Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art vs Zeiss 135mm f2 in depth review

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
  • In this video, we compare the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art vs the Zeiss 135mm f/2.0. Both of these lenses are known for some of the best performance, but how do they stack up against one another.
    Does the Sigma still suffer from problems with focusing or has it been fixed?
    Check out our Store - sondercreative...
    Gear used for this video
    ==================================
    Sigma 135mm - bhpho.to/2vU0yNn
    Zeiss 135mm - bhpho.to/2wef312
    Canon 5DSR - bhpho.to/2shasWJ
    Canon 5D Mark IV - bhpho.to/2tA3ctf
    Sony A7RII - bhpho.to/2vUvLQR
    Best performing and best value lens - bhpho.to/2vUof8v
    Are you ready for the Eclipse?
    ==================================
    bhpho.to/2vUpKU8
    My Gear
    ==================================
    bhpho.to/2sNtBTJ
    Image links
    ==================================
    1drv.ms/f/s!Aq...
    Thank you to everyone who helped work on this video.
    ==================================
    Imran Mirza - www.photographybyimran.com/
    JAmes Christopher - www.facebook.c...
    Keep in touch
    ==================================
    Personal Instagram - / usman_dawood
    Main Instagram - / sondercreative
    www.sondercreative.com

КОМЕНТАРІ • 159

  • @Photomeike
    @Photomeike 7 років тому +12

    I swear man. One of the reasons I chose the Tamron 35 f1.8 VC lens over the Sigma 35 1.4 was the focusing issues. I understand that you can calibrate the lens and what not. But no other lens that I have brought, rented, or borrowed have had any issues out of the box. Only the Sigmas act that way. I understand that they are some of the sharpest lens ever made. But that doesn't mean much if you're picture isn't in focus. BTW I don't hate Sigma lenses or anything. Just ranting. Lol. Great video man.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +3

      Photomeike I think you make some very good points. You're right it doesn't matter how sharp the lens is if to out of focus. I use something from a company called Reikan for all of my lenses even Canon and it makes them "extra sharp" because they're all perfectly calibrated. Really easy to use and it does help.
      I haven't tried the Tamron lenses but heard some really good things about them.
      Thank you for the comment and for watching my video it means allot.

    • @Photomeike
      @Photomeike 7 років тому +1

      Sonder Creative hey man no problem.

    • @kenhuang3820
      @kenhuang3820 2 роки тому

      I recently purchased Tarom 35-150 f2.8-4 was super excited about the longer zoom range fast lens. I test on the static subject taken few shots it was fine no issue, next day I test lens doing street photo tracking people walking and this is where I discover that it can't even keep up to 5fps on my EOS R it slows the camera down and on 2 occasions it locks up my camera, when it nails focus it is sharp photos
      However, it seems like only nail around 40% at the most and there was no consistency as to when it would slow down and for how long it slow it down. So I changed up from doing burst to one shot at a time trying to track and it still slows the camera down. My friend who use to own Tamron 18-400 also has the same issue it slow the camera down I'm not sure if just the Tamron superzoom has this issue, my Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS USM L lens has no issue (I was looking to return the Tamron for RF 24-240, I know the RF 24-240 have other issues like severe vignetting at 24mm and distortion on several of the zoom range and it's slow lens as in f4-6.3). I know you can fix these problems via edit some would say why you care if you can simply do 2 - 3 click in edit and fix it, but why would I want to buy a lens that made inferior, to begin with?
      I lost my trust in Tamron but I also have a love-hate relationship with Sigma, some of their lenses focus isn't as fast as I liked (use to own Sigma 40mm f1.4 I did research that seems to be a super sharp lens however for tracking it is not fast and I find it to get sharpness it claims I have to shoot the same thing 2 - 6 times to get it to tack sharp not 100% sure if user error but definitely it is slow in tracking people but it never slows down the camera like Tamron superzoom lens I happen to test it) but the main issue I have with Sigma is heavyweight. But generally speaking, I find the lens I use to own Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sports lens and Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens are both very good due to the weight which prevents me from using more often I trade-in for something else. I still have Sigma 24-70 f2.8 OS HSM Art. And now going to return Tarmon 35-150 f2.8-4 for this Sigma 135mm f1.8 I hope the weight won't prevent me from getting a high hit rate of sharp shots as this lens also don't have OS (image stabilization).

  • @antonioborzillo255
    @antonioborzillo255 5 років тому +5

    Great analysis Usman! I've had two both and I can confirm about the better color rendition and the ability to capture more color variations of the Zeiss. It's definitely a better lens but not so much practical. I recommend it to pro photographers only.

  • @jimatyeo
    @jimatyeo 6 років тому +4

    Just to make a point about the sports shooting with manual focus lenses. If you been at it as long as I have, 37 years as a pro. Before 87' we only had manual focus lenses and did just as you mention we focused to a spot or zone and let the action move into it. Then with quick reflexes you nailed the shot. I still use manual focus lenses a lot on many of my assignments because I love the feel and as you mention that fine rendering of minor color differences that some lenses lose in there interpretation. Some lenses are designed for fine detail and contrast and others are designed for those micro tonal and color issues. When I am doing portraits I love using my manual focus Zeiss and Nikon older lenses. I have both systems Nikon and Canon and in both systems I use the Zeiss lenses a lot, plus the quality and feel is second to none.. Nicely done and I think you were very impartial. As you know most lenses are not exactly the focal length listed , plus some suffer from focus breathing. I do find that the Zeiss lenses seem to be spot on to there focal lengths which with some of my Sigma lenses they tend to be a bit short of their listed focal lengths. Not really a big issue but might speak to your difference in size of your model.

    • @jaimeduncan6167
      @jaimeduncan6167 5 років тому

      Jim Atyeo yes it was other age when people were willing to “do the wok” and expected things to be difficult.

  • @Narsuitus
    @Narsuitus 2 місяці тому

    I have never used the 135mm Sigma auto focus lens but I have compared the following three lenses:
    135mm f/2 Zeiss APO Sonnar ZF 2 (77mm filter size) (manual focus)
    135mm f/2 Nikkor AIS (72mm filter size) (manual focus)
    50-140mm f/2.8 Fujinon (72mm filter size) (auto focus, vibration reduction, weather resistant)
    All three are great lenses.
    For me, the Zeiss images are great for photojournalism and documentary photography.
    For me, the Nikkor images are great for half-length and head & shoulder portraits.
    For me, the Fuji zoom is great for the times when I need auto focus, vibration reduction, weather resistance, and other focal lengths.

  • @saintjackula9615
    @saintjackula9615 5 років тому +2

    I have tried several brand-new Sigmas in varying focals, and several used ZEISS in varying focals. When I look at my current kit bag, I still see a lot of Zeiss sitting in it alongside my Canon L's, and not one Sigma. Honestly, I think the problem is Canon being stingy with algorythms, and it isn't Sigma's fault so much, but at any rate I stay far away from Sigma after trying 3 lenses. Calibration didn't always work because one of the lenses, for example, had varying misses. Like, close up, it was too near, but at a certain distance, it was too far, and it couldn't be remedied to my satisfaction with USB firmware. So for me Sigma is permanently out for numerous reasons, BUT I am after a certain look, and not prioritizing profits and business, so for me the Zeiss works and it works better. It may be that after calibration a Sigma works best for the majority of people, which is fine with me, because I am not a majority of people, I am me, and I tend to like what I like even if it lacks logic.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  5 років тому

      St Jack Photography absolutely nothing wrong with liking something. Zeus’s make fantastic lenses and if that’s what you prefer then brilliant.
      Thank you for watching, much appreciated.

  • @KB-vu2bm
    @KB-vu2bm 5 років тому +4

    Zeiss is kong of MICRO contrast - thats why you see much more in colors/detalis.

  • @howardkahn717
    @howardkahn717 6 років тому +6

    I HAVE SEVERAL SIGMA lenses and never had a problem with their auto focus system, also i have the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 and it is as sharp as sharp can be., never had a lens sharper....

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому +1

      You must be very lucky then because I too own a number of Sigma lenses and all suffered from issues with focusing. There are bunch of articles and forums that discuss it too, it's quite a widespread problem.

    • @bitShft
      @bitShft 6 років тому

      A majority of the people I know who have Sigma Art and Sport lenses, myself included, have had relatively few issues with AF once you have calibrated (AF Fine Tune for my Nikon system) the lens to the body. And you should do so with the Sigma dock so that you can calibrate 4 focus distances for primes and 4 focus distances by 4 focal lengths for zooms.

    • @howardkahn717
      @howardkahn717 6 років тому

      Sigma dock system as all of them are a joke, save your money....these docking focus systems are bullshit, they do nothing....everytime i set the lens, it tells me no update is needed.......it's all bullshit

    • @bitShft
      @bitShft 6 років тому

      What are you talking about Howard? Sigma's approach to fine tuning the focus of a lens is much better than either Nikon or Canon. With Nikon you only get one setting and with Canon only two. Sigma's approach allows for much more control.

    • @alfredv9902
      @alfredv9902 3 роки тому

      @@bitShft Not true, I owned the 150-600mm Sport, 50mm Art and 14mm Art....all had focus issues, or other issues (defect in glass with 14mm in 2 copies 1/3 from center on both sides....a vertical band where branches double focus, dead stabilizer on 150-600). If you print BIG, you see the differences. I now own Zeiss Milvus...love them. They are in a different league. Pro built, and boy you sure notice it. Nothing from Nikon has the build quality of zeiss...nothing. Zeiss does not know what plastic is, no wobbly front elements. Sigma glass that I had were all sharp......but there are many more variable then just sharpness....color science, are lenses matched, durability, edge performance, micro contrast, lens gears available. Biggest feature is I can use my Milvus glass from my Nikon to Sony/Canon/Fuji or any mirrorless, can you do that? With manual focus (elecronic guts still in lens), I do not have focus issues with software between manufacturers. Also on Zeiss the "focus throw" is built for manual focusing, and Nikon and other Auto focus lenses have focus throw so short, that they are useless. I wanted to keep the SIgma 50mm f1.4 Art, but auto focus was not reliable, and even in manual focus mode, I could only hit infinity 1 in 5 times, because the focus throw was so short. I was forced to use the unreliable auto focus system.

  • @ralphsaad8637
    @ralphsaad8637 2 місяці тому

    Some reviewers have been talking about this for over a decade with the sigma lenses in how they are clinically sharp and lack depth and character, but got a lot of flack by the sigma purists. This is the ultimate confirmation that those claim are true (aside from the build quality issues, and autofocus inconsistencies). I need a 135mm f2 and will be saving up for the zeiss. Thank you.

  • @MichaelLaing71
    @MichaelLaing71 11 місяців тому

    For years, I wanted the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar but I could never justify buying the lens over other lenses, and I also had a 135mm equivalent with my Fujifilm 90mm f/2 which is very different but similar. Earlier this year though I saw the lens, like new for around £900 and decided to buy the lens and I have to say I love it.
    Zeiss lenses just have a special feel, which you can't get with modern lenses from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron. When it comes to work, I would never buy a Zeiss (which I found out the hard way) but as a lens to use for enjoyment, I would choose the Zeiss every time.
    The other thing, with the 135mm is I can adapt it to my GFX100s and the lens has produced some wonderful images and I must admit to using it much more on that camera, compared to my D850.

  • @yousef-alnassar
    @yousef-alnassar Рік тому

    I have been thinking about getting the zeiss 135 f2 for 7 years, am also in the market for a full-frame mirrorless, its nice to know Nikon has an adapter so that I don't have to ditch the idea of buying this beauty of a lens (which is available for F-mounts). Thanks man!

  • @clauswolter3946
    @clauswolter3946 6 років тому +1

    You've posted an extensive overview and comparison. Very impressive. Thanks for your work and for sharing!

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому +1

      Claus Wolter you’re very kind to say that thank you so much :-). Really appreciate it.

  • @JohnJohnson-km3qf
    @JohnJohnson-km3qf 2 роки тому

    This is an excellent review and I agree with everything said.
    About 12 minutes in he talks of the colour rendition and the tonality.
    He is spot on but it isn't the Sigma lacking in this department, it's the same when the Zeiss is compared to ANY lens I have ever used and/or owned. The Zeiss uses lead glass and it sees everything!
    If you use the Zeiss to photograph any subject you will see colours and detail that can't be matched - I have never seen anything like it. But it is BRUTAL when it comes to portraits and it sees so many different skin colours as if the subject's face is made up of thousands of colours and that can make processing and "calming down" uneven skin afterwards a bit of a nightmare!
    My friend is a bird photographer (a very good one) and I told him the Zeiss 135mm f2 would be the ultimate lens IF it could autofocus and joked that if I photographed someone 30 yards away it would pick up blackheads on their skin (actually, is that a joke).
    It's manual focus and that is the big problem for me. Portraits at f2 are difficult due to the tiny depth of field.
    In the studio using peak focussing tools I found I would get the focus there or thereabouts and "rock" myself back or forth a few millimeters to make the small adjustments to focus rather than make tiny adjustments via the focussing ring.
    Basically, if you are out and about shooting lots of subjects then nothing will match the Zeiss for colours, tonality, sharpness and micro contrast, it's awesome!
    But for portraits I wish I had the Sigma as it's probably going to he easier to focus and will give less colour rendition in the skin, making it easy to process.
    So I see myself drawn to the Sigma but I would hate to get rid of my Zeiss. It is, without doubt, the best and sharpest lens I have ever used.

  • @savagefrieze4675
    @savagefrieze4675 6 років тому +1

    Dude: it take practice to nail focus with manual focus lens while shooting sports. Those of us who shot sports during our film days got pretty good at it. Needed zone focus minimum f8 for manual focus during film daze... if you get really good you can manually follow the action. It takes practice!

  • @testimony-
    @testimony- 6 років тому +1

    @17:42 you are shooting at 1/200th on the Sigma vs 1/250 on the Zeiss, plus the Sigma is at 1.8 vs the 2.0 of the zeiss; you are washing out the image with more light and not adjusting the aperture equally to account For the sharpness...

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Tstop values differ from Fstop values for most lenses. The Zeiss is a T2, however, the Sigma is definitely not T1.8. The Sigma lens has more contrast between the two images I compared and the histogram also confirms that. The Zeiss is more washed out than the Sigma you can tell by looking at the blacks in the jacket James is wearing. Exposures are very very similar. The Zeiss produces better colour and is more effective in that area however the Sigma is better for contrast. Comes down to what you prefer.

  • @julioestebanperezescudero6246
    @julioestebanperezescudero6246 4 роки тому

    I have some issues with Sigma lenses, but the latest ones are really much better focusing. It seems that there was a communication problem with the camera body, maybe future software will fix it. The problem with tonality could be many different things, but in my experience I will dare to say that the program used plays a lot in the tonal rendition. I use Lightroom and DxO, the way they render tone colors and contras is different. May profiling both lenses with the same RAW developer will show a more realistic depiction of the lens performance.

  • @carlosdangerio4755
    @carlosdangerio4755 7 років тому +2

    Great Video. Appreciate all your efforts, I own the Sigma 135 and I absolutely love it. I would be interested to see how they perform in a setting that isn't so bright. The extra 3rd of a stop on the sigma, even with the slightly slower shutter speed my have a different exposure. especially on such a light skinned subject. On darker subjects I have seen how amazing the tonality and color rendition of the sigma produces. it is amazing. I wonder how it is on the Zeiss. My guess... also amazing. But my point is that is ONE specific set of parameters. but on a variety of subjects under a variety of conditions, I think you would be hard pressed to find better IQ than the Sigma. even with the Zeiss
    Thanks again definitely one of the best videos on this lense.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Carlos, thank you so much for your comment and I have to say, you make a very good point, one which I must take on board. I have loosely compared the Zeiss and Sigma for colour rendition with more than one subject and so far the Zeiss is demonstrating better colours in every test, but, I think more testing may be required.
      The thing I've noticed much more on the Sigma is that it's quite abrupt between the tones and the contrast is much harsher which could be pleasing for some and maybe not for others. All in all it's a fantastic lens I'm so impressed with how good it performs. I was genuinely taken back by how good it is, hands down one of the best lenses ever made.

  • @keithspillett7312
    @keithspillett7312 5 років тому

    I had a sigma 24-105 f/4 for a while, and it only had around a 75% success rate of accurate focusing through the viewfinder. However..... the focusing accuracy jumped to pretty well 100% when I used live view with dual pixel AF. I got rid of the lens in the end for two reasons, though. First of all, it was just SO heavy to carry around, and secondly, I didn't want to lose the ability to use the viewfinder. Since then, I bought an M50, complete with EVF, so I kind of wish I'd kept it😢😀

  • @smaakjeks
    @smaakjeks 4 роки тому

    Great video, but I'm not sure I agree with Zeiss having better tonality, or whatever it is one wants to call it. I changed the white-balance on your RAW file (DM4736) to better match the Zeiss image (DM4730). Here are my settings for both files:
    *Zeiss:* Temp: 4700, Tint: 0, Exposure: 0
    *Sigma:* Temp: 5400, Tint: +3, Exposure: -0,15
    I suspect that the tint and slight change in exposure were hiding some of the colour tones you appreciated with the Zeiss. With the changes I made, I for one can't see a difference in the skin tones up close.

    • @beschken
      @beschken 4 роки тому

      A lens should be judged without post processing.

    • @smaakjeks
      @smaakjeks 4 роки тому

      ​@@beschken If you want to pay $550USD more for +3 tint and a slower aperture, be my guest.

    • @beschken
      @beschken 4 роки тому

      Smaakjeks K I want to pay more for much superior build quality, color saturation, micro contrast, etc. ;)

    • @smaakjeks
      @smaakjeks 4 роки тому

      @@beschken What is micro contrast? Nobody has ever been able to tell me or show me the difference between regular old sharpness and micro contrast. In other words, could you show me a non-sharp picture with good micro contrast, or vice versa? You would be the first, if you can. And I've asked many. Everybody just keeps linking to one article (picturing a Buddha head) which does not at all demonstrate its existence. I'm letting you know that I've read the article, just to preempt it.
      "etc."
      Etc. here meaning lack of auto focus, lack of weather sealing, less sharpness, and a narrower aperture?

    • @beschken
      @beschken 4 роки тому

      @@smaakjeks Check Canon Workbook "the EF lens Concepts". Do not trust everything what you hear on youtube, do your own research. there are also Zeiss and Nikon articles about micro contrast.

  • @kyles5258
    @kyles5258 7 років тому +1

    I love this video. This is the video that hooked me on your channel. It was very objective very true, and you going to loose details and comparisons but also very precise insensitive comparisons.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +1

      Kyle you're so very kind to say that thank you so much that means a lot to me.

  • @kenhuang3820
    @kenhuang3820 2 роки тому

    Do you think for the Sigma for people walking on street would it nail focus in 95% range ? I use Canon EOS R thinking to buy this lens but only fear is no OS (IS) in this lens

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  2 роки тому +1

      Sigma lenses have improved massively since we produced this video. With mirrorless cameras Sigma lenss perform almost perfectly so I don't think this is a problem anymore.

    • @kenhuang3820
      @kenhuang3820 2 роки тому

      @@Sondercreative thanks for that now I must due to your great video go and subscribe...keep up the good work

  • @roberttjohnson
    @roberttjohnson 7 років тому

    The Sigma 135mm ART is not a sport lens, which position did you have the limiter set to, it make a difference and what was your shot mode single mode with constant focus, I notice that the camera was beeping when in focus which indicates that the camera was not in constant focus which also tracks the subject to ensure proper focus.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Robert T. Johnson did you get a chance to watch the rest of the video?

    • @roberttjohnson
      @roberttjohnson 7 років тому +1

      Yes I watched the entire video, I just did not understand why would you attempt to use two lens that are not meant for sports photography, both lens are primary used for portraits and not fast moving subjects. I started shooting in the 70's when everything was manual focus and when you wanted to shoot anything that was moving at a fast pace, one would focus on a spot and when the subject reached that spot the photo would be taken, so in effect you are pre-focusing. I agree with everything you said in the review, at this point in time I just can't see myself purchasing the Zeiss, I like auto focus too much . And I have found the focus accuracy depends on the focus point and type that's used, I use the center focus instead of the outer focus points, also the mode single or Constance focus will also effect focus accuracy. I too purchased the Sigma Dock, my first copy of the lens hunted for focus and also back focused, the second copy was much better and I too also calibrated the lens to my Nikon D610 body and you are correct the lens performed much better and yes it's very heavy. Great review and thanks for the reply. Thanks

  • @smokey267
    @smokey267 7 років тому +1

    I don't own a single portrait specific lens but this review was interesting. I know Sigma lenses are very good I but I guess Zeiss still have their place right?
    Nice review mate, just avoid medium format as an issue and you might alright lol.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Thank you for that really appreciate you watching. Can't promise anything about medium format :P.

  • @oudjunk
    @oudjunk 6 років тому +1

    How about canon 135 f2.

  • @RAJMAN181
    @RAJMAN181 6 років тому

    I do not know whether you are using AI Servo mode, but I can't understand why you are not using burst mode.

  • @kaminobatto
    @kaminobatto 4 роки тому

    Thanks for the amazing review! Very, very informative❤️

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  4 роки тому +1

      Thank you super appreciate you watching our videos and for the kind comments. Really means a lot :-).

    • @kaminobatto
      @kaminobatto 4 роки тому

      @@Sondercreative it's the least one can do ;) The effort you put into these reviews and the genuine advice is priceless!

  • @MsGeo9999
    @MsGeo9999 3 роки тому +1

    Очень странный тест обьектива, зачем снимать спортивные события мануальным стеклом предназначенным для художественной сьмки?

  • @julioestebanperezescudero6246
    @julioestebanperezescudero6246 6 років тому

    When you calibrate color balance with one lens it doesn’t mean that you can apply to another lens from a different manufacturer, there are differences in colour rendition. When you are comparing a portrait taken with this two lenses is completely unfair to say that the tonality in the Sigma is not good you are looking to a cooler photo, why you don’t repeat the test doing a separate color calibration?

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Julio Esteban Perez Escudero I didn’t copy one calibration to another. I compared using the same white balance settings and then adjusted the white balance for the sigma only and compared the two again.

  • @PropheticEclipses
    @PropheticEclipses 6 років тому

    How do you calibrate the sigma lens? USB dock?

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      I don't recommend the USB dock cause it's a long drawn out horrible process. Instead I use software called Focal by Reikan. Not sponsored I pay for mine and no affiliate.
      www.reikanfocal.com/
      This is wayyy more precise, it's automatic and works for most if not all of your EF auto lenses.

  • @julioestebanperezescudero6246

    The whole test is flawed. I have this lens it is almost perfect. White balance should be performed independently for each lens with a target, each manufactured have different color casts that affect color rendering .

  • @JohKemStYl3
    @JohKemStYl3 7 років тому

    I have one Sigma lense and I will never again buy any lense from them. My Sigma 85mm has such extreme focus issues. I send it in with the camera body to Sigma for calibration, but it is still inconsistent and switching from front to back focus. I get around 75% of all images that are at all usable and maybe 50% are in focus. It's basically the worst purchase I ever did. I am now manually focusing the Sigma just to be sure. I had real problems because of the missed focus on the first jobs. Never again!
    BTW the Zeiss 135mm Milvus has weather sealing and it is an apochromatic lense- meaning the color rendition is nearly perfect.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +1

      Really, that bad? Wow, that's disappointing. I use some software called Focal by Reikan and once I've calibrated my Sigma lenses they work exactly like any other Canon lens in terms of focus.
      The Classic Zeiss 135mm which I used is also an APO lens, it has exactly the same optics as the Milvus except the weather sealing.
      Thanks for the comment.

    • @JohKemStYl3
      @JohKemStYl3 7 років тому

      The thing is that it is really not consistant in focussing- sometimes it backfocusses and sometimes it has a bit of front focus and it seems to be nearly independant of the focus distance. It is worse in the range of about 1m-1.5m! I even got the Sigma Dock and tried to solve the problem, but what happens is that for example I correct for front focus and then I get images with backfocus. With the images I went to the original Sigma store to show them my problem and they were just saying I have to send it in. Then I have shown them my receipt for the adjustment I already send it in for to Sigma and they just do not know what to do anymore.
      What I do now is use the auto focus on the lense and then use live view and zoom really close and correct the missing focus manually. It costs me so much time and efford. Anyway thanks for the tip with the software- I will try it.
      I would change the lense even for additional money for a Zeiss 85mm- even if it is manual focus, since I have to manual focus either way.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +1

      Joh Kem I would give Reikan a try the software is seriously amazing.
      I tried using the sigma dock too and hated the process and results weren't that great in my experience.

  • @marcs.7699
    @marcs.7699 4 роки тому

    Just get the Batis 135mm. You have Autofocus,light weight und all the rendering. Just perfect.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  4 роки тому

      And one stop smaller aperture with worse overall performance compared to the APO. Not only that but it’s not a DSLR lens so I can’t use it on most of my cameras.

    • @marcs.7699
      @marcs.7699 4 роки тому

      @@Sondercreative it has a fantastic performance. You just need a system body. I had an Apo 2.0 too, I know, what I am talking. This one stop, ok. But all the advantage. It ist not heavy, it ist sharp, crisp and has the zeiss look.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  4 роки тому +1

      Marc Schreib we’ll have to disagree on this then, but that’s ok :-).

  • @Artaxbozzim
    @Artaxbozzim Рік тому

    Ma dai....paragonare un Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art con Zeiss 135mm f2 ..... Non scherziamo. Otticamente, è come contrapporre la luce di una lampadina confronto al sole.

  • @karaokekingskingdom
    @karaokekingskingdom 7 років тому +2

    can you compare the zeiss to the Samyang 135 f2 pretty please?

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Novembre Pleut I haven't done an in depth comparison but when I did compare them, the zeiss was sharper with better colour rendition. Having said that the Samyang is just an amazing lens. Considering the price I was very shocked at how well it did compared to the Zeiss.
      You will not be disappointed with the Samyang to say the least.

    • @karaokekingskingdom
      @karaokekingskingdom 7 років тому +2

      I know, I have it :) Just looking to quantify just how much better the zeiss is in comparison. Your video has the best clear indication of tonality, colour rendition and micro contrast variations between the sigma and the zeiss, it would be nice to have that quantified with the Samyang but no one has done that video yet. Thanks for the input

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +1

      I might get hold of a Samyang and see if I can test it with the Zeiss and Sigma as a three-way comparison. I can't promise anything yet but I will give it a shot.
      Thank you so much for the kind words :).

    • @karaokekingskingdom
      @karaokekingskingdom 7 років тому +1

      quick question but wha do you think about the milvus 135? do you think it is better than the sonnar

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Novembre Pleut it's exactly the same except it's weather sealed. I spoke directly with Zeiss and they confirmed it.

  • @shadowknightmoon130
    @shadowknightmoon130 6 років тому

    I own the zeiss 135 apo by the way,dont know how much im loosing if i sell it then buy a sigma 135?

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      shadowknight moon you probably won’t lose much I don’t think the Sigma is really well priced. I would however wait until after canon announce theirs as there have been some rumours of an update floating around.

    • @shadowknightmoon130
      @shadowknightmoon130 6 років тому

      Sonder Creative thnks bro well said!

  • @oliverlison
    @oliverlison 4 роки тому

    The Zeiss is a tool. The Sigma is just a wonky thing. I have been shooting documentaries and portraits and I work only with Zeiss lenses. It is working on a different level. It is a complete different approach of photography.

  • @Fotoklasika
    @Fotoklasika 4 місяці тому

    Zeiss Has better bokeh, colors, microcontrast and 3D POP:)

  • @dominikbrands
    @dominikbrands 7 років тому +1

    thks,.. great video!

  • @djuydoiu2627
    @djuydoiu2627 6 років тому

    very interesting seems the sigma get the same bokeh with more light what gives better shutter speeds even tho its not that much its a good differenz on dxomark the sigma has a good value for the t-stop too
    also the performance over the F stops shows a bit better results
    i heared zeiss is very good with chromatics and corner sharpness but then the camera has to stand very precise (to the object) and the object has to be almost flat
    thanks for the video as always it was useful :-)

    • @djuydoiu2627
      @djuydoiu2627 6 років тому

      ach noch etwas er sagte sogar er hätte das bein noch gespürt selbst danach sagte er hätte das gefühl als wäre das bein noch dran

  • @simonleung1027
    @simonleung1027 6 років тому +10

    This video is full of misinformation. Most of your tests you admit to possible user error. Then when you push your obvious bias opinion on Zeiss color rendition, you ignore the clear fact sun was reflecting on your subject on the Zeiss shot where the Sigma was not. I own the Sigma and have zero problems with focus. If my shots aren't sharp, I know its user error. Long focal length + fast aperture needs skills.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому +6

      Simon Leung so I’m able to focus better with a manual lens in the same scene but Sigma doesn’t have issues?
      I wonder how many people have found consistent focussing issues on a sigma lens I own several and they all have it.
      The colour issues were shot in the exact same scene and even after white balancing it was still there so clearly not a white balance issue.
      Lastly I push the sigma lens more than the Zeiss and recommend it over the Zeiss. I also say the sigma is sharper due to having less diffraction and I mention how this is first high performing 135mm with autofocus making it an incredible option. Did you honestly hear me say all of that and still think I’m pushing the Zeiss?

    • @simonleung1027
      @simonleung1027 6 років тому

      Sonder Creative Sonder Creative . Hi thanks for reply. I am not denying your focusing issues. I use a different camera body and only saying that I had no focusing issues that can't be explained by user error. While I appreciate efforts into producing contents, I do wish you could 100 percent back your findings. Anytime you said you may have made an error or this wasn't a good idea, I cringed a little. Your recommendation for the Sigma is due to the fact it has AF. AF you literally just flamed for 1 in 6 effectiveness. Aslo, Dustin Abbot did extensive comparison between these two lenses and I could not see the huge color variance that your shots produced.
      Thanks for taking the time to reply. Best of luck on your future contents.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому +2

      Simon Leung my recommendation for the sigma is because it’s an incredible lens which is sharper than the Zeiss due to less diffraction has the same Bokeh and is much cheaper. The AF is a big bonus on top of that making the sigma a much better option.
      Also skin tones have far more colours and subtleties. A product shot test can’t replicate that effectively.
      We all make mistakes but I was honest where I made mistakes and described it which I think is fair.

    • @shaolin95
      @shaolin95 6 років тому

      He did the same BS claiming the Sigma 85mm focused better adapted on Sony than the native Sony 85mm 1.4 GM even though there were several videos posted showing that all his claims were BS but he is ultra defensive and thinks he is never wrong... pathetic

    • @patryk2700
      @patryk2700 5 років тому +1

      I own a number of Zeiss lenses and always find them much warmer, the Sigma's are truer to life. I have zero issues with AF accuracy and the USB dock is a game changer that allows to account for loose tolerances between camera bodies. It is close to impossible to take full advantage of Zeiss lenses as manual focusing is difficult on DSLRs, I use custom and calibrated focusing screens.
      All in all, Sigma gets my vote.

  • @icekiller181
    @icekiller181 7 років тому +1

    canon camera since jésus suck at autofocus with 3rd party lens and make their firmware for the autofocus work great on canon lens only, sigma on nikon work amazing

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Louis Dubé hey thank you for watching and for the comment. That may be true I haven't tried any Nikon cameras properly.
      I have however heard a number of people talking about Tamron tends to be fine with focusing on Canon but Sigma seems to always have issues. I don't know enough to make a comment myself but I know the issues I faced with the sigma lenses that I own.

    • @adrianhargan9402
      @adrianhargan9402 6 років тому

      I use Sigma on Canon, 24-70 A and 50 A in weddings with no issues.

  • @TaijiquanExplained
    @TaijiquanExplained 4 роки тому

    Sigma is a cheap lens with good design. Zeiss is registering more color gamma, so to speak more light information.

  • @joeyzhao465
    @joeyzhao465 3 роки тому

    is very funny when you say"it takes 6 try to get the sigma autofocus work", your face is just out of focus

  • @chrisv1251
    @chrisv1251 5 років тому +1

    The worst review on lenses. Good job dude

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  5 років тому

      Why?
      Claims are easy Chris, back up your claim with something of actual value. Also, I'd love to see you make a video, so easy to sit behind keyboard without having done anything yourself.

    • @chrisv1251
      @chrisv1251 5 років тому

      You didn’t calibrate your lens. That’s why it had issues. It’s like saying I drank beer it really wasn’t that good but I did drink it warm, I should drink it cold next time.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  5 років тому

      ​@@chrisv1251 That was the point of the test. Sigma is known for having AF issues out of the box with many of their lenses. Calibrating the lens would negate the test.
      Your analogy is stupid too. An AF lens is supposed to be able to focus a beer isn't designed to make itself cold.

    • @chrisv1251
      @chrisv1251 5 років тому

      I can already see your channel not growing, have a good day.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  5 років тому

      ​@@chrisv1251 Growing quite well thank you and I've had the pleasure of (and continue) working with many companies. Companies like Sigma, Fuji, Phase One, Leica and Hasselblad to name just a few.
      I wonder what you're doing with your time.

  • @ValentinoLuggen
    @ValentinoLuggen 6 років тому

    guys just don't watch this unless you are really bored. they are not lenses for this kind of shooting.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Valentino Photography 23,000 people
      were bored right?
      This kind of shooting was used to exaggerate a point and I do address it.

  • @brandonpeterson40
    @brandonpeterson40 3 роки тому

    Sigma color is off. It has a yellow tint.

  • @chooocoooleeezhang1251
    @chooocoooleeezhang1251 7 років тому

    Nothing's wrong with the lenses the problem is your camera Canon sucks in focusing.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +1

      chooocoooleee Zhang I should have used Sony right :-p lol

  • @MestreMur
    @MestreMur 7 років тому

    Focus problem with Manual Focus (MF)? Get a Sony mirroless...

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Gustavo Ulloa I do have a Sony mirror less and I didn't have problems with manual focus :-).
      Thanks for the comment

  • @MR._Mukherjee
    @MR._Mukherjee 6 років тому +1

    Good

  • @rawveganlifestyle2387
    @rawveganlifestyle2387 6 років тому

    Change the cam...sony a7r ii...try again :)

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому +1

      raw vegan lifestyle I did use the Sony a7R II

  • @byronharrington6619
    @byronharrington6619 Рік тому

    out of focus and over exposed. terrible comparison

  • @maypoolqueen9265
    @maypoolqueen9265 7 років тому +2

    I use alot of Sigma lenses for 20 years, and the focus works great.
    Tamron was famous for *shitty AF* for many many years, until they showed up with USD.
    This is stupid comparison btw LOL
    Try to shoot for 2 hours and see who win

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +2

      The comparison of AF from sigma vs the MF from Zeiss is an exaggeration, but, the Sigma still suffers from AF issues. Also, my video had absolutely no discussions about Tamron.
      Without performing any calibrations I did shoot over a number days with both lenses and overall it was easier to get more shots in focus with the Zeiss for slow or nonmoving subjects than it was for the Sigma. The Sigma would be inconsistent with sometimes back focusing or front focusing. The problem exists but if you watch my conclusion I do praise the Sigma regardless.

    • @hishgay2734
      @hishgay2734 5 років тому

      Loool. The sigma is exactly like tamron. Poor optical quality. Poor rendition. Zeiss smashes the sigma is every department. Even Sharpness. The only thing sigma wins is that it's cheaper. Looool

  • @howardkahn717
    @howardkahn717 6 років тому

    dopy test! manual vs auto......

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Howard Kahn dopy comment! didn’t understand point of video.....

    • @howardkahn717
      @howardkahn717 6 років тому

      right, waste of time video, tells me nothing.....Bad comparison.......

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Howard Kahn waste of time comment, tells me nothing about why you don’t like the video... Bad comment...

    • @howardkahn717
      @howardkahn717 6 років тому

      Thats because English is not your first language!......Lack of understanding....smile

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      Howard Kahn you use grammar in a very odd way and then tell me that my ability with the English language is lacking. English is my first language, you seem to be doing something called projecting. Anyway I won’t be replying to you any longer, you don’t have anything useful to offer it seems.

  • @johnbamouk8002
    @johnbamouk8002 6 років тому

    This comparison and the verdicts are all wrong..even the logic is wrong..I own the sigma 135 art on my nikin d810..if i am shooting stills wide open on a tripod i have 99.9% supper sharp images and it was spot on out of the box without any calibration..Can t see how it took you 6 shots to get one shot in focus either your technique or the mighty canon5d mark 4😁.But for aure it s not the lens my friend..And if you want to shoot sports with the zeiss wide open like a bysicle at that speed it will take you maybe a million shot and you will not even get one sharp image..at f 8 with some distance and a pro photographer of sports it can be done..So all this video is useless.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  6 років тому

      John Bamouk if it was my technique why am I able to nails shots with the manual focus lens lol.
      Sigma lenses do have focusing issues on DSLRs it’s a well known issues so just stop it man. Also just because one lens works well doesn’t mean another will this is down to manufacturing inconsistencies.
      I don’t think you understand that with DSRLs all lenses have slight minor issues when it comes to either back-focusing or front. Native lenses have less of an issue because they’re native and manufacturers can be better with tolerances but third party manufacturers may not have the same information and process.
      This is why many professionals will highly recommend you calibrate ALL of your lenses as soon as you buy them.

  • @simeonkolev1231
    @simeonkolev1231 7 років тому

    Dude :) the comparison of the colors and skin tones with different WB ... seriously? Match the colors with color chart by setting the WB properly and than try to compare colors. The Sigma is kicking ass in every term. The only thing that can be better on the Zeiss is the longer focus trough because it is a manual lens. For a manual focusing longer trough of the focus mechanism is better.

    • @simeonkolev1231
      @simeonkolev1231 7 років тому

      I repeat - try to match the colors with color chart. The Zeiss was with red cast all over the image.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому

      Simeon Kolev the white balance was exactly the same in the comparison and the sigma is much colder. When you match the white balance the sigma still cannot capture as many colours.
      Don't get me wrong I think the sigma is an amazing lens but don't sit there making it out to be perfect. The Zeiss still has its respective advantages and is optically better for skin tones.

    • @Sondercreative
      @Sondercreative  7 років тому +2

      You're making a comment about colours when you weren't there to see what they were like. Seriously, come one man.
      The Sigma is worse at capturing accurate and detailed colours in the skin. Also if you need a colour chart for the Sigma that means it's less effective than the Zeiss SOOC, more work is required with the Sigma vs the Zeiss. If I'm doing a comparison I'm not going to edit and spend tonnes of time on an image and then use that a way of demonstrating what the lens can do, that's mispresenting it.

    • @lilnape2604
      @lilnape2604 6 років тому

      Don't mean to beat a dead horse but you're just flat out wrong. The sigma's exposure was brighter in the portrait photos which muted the skin tone variations. The Sigma photo was shot at a wider aperture(1.8 v 2.0) and slower shutter speed(1/200 vs 1/250). I downloaded your images and reduced the exposure and the two pictures had the same skin tones/detail.

    • @hishgay2734
      @hishgay2734 5 років тому

      Loool the sigma is trash. No micro contrast and not sharp at all! Autofocus lacks. I rather have the samyang than sigma