Sigma 85mm vs 135mm ART | Part 2: Bokeh and Rendering
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 жов 2024
- Sigma 85mm vs 135mm ART | Part 2: Bokeh and Rendering | In this episode photographer Dustin Abbott shares Part 2 of a comparison between the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART - a highly anticipated new lens - vs the highly desirable Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART lens released late last year. Take a look at the bokeh quality, the overall rendering, and a breakdown of which lens might work better for you. Visit the Image Gallery: bit.ly/135ARTig | See the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART Review: bit.ly/2gIt0sy | Purchase the 135 ART - B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2omypKq | Amazon: amzn.to/2pfYpLF | Amazon.ca: amzn.to/2omoRiu
Zhiyun Crane - USA: bhpho.to/2gDJhnC - Europe: bit.ly/2fWMWbQ
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Ebay: bit.ly/DustineBay
Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI
Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: bit.ly/LuminarDLA
Become a Patron: / dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: on. 1nuUUeH | Twitter: bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu
My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2D6ibNO or Amazon: amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2HyWIyt or Amazon: amzn.to/2s1vYE0
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2FA00la or Amazon amzn.to/2G2kaEr
Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: bhpho.to/2N3MtZV
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Sigma 135 ART, Sigma 135mm ART, Sigma 135mm f/1.8, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART, Sigma 135mm Review, Sigma 135 ART Review, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART, Comparison, Test, Sharpness, Dustin Abbott, Photography, 2017, Bokeh, Vignette, Chromatic Aberration, Video Test, Sample Images, Photos, Real World, Hands On, Photo Gallery, Review,
Great comparison. Thanks a lot.
My pleasure.
Really helpful video, thank you so much!
Glad it was helpful!
Such an excellent resource, these reviews and comparisons.
Glad to help!
Thank you bro
No problem
thanks
You're welcome!
It will be nice to show pictures taken side by side with the Sigma and Zeiss lenses to see how they compare.
You can see some of that in the image galleries.
Thanks I will 😉
thanks for the excellent review... if price not matters which one do you recommend , canon 135mm f2 vs sigma art 135mm f1.8... my interests are bokeh and colour rendition.. thanks
Hmmm, The Sigma is definitely sharper, but I'm not sure the overall rendering is better. I would probably go with the Sigma because it is a more modern lens, though.
Hi Dustin, did you calibrate the sigma lenses? I have 135 and I haven't had a problems so far, ( except the slower focusing in compare with the nikon lenses) I was wondering do I have to do calibration in order to get more sharpness.
I did calibrate them. At that point it was part of the review process.
@@DustinAbbottTWI the calibrating seems to be very complicated, can I just use the full potential of my sigma lenses without calibration. I have 24-105, 40mm, and 135
That depends on if you are getting consistent focus accuracy out of the box with them.
Great review as usually. Thanks
You're welcome.
What about buying 85mm and Buy 1 Full frames camera and 1 apsc camera
So 85mm become 136 on apsc canon camera?
That's correct.
Which one will you recommend
Sigma 85mm f 1.4
Sigma 105mm f 1.4
Sigma 135mm f1.8 art
the best lens comparision methodology and insights I've seen!
Thank you!
Great Review... Can't thank you enough... Just a quick question, if you already have a 70-200mm f/2.8 , which one would you prefer buying, 85mm 1.4 or 135mm 1.8? which lens would give more edge and bang over 70-200 zoom? talking about outdoor couples portrait shooting...
If you are shooting outdoor, go for the the 135mm. It will create a more unique look, and you usually have enough room outside.
What a time we are living in where we are comparing such minute details such as the bokeh balls. I honestly would have never been able to notice it.
It's true that a lot of the fine details are where lenses are separated. Kind of like modern cars, there aren't really too many bad ones.
I have neither and was simply looking for something that was a step up to my Nikon 105 f2.8 which I use for both macro and headshot/portrait work. I am leaning towards the Sigma 85 because of the versatility factor. It would be both a great portrait lens and good as my walk around lens. I wanted something that would also give me better/smoother bokeh so you made my choice more difficult by mentioning that the 135 will always appear to have nicer bokeh obviously because of background compression.
+cavedroid An 85mm is a poor macro lens, even with extension tubes. The 135mm is a better choice for that
+Dustin Abbott You misunderstood. I am keeping my 105 for macro work but I want the Sigma 85 or 135 in addition for portrait work and an extra walk around lens. I was saying it's tough to pick what the next lens should be since A. The 85 is more versatile because of it's focal length but B. The 135, based on what you were saying, in the video will give better bokeh .
+cavedroid Wow, I don't know that I'd recommend either as a "walk around" lens. They are both large and heavy. You've summed up my main points, but watch next week - I've filmed an episode that breaks down the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Thanks, I'll be on the lookout for it.
Very good review! Thank you! Out of these 2 lenses I think I'd prefer the 135mm. But what are your thoughts about the Canon 85mm 1.2 vs the Sigma 135mm 1.8? Does that extra f stop on the 85mm makes that much difference?
It really depends on what you are doing. f/1.2 is really, really bright, but the autofocus is slower on that lens. It isn't as good in a technical way, but it does have beautiful rendering.
Thank you very much!
Advice for the sigma art 135mm 1.8 vs Samyang 135mm f2!?
📸🎯
How good are you at manual focus? The Samyang is a great budget alternative, but only if you are good at manual focus.
Im good... I have almost all the Samyang lens... In my bag... But curious... To have youre advice of the final quality image... Of both... Autofocus or not... 📸🎯
If that is the case, then go with the Samyang. It's very close in sharpness and has a little better rendering/color, I think
Nice! Thanks you... You do very good job... 📸👌☮️
Great review! Your videos are a delight.
That's kind - thank you!
Hi Dustin! Nice review!! What if you compare the backgrounds of a 135 mm art and the 70-200 2.8 is ii from canon? The more mm will beat the aperture of the sigma in terms of the blur background?
At 10 feet the 200mm f/2.8 of the Canon will produce a very slightly more shallow DOF (0.13 vs 0.18 feet). My experience says that the prime lenses will often produce a little less busy background (smoother) due to being optimized for one focal length.
Dustin Abbott thanks!!
Thank you again for the review. I'm planning on making a new purchase. Your reviews have helped with understanding what I am ultimately looking for once I've made my purchase. I have one question. I am currently using a Canon 80D, I do mostly outdoor portraits. Eventually I will upgrade to a fullframe. Which lens would you recommend the 85mm art or the 135mm art?
+Bao Nguyen If the key word is "eventually", I would definitely go with the 85. A 135mm lens is really long on a APS-C camera.
I've got both and do like the 135 more.
I agree, in an absolute sense, although in actual shooting an 85mm focal length is more versatile. It's all about what you are shooting and where you are shooting it.
Yes I also find 135 Art having more consistent autofocus performance as well.
Interesting. I'm going to do a comparison there, but haven't done it yet.
I have both as well , the AF on the 135 is definitely better, it is my first art lens I can trust it to nail focus on my D810, I find it is cleaner and shaper than the 85 and doesn't suffer from color fringing yet the 85 when stopped down to 2.8 and up is nothing to complain about.
I have to agree with Dustin that the Zeiss is in general has a better total rendering and color.
Yet manual focusing is not an option when you are using current high mega pixel DSLR.
I had the Milvus 135 and 85 for a short while and my keeper rate was simply unacceptable.
thanks a lot for your helpful videos and valuable infos.
You're welcome.
Hi I find the same about the color rendition. Many old lenses have this magic and or character in them but they fail in the numeric part of the equation (resolution, aberration, distortion etc). The Zeiss are magnificent in the test bed and unique in the artistic side.
Exactly. I love the color rendition of a number of my vintage lenses, but they are also a bit "dreamy" at wide apertures. Most of the time it is only Zeiss that nails both ends of the spectrum, but price + MF makes them out of reach for many shooters.
Great comparison. It perfectly answered the question that had formed in my head, regarding the bokeh after stepping closer with the 85 to make the subject equal in size.
Glad it helped out.
Milvus 85mm or the Milvus 135mm wltch renders better and ls sharper lm guessing the 135 Milvus has better lq then the slgma 135 and rendering ?
I'm a big fan of the Milvus 135 (I've added one to my own kit). You can see that comparison in my final review.
ok thanks l shall look for lt
Great review, pls help us do comparison between sigma 135mm f1.8 and Canon 135mm f2L for both sharpness and Bokeh auto focus for us thanks in advance 😊
I'm afraid I don't have the Canon on hand, and the Sigma goes back to Sigma next week.
Can you link me to a video or article with samples?
Two fine lenses from Sigma but I prefer the 135 mm focal length for outdoor use. I'm curious on how you would compare the Sigma 135 to the Rokinon 135 mm in overall performance, just an off the cuff opinion would be fine unless you have a more detailed information readily available. And thank you for sharing this review.
The Sigma is obviously easier to use due to having autofocus, and also has the superior build. On the negative it is heavier and more expensive. They are probably close in terms of raw resolution, though the Samyang might have a slight edge in color rendition...but that's hard to say without having them side by side. You will probably get more "keepers" with the Sigma and it is the more practical lens.
Dustin please compare 135 art vs Canon 135 f2 thanks
I'm afraid not. I don't have a 135L on hand, and the Sigma goes back next week.
ooh I want to buy
perviously I bought 85mm art but unfortunately I broke it
it fall from my hand and due to it's weight it got so much damage :/
now I am looking for to buy new lens
I am confused which one to get 85 art or 135
PS I am wedding and fashion Photographer and wedding in my country are 90% indoor
Sometimes a 135mm can be a little long indoors. It really depends on the size of the venue. I tend to stick with a 70-200 when shooting events for that reason.
Dustin Abbott I am using sigma 70-200 mm
mostly and 50mm art
If you have a 70-200, then you might try the the 135mm to give you a unique wide open look.
Hi Dustin love the detailed reviews you do! Everyone else always talks about sharp sharp sharp, and you go into depth about other very important things like color, and rendering! Any possibility for a color rendering (overall performance) between the Zeiss Milvus 135 and the Sigma 135? Thanks again!
That may just make it into the final review. Stay tuned :)
Really great job again Dustin! i was looking forward to the 2nd installment and you did not disappoint. Thanks so much!
I'm glad to hear that. I hate to disappoint :)
I vote for 135!
LOL.
Fantastic review! Very thorough and detailed! Those image samples of the canon 135 are gorgeous!
To be fair, those have been processed while all the other images have not since they come out of my existing catalog.
Honestly for me what I like about the 85 is the field curvature that it has compared to the 135. I was indecisive between both but ended up with the 85 after watching this..amazing review nonetheless!!
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks, Dustin!
+I. D. Welcome!
Dustin I always enjoy your reviews , just a couple of questions , I have the Tamron 70 - 200mm g2 lens , how does it stack up for background blur and sharpness at 200mm f2.8 against this lens? also I have the samyang 135mm f2 , it the sharpest lens I own but what I have realized is manual focus lenses are very limited in they use and the amount of shots you miss far out ways the sharpness quality - would this not be the same for Carl zeis lenses ?
The 200mm f/2.8 will create more background blur because of compression. The quality of the bokeh/blur is a little better with the Sigma lens, but not incredibly.
Thanks for your reply , it seems to me at times lenses get made for the sake of consumerism and that in most situations a photographer only need 3 high quality lenses at min - middle - midextreme lengths . If you own a decent 70- 200mm zoom , 24 - 70 mmand maybe a ultra wide zoom then really unless you print at a ridiculous size with a 40 plus mega pixel camera then what's the point in it all ? I know this statement won't sit well with some photography junkies but the reality is that zooms are becoming so good now that why bother with all this other stuff ?
I understand what you are saying . I'm a fan of prime lenses, myself, as I like the effect of larger apertures than f/2.8, but strictly speaking modern zooms are exceptionally good and good enough for most applications.
hi dustin love your reviews/, how do you compare the sigma 135 to the rokinon 135 f2 lens. which do you recommend for my Nikon camera?
I would recommend the Sigma for most users because it has autofocus.
105 and 135 art
105 is my favorite for portraits.
That's why it's always advisable to read the comments and answers. This was the doubt I was having at this moment; and, even 4 years later, it helped me. Thanks!
If you already own the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, is the 135 redundant? Or will the 135 produce a unique look that the 70-200 cannot achieve?
I own both a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 135, though I have a larger than average kit. I do think that a 135mm does offer a different "look" to images, but it is obviously a luxury.
Autofocus on all ARt lenses are my biggest concern. Right now i Own the 50 and the 35. 50 is trustable as hell. 35 not so much, but I do have to say that the 35 on the 5D Iv body performs much better then in my previous 6D :)
That seems to be improved in recent Sigma lenses, though I find accuracy takes a hit when you move away from the center points.
Great review. I'm not sure I like either one. That squirrel photo was worst case scenario and really I would urge you to shoot that scene in all your lens tests.
Unfortunately that scene only exists at certain times of year - no leaves!
I would love to see a 135mm showdown between all major brands with one lens in the mix - the "poor man's Zeis " Samyang 135mm f2
That will probably only happen if someone releases a new 135mm lens. There are so many new products that it is hard for me to go back and review a bunch of older lenses again. I have done comparisons with the Sigma 135 ART and the Milvus 2/135mm, but not the Samyang (though I did compare that to the Canon 135mm f/2)
Great review. That 135 is really growing on me.
It's a nice lens, to be sure.
Thanks for that, are you going to do a 135L/2.0 vs the 135 Art?
I'm afraid not. I don't have a 135L on hand, and the Sigma goes back next week.
Thank you sir again
the thing is i was at trouble in buying one lens
My options were the tamron g2 70-200 f2.8, the 85 1.4 art and the 135 f1.8 and also other option was nikkor 135 f2
u sir have compared the bokeh of 1st three lenses here
since my concern is majorly i bokeh and shaprness
i think by the end of this series of review I''ll be able to decide myself :)
nobody did this comparison except for u :)
Man, that 135 looks really good. When it comes to my style (especially for outdoor portraiture work) I don't necessarily want a crazy sharp image (not saying the Sigma 135 isn't sharp - just saying it isn't AS razor sharp as some other lenses out there). Sometimes a lens can be "too sharp" - and pick up details on people's faces that they don't want lol ;)
The Canon 135mm L isn't weather sealed? I thought it was...
When it comes to color rendering - do you like the Canon 135 or Sigma 135 better?
I'm pretty tempted to pick up a Canon 85mm f/1.8 considering how cheap they are in the used market. Have you used one of those? If so, how did you like it? It isn't the sharpest lens around but I think it'd be a good buy for me.
Fantastic review, as always!
+James Larsen It's hard for me to be absolutely sure without comparing the Canon and Sigma side by side, but I would say from memory that I like the Canon a bit better for color rendering, though the Sigma is a more complete lens. I used a Canon 85mm f/1.8 for years and felt it was a good "bang for the buck" lens, but the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC isn't a lot more and is better in literally every way...by a long shot.
Ok, Thanks!
The thing I'm considering is that - yes, the Tamron is a lot better - but, for pretty much the same price I can get the Canon 85mm used, and the Tamron 90mm Macro (f017) used, so I'm heavily considering going that route instead.
Ahh, hard to fault that. You can probably sell the Canon for close to what you pay for it if you buy wisely.
I think that's the route I'm going to go. Eventually, when I start bringing in some cash, maybe I can upgrade to the Tamron. For now though, it makes more sense for me to get the Canon 85 and the Tamron Macro (obviously the New version).
Thanks!! Your videos are so helpful and informative.
Daren Miles reports that he thought the Sigma 85mm Art had terrible AF. He loved the optics of the Sigma 135 Art. In his comment section he says he would keep the Canon F/2 135mm L if he would be a Canon Shooter (which he was and used the 135 L extensively) over the Sigma 135 Art. Comments? Miles review here: ua-cam.com/video/5Wk7vkewaa0/v-deo.html
Pixel peeping is rarely done in real life viewing but rendering is and the old Canon F/2 135L has that magic sauce (after Warren Buffet). Can not wait to see Canon's Replacement for the "old" 135 L.
I agree that rendering goes beyond sharpness, but Sigma has carved out a nice market (and some passionate supporters) with its current ART formula. Different strokes for different folks.
plz compare it with 135mm f2 zeiss milvuss
I may be able to do that in my final review.
I'm also unsure if I want another Milvus or the Sigma 135 because of the AF.
That is a tough call. The Zeiss has a bit of an optical edge, but it does AF really, really bad :)
Sorry, English is my third language and sometimes these things can happen. ;)
No criticism, my friend, just making a joke. I really do love the rendering from the Milvus 135. I'll include a comparison in my final review.
Wouldn't be all that surprised to see nikon replacing the now ancient 135DC with something more in line of the current 105mm behemoth at a similarly high price and there are rumors afloat of a new canon 135mm
I'm sure you're right, and, at that point, I have no doubt that the Sigma will be the cheapest option of the three.
Good practical review, especially the finer details such as the bokeh and colour rendering, but more for me is the real world outdoor images, that is the true acid test with lens reviews, and this is really shows how pronounced the CA is with the 85mm Art lens
That is unfortunately true.
@dustin abbott Great comparison. I was waiting you to say if you want smoother bokeh you have to go to 200mm f2 haha. In general bokeh is going to look "blurrier" the longer focal length with the appropriate aperture. But the issue becomes losing what's in frame in the background, so the subject kind of doesn't have the same pop effect that you get at wider apertures. The further you go, the flatter the image becomes. So the bokeh might be blurrier, but it does not have the same separation. Almost like the separation you feel at 60mm vs 85mm. Played with a nikkor 300mm F2 at work, that thing was insane. That's the ultimate fast zoom. Thank you!!!!
yes finally :3 can't thank u enough :)
Glad to help out!
Sigma didn’t improve the CA of the 85 Art compared to the Sigma EX 85 f/1.4 much at all from what I’ve seen. Given that it is quite bad on the old 85 EX I was very disappointed. Combine that with nearly 2x the weight and size and a 50% price increase, I didn’t even bother updating. 135 is also reportedly has more consistent AF than the 85 Art and would be my choice in a heartbeat
I didn't experience any inconsistency with the AF on the 135, so your mileage may vary.
i hope you can test this nice lens on a sony witn mc11 - great work always
If you want to see those kinds of tests, check out the link on the Sony a7R II review and help the crowdfunding to add a Sony test body. I don't own one right now and thus can't do that kind of review.
IMO the Tamron have the nicer Bokeh n(compared to the Sigma 85mm)... but thats just my taste..
I did purchase the Tamron over the Sigma 85 for all around versatility, though I do think the Sigma 85 is a slightly better portrait lens because of slightly smoother handling of light on skin tones.
i see the the Tarmon more versatil becaus of size, weight and the VR. I personal would go for the Tamron as well. thnx u very much for your work..
That was basically my logic, too.
Sigma make practical lenses.
If I can say anything good about them. It will be. Sharp lens. Big Aperture at Good price.
The bad..
Just like you said. The color seems not so great (subjective to every individual.. but I agree).. Heavier. n sometimes inconsistent AF.. its getting better but not very on point yet as compared to Native..for eg.
These third party lenses are definitely very competitive now, but they aren't perfect.
because. nth is perfect.
You mentioned in your review the Nikon AF FX DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D, this lens was first created in 1990 - 2009. I do not see this lens as being a modern day contender for either the Canon or Sigma. Nikon has the 105 mm f1.4 and I am not sure if Nikon would invest in updating the Nikon AF FX DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D. And as for the color rendition, one can always adjust to their liking in post and I would agree on the price, the 135 mm being more expensive, but when compared to the Nikon 105mm f1.4 @ $2200 the Sigma 135mm @ $1399 looks far more appealing. Overall great review.
I understand what you are saying about the Nikkor lens, and to a lessor extent it is also true of the Canon lens. I don't agree that it's not a contender, however, for the simple reason that there is a still a pretty good percentage of the market that is not comfortable buying third party lenses. A third party lens more expensive than the first party lens is going to give them pause.
The Nikon AF FX DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D found on Adorama @ $1,196 and viewing youtube videos there's a learning curve to using the Nikon AF FX DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D, it's also screw driven and will not function on some Nikon bodies. In all things there's pro's and con's, I like the review of the Sigma and looking forward to receiving it tomorrow, don't get me wrong Canon and Nikon make great lens, I own many Nikon lens, but I have the opportunity to update a few of my lens and I also purchased the Tamron 70mm-200mm f2.8 G2 after watching your review of that lens. Keep up the great work and reviews.
You're welcome. Yes, some of the older Nikkor lenses have their own quirks.
I have Canon's 135 F2 lens but nothing about the Sigma 135 1.8 - despite its apparently good quality - seems compelling enough to tempt me to abandon the Canon for the Sigma...
I think a number of people are in the same boat. The 135L isn’t a perfect lens...but it is good enough and special enough that people don’t feel compelled to part with it.
Does simga art 135mm 1.8 beat the Canon 135mm f2? I really don't think so, the colors of canon are way more beautiful.
That's probably a matter of opinion, and it really comes down to what's most important to the individual shooter (sharpness and low CA vs. overall rendering).
So the overall rendering of the 135L is superior? I'm worried that the Sigma will be too clinical.
i think canon one renders a bit smoother bokeh....
but sigm
a is sharper and better
I'm not convinced that the Sigma does better color and absolute rendering, but, to be fair, I haven't shot them side by side. I also think the AF is a little more reliable on outer points with the Canon, but in most of the technical areas (sharpness, CA, flare resistance, vignette, etc...), the Sigma is the clear winner.
Sometimes i don't understand why we get so caught up with sharpness, i understand that it does makes a difference, but its not everything. i hope you all know that canon 135 mm was released in 1996, its almost legendary, and is still loved by many who own it, as long as you have the use of this focal length, canon lenses will always be more compatible with Canon cameras, in terms of auto focusing, and when i used it i found it to have a unique character, a very pleasing bokeh, i am not saying Sigma isn't good it definitely is making good glass, but again sometimes you fall in love with some lenses, and i once i did with Canon 135mm f2 : )