The lenses used in this video Sony 85mm 1.4GM: amzn.to/2ynUOxf Sigma 135mm 1.8: bhpho.to/2NO7RP1 Sigma 105mm 1.4: amzn.to/2yoPk5d Sony 70-200 2.8GM: amzn.to/2RzbOcz Which was your favorite and why?
Dear I am from Pakistan All of this my favourites that is why I have no any Dslr and Mirrorless Camera but I always like Sony E Mount Cameras like Sony A6000 Sony A7
135mm f/1.8 Art- I can't afford to own them all but did sell my outstanding Sony 85mm f1.8 once I picked up the 135. The 135's sharpness, color and focus accuracy are fantastic and the bokeh's pure magic.
If you have time, add a backlight scenario to this because while the sigma 105 1.4 is superior in bokeh power to the Sony 85 1.4GM I suspect it doesn't handle flaring as well (based on your previous video). This is often an overlooked thing that will have a bigger effect on your picture than that slight bokeh power.
I have the 85, 105, 135 and 70-200. The last two are heavy as heck. I love the bokeh of 105 but heavy and bulky so I end up using 85 like 70-80% of the time unless I need something special which I use the 105 Sigma for.
Interesting comparison! My feeling is they all look great and if you didn't have all those lenses available, whatever lens you use would give you gorgeous results and you'd make work. So pick one and enjoy!
Having 85, 105, 135 and 200mm in one lens is just so good, having ability to change perspective, composition, compression etc by just using a zoom ring instead of changing lenses! But prime is prime and will be always better in terms of image quality.
I waited months to save up and acquire the Sony GMaster 85mm 1.4 as my first lense on my A7Rii. The focus was sludge, but the portraiture shots on that thing are yet to be beat by any other lenses I have gotten since then. Thanks for the video sir!
I just sold my Canon 6D along with my canon 50, 85 and 135 lenses and got an a7iii and Sony FE 85 f/1.8 after renting that kit for a week, love it. Also picked up the 50 f/1.8 and will be adding the Sigma 135 soon. The 85 is my favorite for studio work and its on my camera the majority of the time. I use the 50 when I am shooting several models together or in tighter spots and I use the 135 on location. Its brilliant when shooting on the beach for instance. I have had the Canon 70-200 in the past but I dont like zooms for multipole reasons, Im a prime only shooter.
From a practicality standpoint I like to use a 70-200 2.8. You can put on teleconverters and turn them into sports and wildlife lenses. Much better for run and gun than primes. But I also like to have a smaller lightweight prime as well. Much more pleasant to work with while shooting portraits. Don't have to deal with the weight.
That 135 1.8 is just mazing,so sharp and i like that bokeh really smooth like it make haze come at there backround and yes that so beautiful Kayla popup from at there,she is just lovely model ,thanks video its good compare these lenses,because most used at portraits
Thanks for the great comparison Manny! I think out of these lenses, the 85mm GM and the 70-200mm GM are the best. The 85 has the best bokeh and that compression with the 70-200 is so good. I'm getting my A7r3 and the 85mm GM soon and can't wait to use it. Appreciate all your videos, thanks once again!
I've watched as many videos of the Sigma 105/1.4 ART as I can find (including your stand-alone YT review) and the elephant in the room has been the weight of this lens. Otherwise everyone who has reviewed it thinks that its a stellar lens. I guess no one should complain about its weight when they buy it - that part is well established. Hoping to own one someday!!
my 70-200 G Master will be here tomorrow!! the truth is that video where you compared the 85 with the 70-200 a while back is what caught my eye on the 70-200, and several months later i am finally able to afford it. thanks.
I love the look of my Nikon 85 f/1.4D but I'm thinking about the Sony 85 when I go mirrorless and appreciate this review. I'd have a hard time choosing between the lenses you tested.
Great video, I just received my Sony A7iii today and because of your videos I just ordered my first lens on this system. I went with the Sigma art 135mm 1.8 e-mount. I'm doing a Quinceñera this weekend and can't wait to try out my new gear.
In dilemma, 105 or 135. i do alot of low light night time sports photography of run crews and i was thinking which lens is better. longer focal length 1 stop lesser light or shorter focal length with 1 stop more light. Decisions, decisions...
The review that I’ve been waiting for the longest time !!!! I was considering the 85 GM or the 105 Sigma Emount. I’ve been renting the 105 with the MC 11 because the Emount is not out yet and I just love it, weight and all. The bokeh just simply melts it all. Cost wise, between a 2nd hand 85 or a new 105, the difference is not much here... Leaning towards the 105 most definitely.
As someone who has a 85mm and 105mm (though not the Sigma (though I have tried the Sigma)) I would go for the practicality of the G master over the extra bokah of the Sigma. There will come a point when you go, whilst the hell am I carrying around a brick, like the Sigma. My Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Milvus weighs 1.3kg (still 400g less than the Sigma) and more often than not I will go for the lighter Nikkor 105mm f/1.4e (even though optically the Zeiss is better, but it weighs 270g more) and the Sony 85mm weighs, just over, half as much as the Sigma 105mm
Michael Laing hi. Thanks. I’ve bought the 105 since and I absolutely love it. The only issue to your point is the weight. It’s awesome for shots of wedding and events, but I made a terrible mistake bringing it for my hols to Israel (I’m actually now in the middle of it) and it’s been in my bag as I don’t use that length often during travels. I’m already lamenting on why i brought with me for its weight and size. Hopefully I’d be able to put into good use when I’m in Jerusalem later on.
Thank you sir! This is very good comparison of something many of us are wondering about. My 2c - 105 and longer allow to shoot very close i.e. beauty shots with little face distortion. 85 when comming very close starts to distort a bit, So definitely something longer than 85 should be available though for limited cases. .... It could be 105 macro ....
I own the 85/1.4 GM, the e-mount Sigma 105/1.4, the 70-200/2.8 GM and I rented the Sigma 135/1.8. I really really like the 85/1.4 GM but there is just something VERY special about the 105/1.4...it is just razor RAZOR sharp wide open. As is the 85 but I feel the 105 is even sharper which is a scary thought...LOL. The 135/1.8 is just as sharp but I really like the focal length of the 105 over the 135 for portrait work, it's a nice "happy medium." Yes the 105 is a big heavy lens but I just rigged up a Peak Design Leash to the tripod collar which makes it very nice to carry over the should and take the weight off of the mount.
I shoot fashion and beauty and I'm by no means a super professional, big name photographer but I have been using a 24-70 and 70-200 for about 2 years now and I've started to move to primes. I use my 55mm 1.4 Zeiss for probably 70% of my compositions, my 24mm GM for those rare occasions where I need to compose wide and I just recently started looking at 85, 100 and 135 lenses to replace my 70-200 but I've quickly found out that since my main lens is a 55mm, the 85mm focal length doesn't really offer anything special compared to the 55mm and I'm not really getting that much closer with it either so for me it was a fight between either the 105mm Sigma or the 135mm GM! I have just decided I will order the 135mm GM because I really don't like how Sigma makes things in the image look... It's hard to explain, it's like I would focus on the model but then everything around the model would be one dimensional and flat, like you couldn't tell how far stuff was from each other, like for example, if you had two cars one behind another, they would literally just look like you glued two car stickers on top of each other, whereas when I tried the 135mm GM, it would make everything look 3D, just like my 55mm Zeiss Otus does and I LOVE THAT kind of look because it reminds me of those old film and cinema lenses! Plus it looks more realistic because it's not just a flat image and for fashion and beauty shots that's SUUUPER useful and makes the model stand out from the environment even at f8, f11 or f16! And the 135mm focal length is MUCH BETTER for head, head n shoulder, waist up, close up and detail beauty shots, since I use 55mm for basically everything else!
105mm f/1.4 That's my dream focal length & aperture combo. The working distance is perfect all the while getting that shallow depth of field and low light. For how I shoot, a 105mm f/1.4 is more versatile than a 85mm f/1.2 & 135mm f/1.8. It has the best of both worlds. Unlike a 35mm f/1.2, which never seems to isolate the subject enough like a 50mm f/1.2 nor is it wide enough like a 24mm f/2.8. A 35mm seems more of a compromise where as a 105mm is "the sweet spot" or "best of both worlds" type of lens.
I'm before buying sigma lenses, which one will be the best - mainly outdoor portrait sessions, I'm thinking about 105 and 135mm, which one will be the best?
Great video...I can't believe you finally uploaded a video in 4k! (and yes, there is a difference even with RU-vid compression). The 135mm looks the best to me.
After I got an 85mm f1.8 it has been my go-to portrait lens and my 50mm f1.4 has been collecting dust in a drawer somewhere. But after seeing the performance of that 105mm that was freaking awesome.
85mm (or any FF equivalent) is kinda all rounder for portraits, especially great for portrait shots in tight spaces, 135mm is already too tight in that manner except for head shots maybe. But I,m really melting on those rare occasions when I'm able to steal / borrow the 300mm f2,8; in that regard I totally agree with Ken...
Really like the 105mm 1,4, but as you said: That's a monster of a lens. I probably will wait a year and see if somebody else can offer that focal length in smaller.
3 years later and counting. I say go for it if you all ready bring lots of gear to a shoot. I just keep a spider belt holster attachment on the tripod mount and holster it and my a7r3 every time I'm not actively shooting. It's also an underrated street photography lens, you just have to bring the right sling bag and or holster.
Hard choice between them, loved the 135 more I think. I started with the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens and love it to death and got a rokinon 50mm next... I am more film then photos...
Love the video man!. I do want the 135mm sigma so bad, but i also have a Canon 135mm L lens that i use with Mc11 adapter. My biggest question is, is it really worth to get this Sigma Lens vs Canon 135mm L?... I still shoot canon tho. (I am torn).
Is there any way you can make a vid about flash photography for beginners? I’ve been wanting to get into it but have no clue about flash photography, like what equipment I should get, what settings I should use, and what’s the best flash set ups.
Hi Manny I absolutely love your videos and I bought the 85mm off the back of watching your videos. If possible I would love to see a video of you going through all the menu settings that you use and how to set them on the Sony. I find on my a7ii it can get a bit overwhelming at times so a tutorial on how to set them up and what custom button settings you use for better photos would be amazing thank you so much 🙏🙏
The difference was very very minimal. I guess it's more about room to work and compression of the scene than anything else. You can shoot very nice portraits with any of these, but if you don't have room the 135 and 200 become too big fast (at least for full body). But a 200 can compress the background heavily so you can take beautiful shots where there is only a strip of nature or field.
The difference between 85 and 135 is absolutely massive. I don't think your eye is tuned enough if you think it's minimal. Especially in practice, at different angles, it changes the character of the face and mood of scenes quite massively.
I watched it again on my tv to see the details better. The effect is less noticeable because you don't see her ears. Maybe the type of shots, model and hairstyle don't really show you how big the differences can be. If you see the differences, kudos to you. I guess I'm not on your level. To me the differences in facial compression in this video are minimal (The background compression is obvious). Her features with her unturned nose and protruding lips stay almost equal because of the slightly different shot, position, facial expression. But if I can hardly tell, do you think your client can? I've seen better examples of the facial compression effect. Not showing the pictures side by side, only for a few seconds. I need to pauze the video and look at it very detailed to see the differences in the face between every step up in focal length. The effect here from 85 to 105 and from 105 to 135 is very very small. Yes from 85 to 135 is bigger. That's 1,5 times the distance. Btw the 85mm headshot had a focus on her nose, so only one eye is sharp in the depth of field. For the headshots the differences are most noticeable, but even then quite hard for me when comparing one step up in focal lengths each time. I guess I need to take more pictures.
I always find it interesting to see when people have the level displayed in the viewfinder, I'd find it so distracting and annoying it'd be the first thing I'd turn off haha.
Thanks for the review! I think I'm going with the 135mm save a few dollars and really the client won't know the difference if there is any. These lenses look amazing and you can't go wrong either way.
I am aware that this is specifically about Sony, but it is possible to use adapters... the ultimate portrait lens is the Canon 200mm f2. I know it costs an arm and a leg to buy it and so it is rare as hen’s teeth, but it is a lens I love, and well worth having to hop around minus some limbs :) It is one of the two sharpest lenses made by Canon (the other being the 300 f2.8) plus that f2 at 200 is the same as around f1 at 105mm or 0.75 at 85mm or f1.4 at 135mm. The extra blur is noticeable, and combined with extreme sharpness gives stunning portrait rendering. I love 200mm as a portrait length and in studio it is a great length. I use the 70-200 2.8 constantly in studio work, and am always amazed that the 85 tradition that grew because good teles were hard to make in earlier times and that 85 is ‘the’ portrait length continues into our current era when lens excellence is now found at all focal lengths and lens choice should now be made for purely artistic reasons. 85 only became the standard because it was the longest commonly available tele, but there was always the recognition that longer focal lengths produced more flattering renditions and came with a depth of field advantage. Now 200mm is often liked because it is the longest length where the lens is still relatively easy to hand hold.
I will go for the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM ! I have it and can very highly recommended it. The Sigma 105 and 135 are too big and heavy. A very good alternative are the Samyang AF 135mm 1.8
I shoot with the Sony 85mm 1.4 Gmaster and the Sigmas 105mm F1.4. The problem with the Sigma is the flare shooting with the sun behind the model. It is so bad. Anything backlit, I use the 85mm.
85 1.4 GM aka the "Butter Maker"...Size is perfect and like you said, these lenses are pretty much indistinguishable for full body shots, but with the 85 you have a way better working distance and interaction with the model. Interaction with the model = she's more comfortable = she evokes better emotion = your results turn out better. I would love to have the 135 1.8 as well, but if I could only afford one of these, which is true at the moment (LOL) it would be the 85 GM that I own, especially since I'm trying to start doing more studio work in addition to my on location work.
I use an Nikon 135F2 AI-s (Manual focus) on an DX camera and i love it... i cant wait to use in a Sony a7III with Focus peaking... (in DX is a little "long" because the crop factor but it will be perfect in Full Frame for me). Thanks for this video Manny... You are great.
I have the 200mm 2.8 and the working distance has just exhausted me. It’s not as versatile because you have to have it at the 175mm sweet spot and trying to get full frame at that distance is not easy. Now I’m trying to decide on 85mm, 105mm, or 135mm. I love compression and 3D pop, but after owning the 200mm, I’m not sure I can deal with another heavy lens. I’m most likely going with 85, because it’s a pretty awesome lens for street photography as well. Couple with 35/50mm, and you have most of it handled.
I’ve been wanting to see this comparison for quite some time now, great video! The only lens I don’t own yet is the 105. Not sure if I’ll be able to stop myself from buying it even if it’s so comparable to the 135.
