Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sigma 135 f1.8 ART | Which is BETTER for Portraits?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2024
- Let's out the Sony 135mm f1.8 GM up against the $500 less expensive Sigma 135 f1.8 ART and see which one comes out on top. This is a Review / Comparison of the lenses. Download SAMPLE RAW Files from both lenses froknowsphoto....
Order the Sony bit.ly/2PJ5eja or Sigma 135 1.8 bit.ly/2PSM4aR
SONY vs SIGMA PRIME LENS BATTLE (135mm f1.8) Is the SONY worth $500 more?
NEW FroPack 1 Lightroom Presets froknowsphoto.... (40% off)
Download MyGearVault mygearvault.co...
Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations froknowsphoto.... (look for the orange box)
___
Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW Camera Bag bit.ly/2scQRt7
I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts bit.ly/2vG2igB
Nikon D5 bit.ly/2OBrXNa
Nikon Z7 bit.ly/2FfRPMY
Nikon Z6 bit.ly/2FcKsWJ
Nikon D850 bit.ly/2n54Xto
The Microphone I use for Vlogging bit.ly/2LWGRPq
Nikon 70-200 2.8 bit.ly/2OBsjmY
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR bit.ly/2LLHdsQ
Nikon 14-24 2.8 bit.ly/2LK1NtU
Nikon 105 F1.4 bit.ly/2vttwUq
Sony a7 III bit.ly/2n3HaK8
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying bit.ly/2LNsHRK
Follow me
►UA-cam: bit.ly/frotube
►Facebook: / froknowsphoto
►Instagram: / jaredpolin
►Twitter: / froknowsphoto
USE CODE FRO at squarespace.com... to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.
►froknowsphoto.c...
*Do I have money to buy this lens?* _No_
*Am I going to watch a 18mins long video about it?*
_Yes_
Yes!!!!😫😫
same 😑
I don't even own a sony camera..
Thomas K. Villadsen Same here.
@@SentinentCoffee same😂
"Shut up with your bokeh and go shoot pictures" - best words ever heard
"Neither of these lens offer you ISIS" -Jared Polin
LMAO
LOL I had to re-wind to make sure I heard it correctly ;-)
Yeah. I lost it! LOL
17:06
I just went to the comment section for this. lold.
damn so as a would be terrorist what should i use?
Not only was the skin smoother off the sigma, but the skin tone also was more pleasant and her eye color was a nicer blue. I think the Sony was a little sharper. But subjectively, I think the Sigma is the better choice for a finished product. Good review. 👍
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
Depends on what composition someone will work on and what lighting is around ;) Check 13:55 ... her blue eyes look here better on the Sony shot than with the Sigma ;)
"Sharpness" is probably the least important aspect of a lens, i don't know why people harp on about it. We're trying to tone it down with vintage lenses and diffusion filters after all. But hobbyist forums and even pro reviewers seem obsessed with it.
@asdad asdasd Sharpness has been "solved", it's been a long time since it was an exclusive thing. Cheap 50mm 1.8 lenses are sharp, most kit zooms are sharp. I use diffusion filters on my panasonic full frame lenses and so do a lot of people who go for the "filmic" look.
What matters though, and here's where budget really comes in, is speed, bokeh, ca, flare, microcontrast, color, character, autofocus, durability, focusing distance, ois. I'm happy with my lenses, autofocus aside.
I haven't been bothered by unsharp images since using a 100eur third party slow telezoom at 300mm 25 years ago.
@asdad asdasd What i'm saying is that almost all lenses are sharp enough for most applications. Sharpness isn't a problem today, it was 50 years ago.
And aperture has little to do with sharpness. I've worked with the standard canon 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses professionally and never been left wanting for sharpness. In the canon world, the sharpest lenses are the 300 2.8 prime, the 85, 35 and 24 1.4 primes and the 70-200 zoom. 1.2 is about low light and shallow dof. They're slow to af, they're heavy, typically used in studios. Many choose medium format over them.
My point though is that sharpness isn't desirable to begin with. If you're a product or architecture photographer whose clients demand absolute edge to edge sharpness, ok. For prosumer portraits or landscapes, i don't think so.
Portraits (and videography in general) in particular is why people, like i said, try to get way from the too perfect, too sharp look of modern lenses through vintage lenses and diffusion filters. It's not flattering, it lacks character.
Specialist niches aside, sharpness is the second thing beginners look at after "how far does it zoom". Then they move on as they learn. I'm willing to bet, when you see a photo you like it's not because its sharp. And that you don't dislike photos because they're unsharp unless the photographer misfocused. It's not what makes a good photo, and almost all modern lenses are sharp enough, or too sharp.
Tl;dr lack of sharpness isn't what's holding photographers back, and it's generally not the reason people upgrade gear. A good kit lens is as sharp as you'd need it to be, what it usually lacks is speed and build quality.
I'm surprised by how well both lenses passed the wind tunnel test!
Jared just added the 135 1.4 GM to my bag of tricks. So much faster and lighter than my 105 Sigma 1.4. That thing is like shooting my 200 f2 VRii. With all the gym closed the few months I don't think I can carry it anymore for a day of weddings. I have to do a head to head with my 105 1.4 Nikon but so far I'm pretty happy with the 135 1.8 on the A7R4 . I'll put it to the test this weekend at a wedding. Keep up the great work as usual.
The Sony's colors look a bit more accurate on my calibrated monitor where the Sigma shows a slightly green/yellow tint. The sharpness in the samples looks slightly better on the Sony but the Sigma is close. Assuming the focusing advantage carries over to video and perhaps shows an even bigger improvement for the Sony makes me lean to the Sony GM lens over the Sigma. Is the performance differential worth $500? Yes but just barely.
On my calibrated screen the Sony shows a magenta tone. The Sigma is just warmer. A 135mm focal length for video use is not that common, is it?
@@MudvayneS10 Our screens must differ slightly, to me the Sony looks just right with the Sigma being slightly warm which is great for landscape but not ideal for portraiture. The 135 is generally considered a portrait lens but not being a serious videographer I can't comment on if or how it's used for video.
@@MudvayneS10 I thought the same.
On my "calibrated" cheap Huawei phone))) Sigma looks a bit warmer for sure
Carl Ryan you should just pick up my 135 sigma. I’m selling it for $850
Your remakes about bokeh make Kai Wong cry.
Pieter Kai seems irrelevant nowadays. But I still like “bokeliscious.”
Ken
I already bought the Sony 135 1.8 and I love it. I'm only watching this video because the FroKnowsPhoto team puts out the best content on UA-cam. I don't give a rip if Dan doesn't have a mic, his editing skills are the best since sliced bread.
It's always fun to watch gear videos doesn't matter if we had it or not. I watch Jared for his personality anyway
@@kimsonpro I agree. I still listen to older RAWTalks during work, because they were funny and informative. Even if I don't care about the lens or product, I still watch for the personality.
@@joaquinnolasco5210 As do I man! Jared taught me how to use my first camera before I even got. I've been shooting on manual since day 1! This team is the best. ESPECIALLY for what Dan contributes! 😎
@@markdbey Dan reminds me of Klay Thompson. He doesn't say anything, but when you look at him, you just start laughing. lol
I think you mean Stephen, who shot & edited this video ;)
The gradations on the Sigma are smoother. You don't get the abrupt shadow to highlight differentiation that you get on the Sony. I tend to prefer the Sigma lens.
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
Sony just increased the price by 200 usd making its $2100 it makes it much easier to pick the Sigma.
I'm still trying to save $$ to buy nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 s lens.. never owned or tried Sony cameras.. ive shot nikon for 3 years
@@johnha6531 how's ur experience
Sony colors are more close to the real colors. Sigma has a very interesting tint to the skin color, which may be of liking for some people but skin tones are definitely not so close to reality like the Sony ones.
How do you know, that the Sony colors are more close to the real colors? Were you at Jared's studio when he took the pictures?
@@renestaempfli1071 TWO major independent blind tests found Sony colors the most accurate vs Fuji, Canon, Nikon, . It figures Sony's best GM lenses are color matched to what colors the camera sensor will render. Boyan's statement has real basis of truth.
@@renestaempfli1071 ua-cam.com/video/3LtQ6pFOlNM/v-deo.html from that video, video footage is with Nikon I think and Sony lens looks a lot more like the Nikon.
@@BoyanZhelyazkov_theDoctor yes that Nikon magenta tint ... the sigma looks so much like a canon, odd how two lens same focal length give two very different colour renderings to the skin.
That face comparison feels like Canon vs Nikon colors, can't believe the differences are this wide.
This is not true now though. Nikon colors improved a lot. I have shot both
@@jaezryl but Nikon always had that magenta tone compared to the warm tone of the canon
I think it's worth noting that the Sigma's manual focus ring isn't electronically coupled to the focus motor. Turning the focus ring _actually_ focuses the lens instead of activating the motor. So if you for some reason really need to manually focus (like if you prefer manual focus for video), the Sigma may be easier to do it with.
Great video, picked up a used Sigma 135 for my Sony and I'm loving it, cheers !
I have both. Sony is about 300g lighter that means i could carry two lenses 135mm and 24mm f 1.4
Mr. Burns??????
Congratulations Jared !...... You have come so far from where you started and you now have some of the most practical,
balanced reviews on the web!
Sigma seems to produce more pleasing pictures!
Both are awesome....
Love from Bangladesh 🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩
Exactly. It's choosing between two supermodels :)
Yes
I prefer the skin tone of the sigma. But both are amazing lenses
Andrew Bow I prefer the skin tone of the Sony, no doubt!
Currently I have both, and they are both great. Ultimately I will keep only the Sony for its slightly better performance, reduced size and weight, and to keep the same form factor with my other GM optics. But I am impressed what Sigma is doing.
"Shut up with your bokeh!" I saw what you did there 🤭, (intentionally?)
Owned the sony 135gm for 1 month now and also own the sigma 135mm and both amazing but sony much better by quite a lot.
To my eye the photo quality if the Sigma shots was better across the board.
I honestly prefer the output of the Sigma. The real f stop of the Sony is closer to an f/2.0 and it is a much cooler colour output lens where the Sigma is warmer and is effectively a f/1.78 lens.
Love your videos. They are informative and fun to watch. However with this video I have a tiny issue. When comparing the lenses with side by side comparisons, the model chnged poses. That changes how the light falls on her and alters shadows which alters the comparison. Properly done, her poses should not have changed at all. Then the light and shadows wouldn't have really changed.
Great review! Your sense of humor definitely deserves more appreciation haha. I went ahead and picked up the Sony. I think native lenses are always the best choice.
Just ordered the Sigma, to use with my Z8. Don't really need 135mm that much, and the Plena is just too expensive for a lens that'll be collecting dust most of the time. Sharpness seems great, the only real concern is focus with the ftz adapter.
Great comparison, interesting to see how the Sigma stacks up against the Sony lens.
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
I think it is worth it. Performance seems to be similar but when you consider the resale value, the sigma lenses do plummet in value. I’ve owned several sigma lenses and they’re great but found myself giving them away when sold them
I’m still using Nikon Nikkor 135mm made in the 80’s
Sharp as - yes manual focus only but awesome sharpness
Japanese glass
Love old Japanese Nikkor lenses. I got a 80-200 2.8D made in Japan for an absolute bargain price and it's brilliant, not quite as sharp as the more modern 70-200's but the character and colours are just outstanding!
"Shut up with your bokeh and go shoot pictures". This should be on a t-shirt!
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!
I like your reviews. Straight to the points!
Sigma, to my eyes, definitely looks more flattering in every shot! Impressive. It would be interesting to see how they compare when shooting anything where that added clarity is beneficial, like with architecture or wildlife. Sigma wins when it comes to portraits but I have a feeling Sony would dominate in almost every other field.
Hey J! Greetings from Germany! Thank you for another great review, it helped me to decide! I‘ve exactly compared both lenses as well... aaaand I bought the GM and my high expectations are more than fulfilled! Yes, the price fries ones balls, but damn, that thing is magic! I use it on a A7RIII 😃
Hey man. Zip1 and zip2 is the same sigma file. ✌️
Why not give Taylor a shout out for her work?
Nice review, Jared. I really like your approach to bokeh!
Had to get the Sony this time. I own a couple sigma lenses like 14-24mm DG DN 24-70mm 100-400mm 85mm1.4 but when it comes to portrait lenses, I find myself always shooting against the sun and I wanna have the luxury to add my own sun flare in P.S if I wanna and if I really want that flare I can use my 85mm Sigma because they seem to have the same rendition. So sun flare was a deal breaker to me and there's a way it renders nuance between subjects and out of focus background that I have not seen in this sigma + it comes lighter, build for and by Sony with those focus hold buttons, I didn't mind the price this time...so enjoyable.
What I ask all photographers when it comes to Sigma lenses. How disposable is your income? How long do you keep lenses that you love? Do you like using older lenses on brand new, latest tech cameras because of its optical characteristics? Many older third party lenses, especially Sigmas, will not work on new systems. Once they discontinue a lens, they do not keep up with it working on new cameras. Not true with most OEM lenses. For instance, I can use my original Canon EOS lenses from the late 80s to the early 90s on any new EOS camera. For instance, my EF50mm F1.4 USM purchased in '93 works flawlessly today and the Sigma 28-200 purchased at the same time does not. I could go on and on.
Also factor in Sigma's horrific customer service, crap build quality, etc. Sony lens is an investment. Sigma lens is a throw away purchase.
Pure quality Jared, love your example of your very hard work (that you need!) to get and sell the shot. Cheers mate 🇬🇧
Another great job comparing and contrasting lenses with different cost values. Keep up the informative content guys!
I think the Sigma is really cool and it's enough, it does the job very well, for the af speed, for portraits or report i think it's quick enough, the Sigma Art series are really awesome... and a Stark is more badass than a Lanister ^^
I just posted this same comment under Manny Ortiz video on the same comparison.. if your like me, you watch a ton of videos before purchasing anything. So, here are my thoughts.
... I bought the sigma yesterday because it was cheaper. But it hunts focus WAY more than my current 85mm 1.8. It was SO ANNOYING! If the sigma were my first lens, I wouldn't have known what I was missing. But within 30 minutes of practice shots, I knew I'd rather go back to my 85mm 1.8. Then something great happened. Found the GM 135 USED for $1500. So, selling my sigma for $1k and my 85mm for $500, and paying for the GM! trust me, if you can find a decent price for the GM, the extra money is WORTH IT! Especially if you are a hybrid shooter that needs quick focus for videography. I thought, "I can handle it being a little quirky with focus if I can save money", but I couldn't handle it lol. All I could think of was the number of GREAT model poses and faces I would miss focus on during a shoot, essentially wasting time and money (that I "saved" by going with the cheaper option).
Jared, both lenses are great as you mentioned, but there's one thing that I was surprised you didn't directly mention (though you said you preferred the Sony for it's generally better autofocus): Performance in Live Events. I would have loved for you to take both lenses to test a one of the many concerts you shoot, to test out tracking and low-light performance. Either way thanks for an great comprehensive review!!
I'm feeling pretty stuck. I'm about to buy A7 III and I can afford either Sony FE 35mm and 85mm ''cheaper'' lenses on one Sigma or Zeiss lens(50mm). I'm putting a lot of money into my hybrid set and I don't want to lose quality or sharpness, because of my lens. What would you suggest?
Petr Zakrzewski well I’m not sure what you went with but I’m selling some used gear that could save you some money. Selling my sigma 135mm 1.8 for $850
My sigma 50mm 1.4 for $725
And a Sony A7iii for $1700
Is it just me or did it seem like the eye's were better on the Sony in the last 2 sets?
Fro should go with a crisp flat-top haircut for 2020.
I like the comparison video. I'm not sure if you'll have time to answer this or if someone else can answer. The two questions I have on the Sigam are....1) though the AF is slower, is it fast enough to keep up with fast moving sports, as I shoot a lot of gymnastics. and 2) How is the low light focussing on the Sigma in real life. Some tests have shown it less than the Sony, but lab tests don't always reflect people's experience in the field. Thank you to anyone that can answer.
your studio is so awesome man
Great video. Can’t decide between GM or Art 85mm for weddings... will you be doing this same sort of video but for the 85s at some point? Might be more interesting as I’ve read there’s more of a difference. Thanks.
I would go Sony for focus speed and better eye af etc, but no doubting those sigma skin tones ... which did you go for ?
Always enjoy your reviews... nice job!
One of the best reviews Jared! Kudos to the model... very pretty eys!
Hello ! I just saw your video(yes, 3 years later, lol:)) ) and I wanted to say that I've tested the Sigma, the Sony and the new Samyang 135 1.8. I wanted to say that the Samyang is a WAAAY better choice than the Sigma ! It's much, much smaller and lighter, it's at least just as sharp and it is way cheaper. I can get one at 850-900$ ! It's the best buy option for sure ! But even with that said, I HAD to buy the GM, because is just so freaking AMAZING ! It was way faster and more accurate focusing than the other two lenses, a thing that it's verry important to me, because I shoot events. Also it is a little sharper and has a little better bokeh than the other two. So I got it with the Holloween discount, at only 1550$ and boy I sure LOVE it ! It's the best lens that I have now and I hope that soon I will get his little brother too, the new 35 1.4GM(the best 35 ever, I say that because I tested them all for Sony mount ! ) and hopefully that 85 1.4 GM will be replaced soon, it's the only GM lens that I tested and it SUCKED ! The new Sigma 85 art is way better in comparison and that's not ok at all for Sony...
sony is not sharper than sigma thats not fair to say and it definitely doesnt have a nicer bokeh
Purchased the Sigma 135 f1.8 for just $900. so far works great and saved lots of dough!!
Great review. The GM price went up while the Sigma went down. Might have to get the Sigma
Your US pricing is very interesting. Here in Australia I purchased the Sigma, as it is nearly HALF the price of the Sony. I paid AUD$1600 for the Sigma, but the Sony is AUD$2800. This is tax inclusive.
These two lenses offer very similar results however, I prefer Sigma for the compression, makes the face less round than Sony.
Amazing eyes, amazing pictures! Thanks a lot Taylor and Jared!
I think I like the look and color of the Sony personally. Having faster eye autofocus would be nice as well. I'm trying to decide between an 85mm or a 135mm for portraits. I have a 70-200 so I guess I should work with it more to decide which prime I want.
If u have room to shoot indoor pick 135, otherwise 85. Outdoor portrait only can choose 135 if u know ur place is roomy, but situations are not always in our favorit.
The absolute sharpness of the Sony is readily noticeable, but it also comes across as "brittle," so much so that I wouldn't want to use it for portraits, nor do I care for its blue cast, though these can all be corrected in post. For straight out of the camera the Sigma makes a better looking portrait. Good comparison, though. Thanks.
The 24mm 1.4 GM and The 135mm 1.8 GM are GREAT lenses !!! So Sony keep
those GM primes lenses comming... Wish for 55mm GM, 300 4.0 GM 400 4.5
GM and more... oh yeah and a macro GM without stabilizer !
You should compare the lenses in low light. Selling my Sigma after several failed sessions nearing sunset. I’m upgrading to the Sony 135 G-Master. The Sigma can’t hit focus at any distance with full body shots. Never have this issue with any of my GM lenses.
Shooting with Sony A7R IV.
Hold on to your money for a while longer... There is a new 135mm f1.8 around the corner to hit the market 🤩and its cost less and are lighter than the sigma 135 🔥
ua-cam.com/video/f3ckHO7SgLY/v-deo.html
Jared, can you post a link to the big light you used for the portrait? Thanks.
The sigma is the only 135mm for my panasonic and it bothers me how much better the sony images look. For concerts though, gotta have a 135 1.8.
Great review and sensible conclusion.
I don't like that all Sigma lenses for Sony FF are lenses for DSLR with a adapter that make them even heavier, longer and more frontheavy.
Learn how to hold a camera and lens and stop whining
@@shaolin95 Sigma need to find out how to build lenses for mirrorless cameras and not build in an adapter in every lens. Sigma 24 1.4 weights 50 % more than Sony 24 1.4 GM witch is a much better lens.
I loved the Sigma Art lenses, and used them on my Canon. However, I don’t like the fact the Sigma isn’t a native mount... it’s adapted. It doesn’t perform like it would on a native platform. When you shoot something with such a shallow DOF that AF performance is critical. So, it will be the Sony for me.
I love the Sigma lenses!
What about AF in low-light situations? Is there a difference in speed/accuracy?
I make all my decisions by the sniff test! ALWAYS enjoy your thorough, light-hearted reviews! With so much technology to be had, $500.00 is a lot and worth a good look at comparisons.
Tornado Alley Video pick it up from me! I’m selling mine for $850. The sigma 135mm 1.8.
please do a comparison between sigma 105mm and Sony 90mm macro lens
I think this is the great portrait lens.
I like the Sony lens better. Pity that all the shots are made with a flash (EDIT: LED panel). I'd like to see how the lens shine in pure ambient lighting and I think the Sony will win there on the overall rendering.
Some really crispy sharp images, great shots, but I also saw that some of the shared RAW files had motion blur - well, at 135mm with a high-res body, the rule of proportionality does not hold anymore... shooting 50mp with 135 takes often 1/250s and shorter shutter speeds to avoid motion blur in my experience. 42mp is not much easier. :)
EDIT 2: The Sony seems to give more depth to the images - e.g. seen on the models' right hand, her legs, the chair and even the carpet. There is more bite to the Sony.
mk0x55 wait until you’ve tested these 2 lenses on the A7RIV...you will see a much bigger difference in sharpness. With the A7RM3 difference was there but subtle. On the A7RIV you really see this lens pull way ahead
For a pro lens and if you shoot video that smooth f stop ring is a real advantage. But not absolutely necessary.
Glad to see that I preferred the Sigma in each comparison .... since I already own the Sigma.
Yeah, I also preferred the Sigma in every shot.
@@JordanCS13 Ditching my 70 -200 for the sigma 135 was my best lens decision ever. I love the sigma's rendering and so do my clients :)
Hello,
I didn't find a comparison or review of Sony 100mm F2.8 (T5.6) STF GM with it particular bokeh
Great video! Sorry man, which camera do you used for this video? Is it a Sony a7R?
thank you for the sample images!)
Sigma for portret. Sony's white balance is too cold compared to the Sigma. Sharpness is identical. Also... Get the Sigma 135mm and with the 500 bucks difference get a Sigma 24mm art lens 2nd hand in mint condition.
I like the sigma phots better I was on the fence on which one to buy I wanted the G master to win, but looking at the sigma I will have to buy it
Thanks for the comparison 🙏. Besides, this video makes me feel the world has yet not gone totally nuts, if even guys like you having a team and super routine all together producing UA-cam videos make tiny mistakes like around 5:28, where you mess up IBIS (In Body Image Stabilisation) vs ISIS (some sort of radical political terror organisation in Middle East) and OSS (Sony abbreviation for IS in lens) vs OIS (Fuji and probably also Olympus abbreviation for IS in lens, VR on Nikkor lenses, Canon I don’t know) and even use ISIS for in lens stabilisation. - Some more thing: If you want see how really bokeh looks like, get a Leica M10 and try the Summicron-M 50 as well as 90 and Summilux-M 35. Just creamy. No bubbles, no cat eyes, no swirly.
I've got a Sony a6500 with a batis 25/f2 and the Sony 70-200/f4. Should I get the sony planar 50/f1.4 OR get the A7iii and use both the a6500 and the A7iii there by doubling the effective usage of my existing lenses.
6" is plenty, that's what she said LOL
Wowzer, just noticed...1,000,000 Subscribers. Fantastic, been watching and enjoying/learning for some time. Many congrats Jared from the UK.
Both are a lot better than just good enough.
well, I would buy used Sony if money were an issue; two things decided: speed and reliability of focusing, and the fact that with such minuscule difference in final pics I never buy third part lenses( which is a subject for entire new video)
8:32 6 inch :D
Sigma looks better to me, I'll go with the sigma please
airjaff you should buy mine! I’m selling it for $850
What about the batis 135mm 2.8? How does that lens compare to those 2 lenses?
Thanks Jared, I ordered the Sony from our favorite neighborhood camera store. Cheers
What camera are you using?
I see the Sigma having more of a warmer color look while the Sony is just sharp. Either way you can adjust the color and sharpness.
You can't "adjust" sharpness of the lens. Sharpening softer image in postprocessing does not restore unregistred details. But I don't think Sony is visibly sharper here - with such a shallow DoF it's rather a matter of aquired focus plane. The model few mm front or back and the sharpness is gone.
Hi Jared, I would love to see what you can produce with the latest Fuji 50mm f1.0, yes f1.0 lens
What's wrong with using a UV filter for protection?
Bokeh is personal taste I think. I love bubblebokeh some people hate it.
If I hade enough money I would probably go with the Sony one. Have bad experience with Sigma, but that was many years ago so maybe they have improved?
I completely agree with that assessment.
“Six inches, Pyle! SIX INCHES!”
I PERSONALLY THOUGHT THE COLORS ARE BETTER ON THE SIGMA
It only matters if we had both pictures side by side anyway. Otherwise, 99% same
Of course you did. For 95% of people warmer image = better colors, but that's not what a proper color rendition is.