TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …News-Post.aspx?News=20517



Good Job Sigma. I'd say it's enough of a difference to put things into perspective. Still want it cheaper though lol

I like the vs 200/2: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

200/2 is sharper in center but the sigma beats it in the midrange and corners.

i've already noticed a dip in the price of the used 135L's...hope they go down even further

I've never seen either one of my 135L lenses look as bad as Bryan's presentation. He either missed focused or needs to MFA that lens to his 1DsIII. Maybe the 5DsR is special, but I've never seen that kind of CA from my 135Ls either.

I was thinking 'wow', but then I thought 'have I ever actually wished my 135L was sharper?'. In thinking about it I've never made a print larger than 14" from my 135 and that was at ISO6400. I'd rather have an IS version at f2.0 for that weight and price.

Still impressive whatever the comparison is. Maybe shows what Canon could do with an update version?

Bassat wrote in post #18350517
I've never seen either one of my 135L lenses look as bad as Bryan's presentation. He either missed focused or needs to MFA that lens to his 1DsIII. Maybe the 5DsR is special, but I've never seen that kind of CA from my 135Ls either.

I've only questioned some of the 3rd party results but I've owned several canon items and many third and have compared my own side by side and my results match his results well. It may not be some 100% perfectly executed test but I'd say it's really really close to good.

Again many copies of lenses test different... look at Roger @ lens rentals stuff... over time of me following that I realize that too... that there is "copy variation"

However the 135 performs just as I expected it to. The 85 and 135 have become Sigmas price and joys in the IQ department.

You've got a good point. I saw Roger's article about the Sigma 24-105. There was clearly more variation between any two copies of either Canon or Sigma 24-105s than there was between the average Canon and the average Sigma. Production tolerances and all that. The same could apply to the 135s.

The Sigma looks really good, but I'm not selling off my 135L, just yet.

Bummer. TDP site seems to be down so I can't see the links.

ejenner wrote in post #18350535
I was thinking 'wow', but then I thought 'have I ever actually wished my 135L was sharper?'. In thinking about it I've never made a print larger than 14" from my 135 and that was at ISO6400. I'd rather have an IS version at f2.0 for that weight and price.

Still impressive whatever the comparison is. Maybe shows what Canon could do with an update version?

All I can say is try it... You wouldn't think you would need sharper but to me it makes a difference. I print alot of 13x19.

Ok I'm home now on my el cheapy 1080P monitor and I can tell you I can't really see much of a difference

BUT at work on my 4K Asus monitor I can see a big difference.

Is that normal?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Dang compared to my 85A I realize how much more CA the 85 has. This 135 1.8 looks great!

Let me fix that for you:

Talley wrote in post #18350505
When shooting charts at chart distance the 200/2 is sharper in center but the sigma beats it in the midrange and corners.

I shoot no charts, so I prefer to see actual shots of 3D subjects, for which I am afraid the 200L is in a different league due to a superior correction of secondary spectrum errors.

About the 135L, the Sigma is expected to be much better than a 20 year old lens. What I'd like to see is a comparison (on real subjects) against the Zeiss APO Sonnar.

Talley wrote in post #18350586
Ok I'm home now on my el cheapy 1080P monitor and I can tell you I can't really see much of a difference

BUT at work on my 4K Asus monitor I can see a big difference.

Is that normal?

I can clearly see the difference on my Surface Book with 3000x2000.

More than monitor resolution (since these crops are much smaller than 1080p), is the el cheapy going through VGA (the old trapezoidal, probably-blue 15 pin port that's been the same since the '90s) as compared to the 4k obviously being digital? It's possible that a blurring of the image because of the analog port is enough to hide the slight difference between the two, especially on a digital monitor.

I'll echo other people here - the 135L is still good enough that that's probably the direction I would go, for peace of mind if nothing else. Damn fine work by Sigma, though!

CheshireCat wrote in post #18350657
Let me fix that for you:

I shoot no charts, so I prefer to see actual shots of 3D subjects, for which I am afraid the 200L is in a different league due to a superior correction of secondary spectrum errors.

I actually shoot 3D subjects too, my kids... and my 85A has me jaw dropped on it's level of performance. It clearly matches the 200L and only differs by only providing a different focal length which is what the 200L has the advantage is it's compression advantage. The 135 1.8 closes that and gets much closer.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18350723
I'll echo other people here - the 135L is still good enough that that's probably the direction I would go, for peace of mind if nothing else. Damn fine work by Sigma, though!

Yup and the used 135's are in the mid 600s easy now and I seen one sell for 590... Can't beat that.

I'm slightly intrigued, the thought of more blur and sharper photos sounds good on paper. My 135 is my goto event lens, but that's only a few times a year, not sure it's worth the effort to replace. I've been using either 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 for my day to day shooting due to weight, the new FE 85 is half the weight of the 135L and sharper as well...

on the flip side, I do have large print from the 135L, wide open that is very pleasing...