TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

The 135 looks better than the 135L but not that big of a difference IMO. Not enough to justify the price for and and I have bigger fish to fry (upgrade). For instance look at the difference between the 85A and 85/1.8:

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

If I upgrade a prime, that is going to be the one that gets my money first.

I have said it before and I will state it again

Sigma 135 1.8 is a must have lens

IF YOU ARE A NIKON SHOOTER

You will be very hard pressed to see any difference BT a 135L and a Sigma 135 1.8 IF you are a canon shooter and you will be ever further Hard pressed to justify spending above $700.00-750.00 for a clean used 135L..Its one of the best deals on the market for canon shooters....There is NOT going to be a $700.00 improvement in image quality

UNLESS

You have a bad case of GAS syndrome

FEChariot wrote in post #18350831
The 135 looks better than the 135L but not that big of a difference IMO. Not enough to justify the price for and and I have bigger fish to fry (upgrade). For instance look at the difference between the 85A and 85/1.8:

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

If I upgrade a prime, that is going to be the one that gets my money first.

Exactly---Guess what I did

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?

Poor Talley. He has it bad

You could say there's not much of a difference between many lenses, and that you would only notice when pixel peeping...look at the comparison of the 24-70L I vs. II....yet there's not that many still holding onto their originals because hey don't want to spend he extra money for a slight gain...this thing will sell like crazy, sub $500 135L by christmas

Talley wrote in post #18350583
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.

Not making any comment about the Σ135A, but printing 13x19 isn't even pushing a crop camera very hard. I have 11x17s from a T1i/18-135 that look fantastic. Local shooter does 20x30 from a 7D all day. They look good.

Pushing a full-frame, high-density sensor to 20x30 should be no major trick.

Bassat wrote in post #18350889
.... but printing 13x19 isn't even pushing a crop crop camera very hard. I have 11x17s from a T1i/18-135 that look fantastic. Local shooter does 20x30 from a 7D all day. They look good.

...

Likewise, I sold a slew of 13x19" prints in a gallery show some years back made from 6MP images from my EOS D60 IR conversion. The lens was the "lowly" 17-40mm f/4L

Lens performance is not just about resolution.

And even if it were, resolution is not just about wall-sized prints.
It is very useful to have a 135mm lens you can crop to - say - 200mm equivalent and still have a very high quality image on a high-res sensor.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18350922
Lens performance is not just about resolution.

And even if it were, resolution is not just about wall-sized prints.
It is very useful to have a 135mm lens you can crop to - say - 200mm equivalent and still have a very high quality image on a high-res sensor.

Aperture matters. Even the most mediocre of lenses is improved by stopping down.

My approach may be a bit archaic, but if I am after maximum IQ, I'd mount a 200mm lens instead of cropping a 135mm shot.

The new Sigma may be a superb lens. It is not $700 worth of superb-er to me. I'll keep plugging along with my now-obsolete Canon 135L. The shame of it all.

Bassat wrote in post #18350889
Not making any comment about the Σ135A, but printing 13x19 isn't even pushing a crop camera very hard. I have 11x17s from a T1i/18-135 that look fantastic. Local shooter does 20x30 from a 7D all day. They look good.

Pushing a full-frame, high-density sensor to 20x30 should be no major trick.

Crop an image 70% then print 13x19

And yes... when I compare two images I'll crop 100% and then print 13x19 of the two lenses I'm comparing and then I compare the actual print.

Who else does that??? and who has g.a.s worse than that :P

umphotography wrote in post #18350855
Poor Talley. He has it bad

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=183​50855&i=i264323462
forum: Canon Lenses

I never said I wanted it.... the 135 is a weird focal length for me. The 85 and 200 make a much more powerful combo

I'm just trying to fuel the technical talks

umphotography wrote in post #18350841
I have said it before and I will state it again

Sigma 135 1.8 is a must have lens

IF YOU ARE A NIKON SHOOTER

You will be very hard pressed to see any difference BT a 135L and a Sigma 135 1.8 IF you are a canon shooter and you will be ever further Hard pressed to justify spending above $700.00-750.00 for a clean used 135L..Its one of the best deals on the market for canon shooters....There is NOT going to be a $700.00 improvement in image quality

UNLESS

You have a bad case of GAS syndrome

I'll buy it just to prove you wrong AND right lol. I'll actually consider it once used ones hit the market at 1k.

Talley wrote in post #18351057
Crop an image 70% then print 13x19

And yes... when I compare two images I'll crop 100% and then print 13x19 of the two lenses I'm comparing and then I compare the actual print.

Who else does that??? and who has g.a.s worse than that :P

But-- are you not talking more about a sensor issue v/s a lens issue ??

Cropping down to a 16x9 is about pixel ratio's issue and not a lens issue...pixels on target.....or did i miss what you were going after ??

as for 135L issue... I seriusly doubt you can tell which lens took the shot on a side by side comparison, even on a 100% crop unless you are experienced enough to know the color/contrast differences after import from a sigma/tamron/Canon lens.....there is some differences which are characteristic to the MFG....give you that.....everything else is a cant tell for me

umphotography wrote in post #18351082
But-- are you not talking more about a sensor issue v/s a lens issue ??

Cropping down to a 16x9 is about pixel ratio's issue and not a lens issue...pixels on target.....or did i miss what you were going after ??

as for 135L issue... I seriusly doubt you can tell which lens took the shot on a side by side comparison, even on a 100% crop unless you are experienced enough to know the color/contrast differences after import from a sigma/tamron/Canon lens.....there is some differences which are characteristic to the MFG....give you that.....everything else is a cant tell for me

If I'm comparing a 85 Art to an 85L II on the same camera then no it's comparing lenses and on that the print was easy to identify in some shots and harder than others. The one give away was the F1.2 was simply more bokeh period.

But if you compared the 135L to the 135A I would say it would be easy to see at 100% but not at normal view.

When it comes to any canon vs tamron glass I can pick out the tamron all day long.

As said before, my 135 does not perform with that kind of CA. It's so dang sharp at f2.