GM or 70-200mm f2.8GM anymore for my A7RIV and A9. The STM effect is not worth it for me to lose two stops of light and have less sharpness. If that is the effect you like, I understand, but not for me. BTW I met you at WPPI, I am one of the moderators of David Oastler's facebook group, 45 years as a pro. . Cheers, love your stuff.

Hi Miguel Thank you for the review You have good content You didn’t say: are you keeping the 100mm? Waiting for the answer and also for the 90mm comparison...

I really like the 100 more. It seems to render colours in a nicer way and is more flattering to the model. Although she would look great with any lens or even an old Kodak instamatic for that matter!

Really funny! Did you listen in on my phone conversation the other day... lol. Shooting with the a7riv brings out a lot of resolving sharpness issues! I tested all my glass and even my 90mm, 50mm Zeiss 1.4, PZ 28-135 f4, 70-200 f4 etc just could not resolve sharpness anywhere near to what my 135GM can.... this is with the a7riv!! The only glass I have that kept up with the 135 is the 24GM and surprisingly the 200-600G.

I absolutely enjoyed this one Miguel also. I've been waiting on someone to do a SHOWDOWN between 90mm macro vs the 135GM since it's the sharpest lens ever tested.

Hi Miguel! This comparision would have made sense, provided that you had used both lens at least in a similar way. You shot more of the selected images with the 100mm when both eyes of the model was roughly the same distance from the sensor, while with the 135mm when the model's eyes were at difference distances. Also at f5.6 the depth of field and sharpness will always be different then at f1.8, so no suprise that you were not always spot on with the 135mm focus. Overall, I think the 100mm is a fantastic lens, but usefullness at location is quite limited due to speed and consequently background blur (elimination). The only challange with 135mm could be the limited space you have available to take upperbody or full body shots.

07:44 - the smooth background is PHENOMENAL on the 135mm

I have the A-Mount 135mm STF and it's a beautiful lens, takes amazing pictures but like someone mentioned below, the EXIF data is frustrating because it measures in T stops. It's also a pain in the ass to use due to the loss of light transmission, not to mention the fact that it's a manual focusing lens so doing anything with a moving subject is virtually impossible.

1st and second set I preferred the the colours by a mile with the 100mm and I could live with the background focus,I preferred the colours on the 3rd on the 135mm but the rest on the 100mm. After post edits I think I’d get a better result on the 100mm. Had I not seen this video I would probably overlooked the 100mm for the 135mm but after seeing the warmth in the.100mm which has surprised me.after all I’d probably crop in to the head and lose the background defocus and I can always do my edits none destructively and come back to them if I change my mind.

As much as I appreciate this comparison, in which I had been thinking to hit the purchase button on the 100mm STF for almost 2 years. The 5.6T stop stopped me. When going out to shoot portraits, as much as I love the balls compared to other portrait lens, but is quite difficult to always get the balls due to situations, like I don't always go to places where there's light bulbs or similar that can create the balls. Hence I went with 135mm GM without any hesitation when I first tried back in Dec 2019 and got the lens in Mar 2020. The shallow depth of field in 1.8 is second to none, and the extra light is handy.

Adding a comment because I haven't seen it mentioned. I would really like to see the 100mm vs an 85mm. I think that the 135mm is giving too much compression for it to be super comparable (or said another way, you could probably find a use for both). Also, in my opinion, I think that the 100mm STF is a solution looking for a problem. It's a great lens but at a t-stop of 5.6 when are you going to get to show off all that great bokeh? This design would be wonderful as a superfast lens like 1.4 where you could actually take advantage of the great-looking bokeh in a portrait. I can imagine the STF being useful for something like architectural photos where you can stretch out the shutter speed but at 100mm it's hard to find practical applications.

Sigma 105 vs 135 Sony. 😁👍

I don’t own either of these lenses, but if I would have to pick one it would be the 135 any day. It just gives you more options in my opinion. If you want to obliterate the background you can do with the 135 at F1.8, if you don’t want that you could always stop down. The other way it’s not possible, the 100 is kinda limited, let alone shoots in low light.

As you mentioned in the second-to-last comparison, where the 100 STF seems to shine is in scenarios where you want the subject to pop, yet also have a background that you'd like to preserve in a clearly recognizable form. If you want to just obliterate the background, then it's no contest that the 135 is better.

The real way to compare is to match the f stop?

I prefer the 135mm. IMHO, it’s much more versatile just due to the higher range of apertures and resulting DoF. Miguel mentions the 135 being out of focus in some shots, but he’s not comparing the same focal ratios. Of course, as mentioned in other comments, you really have to prefer the “flattening” effect of one over the other - the 135 will make the subject’s face look a little “fatter/wider” due to the compression of the longer focal length. Personal preference, neither here nor there. I’m such a fan of the 135mm GM that I’m considering selling my 70-200mm because paired with my a7r IV and the fact that with APSC crop, I effectively have 135-200m range with the 135 GM. Since I bought the 135mm, the 70-200mm has just been collecting dust at the back of the shelf. YMMV! Nonetheless, Miguel did a great job with the video and I enjoyed, as always.

Big difference between shooting apertures f5.6 to f1.8 in terms of sharpness what in focus. F 5.6 you'll have more area of in focus as to f1.8 less focus area and fall off. Love the STF 100mm, for tight head shots, but the 135mm is my pick over low light conditions whether it's head shots to full body shots portraits. Be very interesting if Sony will make a 105mm f1.4 G master that will change everything, between 100mm and 135mm.

I prefer the 135mm f1.8 GM, they just look more real to me . The STM has never tested as sharp as the 135mm f1.8 GM. Something about the STM images doesn't look real,interesting effect, but not real to this career photojournalist. And the loss of light down to a T-stop of f5.6 really is a handicap for that lens IMHO. Thanks for your efforts Miguel. It was nice to meet you in person at WPPI in Vegas back in February. I love my 135mm f1.8 GM on my A7RIV and A9, just stunning IQ. Cheers

Very nice never seen so much of details ...135 stunning....

This is an excellent review. However when it comes to sharpness, the huge glass in 135mm that creates a f1.8 aperture is obviously different from what it takes optically to create a f2.8 lens. So this is a review between Apple and an orange. Also the application of these two lenses are different (to achieve smooth focus) than simply shooting portraits.

I bought the 100mm STF but quickly realized the correct lens for me was the 135 f/1.8. I returned the 100 and bought the 135 f/1.8. Bokeh on the 135 is round at f/2.8. I feel like a better comparison would be to shoot the 135 at f/2.8. I understood how the STF worked, but was frustrated by even the EXIF data saying f/5.6. I think Sony should have called this lens the 100mm f/5.6 with bokeh like f/2.8. The 100 is not f/2.8 in any other way. I have been very happy with the 135. I think that lens offers the best flexibility. Universally in your comparison photos here, I preferred the images from the 135 f/1.8.

The T stop affect the DOF or just the light initially ? it seems like the DOF of the 100mm is more than 2.8.

I understand that photographers interested in deciding between two or more lenses need as much information as possible to determine whether one meets their needs or requirements. Although you compared quite a few images, I don’t think you did justice to the 100mm STF lens. It’s such a unique lens that there really aren’t any other lenses that are comparable. For an outdoor portrait photographer it gives you such a unique look and character to the portrait. No where in this review did you really show off how unique and different it is. I own both as well as the 85mm f1.4 GM and each has its own character, but none that stands out in its ability like the 100mm STF. Unfortunately not even Sony has taken the effort to advertise this lens and show it off for what it can do. All anyone does in reviews anymore is compares the sharpness and bokeh. Well it has both in spades but it has to be used in a unique light for it to shine and then shine it does.

Thanks for this very informative video. I am really impressed with the 135...just one question? Model's face is noticeable wider on the 135mm when I watch it on a 65 inch OLED TV, does the 100mm make her face look narrowed or the 135mm adds width. Obviously the model is absolutely stunning either way but most people aren't nearly as blessed as she is. Please advise. Thanks. New fan..

It looks to my eye that the focus point is slightly different in the first comparison. Eyes sharper on 135, yet the chin is sharper on the 100. That suggests slightly differs plane of focus or slight focus variation.. If true then the other comparisons are also suspect as it relates to a sharpness comparisons. Splitting hairs with a portrait as such high magnification.

Even though the lens reports an F-stop (rather than a T-stop) of 5.6 in Lightroom for the 100mm STF lens, you _were_ shooting wide open at F/2.8 (ie T5.6) weren't you? As a matter of interest, what F-number is displayed in the EVF/monitor for each division on the lens's aperture ring?

Especially in the first set, her face was a bit fuller with the 135, which to me actually seemed more natural. Which one is actually closer to her real shape?

I actually have both lenses and use them for different purposes. To get the silky smooth bokeh many like from the 85 GM I use the 135 GM since I like the compression more. Vs the 100 GM it also allows you much easier shooting at concerts or in areas where not too much light is available. The 100 GM shines when I do group portraits with a "difficult" focus plane and still want to get a blurry background or when I have many lights in the background (I don't like cats-eyes despite having cats :D). If you just want to afford one of them, I'd definitely recommend the 135 as it's more versatile imo

Thank you for the comparison. I am still in the decision process to get the 135mm GM or not as an addition for my 85mm GM. Looks like the 135mm GM missed the focus a few times. However I like the 135mm photos with the pleasing Bokeh. Furthermore the T-stop of 5.6 is definitely a downer of the 100mm STF GM.

The 135 flattens out the subject's face a lot -- almost unnaturally so, and I can't get past that... I prefer the 100mm focal length to the 135 for portraits (and I prefer the 85mm focal length to the 100mm, for the same reason).

Are the white balances the same? Her skin & sweater look much more orange in the STF.

23:39 "This is corona, here, in the background" Oh no, poor Miguel!

@5:14 the 100mm had more detail and sharper where the 135mm was softer around the eye lashes

No sabes cuánto agradezco tu excelente video. Me parece una soberbia Master Class. Mi maestro de fotografía fue Horacio Coppola (1906-2012) marido de la fotógrafa alemana Grete Stern. Coppola formó parte del movimiento Bauhaus creado por Walter Gropius hace cien años. He asistido a muchas clases de fotografía. Nunca, en mis 68 años, he visto un análisis tan excelente, una comparativa de lentes tan didáctica y tan competentemente asistida por toda esta maravillosa teconología actual. En 35 mm todavía no se ha inventado nada mejor que un 135 mmn para hacer un buen retrato. Encontrar este video tuyo ha sido un muy grato descubrimiento. Le he dado click a todo, campana incluída.

Model's face is fatter with the 135. No one mentioned this. I'm neutral about it but I wonder how the rest of you feel about it.

I feel like this video needs to be rendered in a proper codec and reuploaded. Tons of artifcats and also 4k would be nice.

Happy with my 135 :D

Isn't the STF all about to have a less shallower depth of field and still have a reasonably smooth bokeh? In some of the 135mm shoots the neck and the ears were already out of focus and the blurry jumper started to irritate me. If I look at your photos the STF did exactly what it is supposed to do. The 135 is clearly the more versatile lens, while the STF is a more difficult to handle, special purpose lens, which in the right light conditions creates stunning results. IMHO I would have looked more at those differences than making this kind of unequal comparison. The closeup function of the 100 STF is amazing too. All this G Master lenses put a big dent into your budget and therefore the 85 1.4 or 135 1.8 are the more versatile lenses to buy. If one has the spare cash left, the 100 STF is a great special lens. Would I buy it again? Probably not because I don't use it too often. Would I sell it? No, because the results when used are so nice...

First you say that you want a "less sharp" lens than the 90G Macro (which makes no sense, to be honest). And then you go pixel-peeping the hell out these two non-macro lenses for some reason :). Searching for the blur? :) Which rises the question - What did you actually mean by "less sharp"? Well, sharper lenses tend to produce less pleasing bokeh (due to larger amount of glass elements). Is that what you mean? Or are you talking about the depth of field? Anyways, I would go with the 135GM, because it's faster and offers more DoF control, while perfect in every way. (BTW) The model is very beautiful and no lens can spoil it :).

Unfortunately there is no combination of these lenses. Where's the Sony 105mm f1.4 GM? Yes, we've got the Sigma, but it's so huge and HEAVY that I leave it at home most of the time. It is possible to create a smaller and lighter version of a 105mm f1.4 lens. Nikon did it for Nikon F mount.

135mm ! Keep em coming :)

I like the 135 overall, thanks for the review!

Hey !!! Which picture profile did u use for this shoots

Thanks, good A vs B vid. I currentlly use the 85mm f1.8 or a zoom for portraits. Had wondered about an upgrade to 85mm f1.4GM? Prefer primes, but hard to ignore flexibility of zooms. Had thought I was going to seriously consider a 100mm STF, but here I prefer most of the 135mm shots. One downside of 135 for portraits is working distance, which pretty much renders it an outdoor lens for all bar headshots. Yet the way 135/f1.8 creams any distant background is a pretty compelling reason why 135 is now a serious consideration. Think I will have to buy one. Also love that it may effectively mean I don't need to lug a 70-200 on some travel shoots as I can use 135 FE or crop on a7r4 to APSC (either in-camera or edit/crop in post) for effective 200mm. Will remind me of my early Nikon days (film in 90's) when my 2nd lens was a compact 135mm.

To me the 135 Has an appealing look to her face. in the sense Her face has more depth . Clears throat watching video via iPhone sneakers. I’m seriously thinking about getting the 135G master along with the a 7R iv . At the moment I have a Sony a 99 and a 99II

Watching this, I'll take the Sony SAL 135mm F/1.8 Zeiss A-Mount anytime over an STF 2.8 lens.

I think you totally missed the point of apodized lens. It's not about sharpness or color rendering. It's design to provide smoother bokeh. It's not even designed to give more bokeh. Just smoother. Read up on apodization. Please. And either way, thank you for putting in the hard work of making this video!

how is video focus on the 135mm?

Why didn’t you shoot both lenses ar the same aperture?

I only own the 135and it's a great lens with awesome bokeh especially with electronic front curtain turned off for ultimate bokeh creaminess. I wouldn't get the 100 just because of round bokeh balls, the 5.6 fstop is not appealing to me.

135 all the way on all the images. If you want to show off more of the background, you can always stop it down. The 135 is sharper, has way more details, and just looks better.

I'm surprised that you don't look at the very different compression the 135 creates. It makes her face look a lot more flat/fat. I do believe that the 100 mm images appear a lot more natural and flattering for that reason. DOF is not everything.

135 all the way. Background blur so much better even when stopped down. Newer lens so the tech is a little better in this lens as well. Focal length is better for me as well, I have the 85, so the 100 wasn’t a great option for me. Adding the 135 to my collection of GM glass gives me better range and greater compression. Great video

You could SMELL Julianna in your photos. That’s how good these photos are. Smelling good. Real good.

Both are impressive lenses. The 135mm F1.8 GM is probably My favourite Sony lens to date.

Great

Video starts at 2:44

well, it's green/yellowish on the 100, but we get it, you cannot be too nasty. Wouldn't it be funny that all the greenish tint "color science" of Sony was actually a lens problem all along? :)

135mm all the way. Sharper and the option to have all that background blur. You can always stop down the lens when you don't want that much blur. The detail, the better colour on some of the images (especially the first comparison). 2 great lenses, but one is clearly better.

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 Absolutely incredible!!!

135 wins 💪🏼

f5.6 vs f1.8 .. no wonder the left one looked sharper by a lot :)

The 2.8 is not a 2.8 it is 5.6 t stop. Most important first detail

I just discovered this 100mm Lens and its beyond me how can one buy this. Its the same price as 85f1.4 and 135f1.8. No point buying f2.8 Lens in the price of 1.8 what a joke.

135mm

You have an STF lens and you do not STF. Why not? What's the point of buying this lens if you do not use its special skills? Looks as if the 135mm would be a better idea. but the STF should be tested against other 100mm lenses. You did not even frame them to the same enlargement. I wish to see someone who knows STF doing what it does. This is not your specialty.

Sigma 135 f1.8 is better than them both xD

the unexpensive 85 f1.8😅

wonderful lady, but today most hot subject is corona virus.

The shallow depth of field of 135 makes the face blurry. The 100mm Wins.

She's like a Sarah Jessica Parker.. but pretty.

ARE YOU OKAY??? f2.8=f5.6 light.....??? Prove it....This video for...trash bin!!! MY opinion!!!