OoDee wrote in post #18237438
Ok. Here's what I was trying to ask in the first place: Does anyone else here think that the 135L renders colors and contrast a little flat, compared to some other lenses (e.g. the Sigma 35A)? I'm neither saying nor expecting that every different lens should somehow render exactly similar results (obviously not). But I was just wondering whether anyone else has the same perception about the 135L, given that its optical quality is generally thought of as top notch. I could argue that the 135L, while optically awesome, is not quite as good as some of the newer lenses. But the difference is negligible to the point that it might as well be in my head. That is why I'm curious to hear if anyone else has made similar or differing observations.
I did a little testing. Here's comparison between the 135L and Sigma 35Art (cropped to match 135 frame). Both were shot on manual focus, f/5.6, 1/10sec (on a tripod), ISO 80, flash fired. Turns out that at least in these circumstances the difference is not as big as I had it built up in my head. But to it does seem that Sigma is slightly brighter and perhaps just bit more contrasty.
Sigma on the left, 135L on the right. Shot with Sony A7rii (uncompressed RAW).
appreciate the post
as a former 135 owner and A7Rii owner, don't take this the wrong way, something seems wrongs with the 135 image
given the 35 is cropped, the 135 should have far more pixels on target and nothing seems sharp
i have taken 1/20 SS handheld pictures with the 135 on the A7Rii which when zoomed in as close as possible in camera are tack sharp - which none of yours seem to be
Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.