TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

FEChariot wrote in post #18352030
OK I give

sorry...it cant track jack squat in a dark room. Good luck getting the camera to lock. experienced it first hand.

FEChariot wrote in post #18352029
OK I get it. Confirmation bias plus magic = your opinion.

LOL, talk about confirmation bias... Enjoy your charts

umphotography wrote in post #18352115
sorry...it cant track jack squat in a dark room. Good luck getting the camera to lock. experienced it first hand.

Strange....

CheshireCat wrote in post #18351944
The sad story is that too many people only use test charts to decide whether to buy a lens, and therefore some manufacturers optimize lenses for test charts only.

If I could get you to remove your tin foil cap for a few minutes so we can fully expose this conspiracy, but could you tell me how manufactures, and we might as well just come out and say third party manufacturers since Canon doesn't do it, how exactly these manufacturers design a lens to perform great on a test chart and at the same time are soft for portraits and or landscapes. This is a fascinating revelation on your part. I had no idea the conspiracy was this complex.

Me and another photographer did a shoot off comparing these 2 lenses in a real world example. In my opinion they are really close as far as image quality and bokeh. It would be difficult to find any differences that are not due to editing preferences.

Here are some examples from our shoot off. The Canon 135L images are mine, and the Sigma 135 images belong to Keydrin Franklin of NineTwentyFour photography, who has given me permission to post his pictures along with mine.

Here is a link to a video Keydrin produced of our shoot out. (I am the awkward looking tall guy that has no business in the front of a camera. )
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=8El3Sf0p8nc

Canon

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UHWw​yR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UEgQ​1G

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TBWj​3d

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TrrH​r3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TFzR​x4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UtCP​M5

Unfortunately not a good comparison at all. Great images but different compositions, camera subject distances and lighting all take a factor in those and can not be directly compared. The canon is for the most part closer placed and would affect the bokeh in relation to the sigma.

tim1970 wrote in post #18352451
Me and another photographer did a shoot off comparing these 2 lenses in a real world example. In my opinion they are really close as far as image quality and bokeh. It would be difficult to find any differences that are not due to editing preferences.

Here are some examples from our shoot off. The Canon 135L images are mine, and the Sigma 135 images belong to Keydrin Franklin of NineTwentyFour photography, who has given me permission to post his pictures along with mine.

Here is a link to a video Keydrin produced of our shoot out. (I am the awkward looking tall guy that has no business in the front of a camera. )

Canon

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UHWw​yR Gabby-110 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UEgQ​1G Gabby-Web-17 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Canon

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TBWj​3d Gabby-102 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TrrH​r3 Gabby-Web-18 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Canon
https://flic.kr/p/TFzR​x4Gabby-101 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma
https://flic.kr/p/UtCP​M5Gabby-Workshop-Web by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

I would choose the Sigma based off of these. Though your processing may be different than his.

Talley wrote in post #18352452
Unfortunately not a good comparison at all. Great images but different compositions, camera subject distances and lighting all take a factor in those and can not be directly compared. The canon is for the most part closer placed and would affect the bokeh in relation to the sigma.

The lighting is identical. Also, while the composition might be slightly different, it is due to cropping differences. We both shot from the exact same place for each shot. We didn't intend this to be an exact scientific test either. It was just 2 guys shooting each lens in a real world scenario. The only thing I wish we could have done different, was to switch lenses and let me shoot the Sigma, but since the other photographer was shooting Nikon, this was not possible.

Chet wrote in post #18352454
I would choose the Sigma based off of these. Though your processing may be different than his.

If the price was close between the two lenses, I would probably choose the Sigma also. But for me, I can't see myself selling the Canon 135, and then putting down another $700 or $800 on the Sigma.

tim1970 wrote in post #18352458
If the price was close between the two lenses, I would probably choose the Sigma also. But for me, I can't see myself selling the Canon 135, and then putting down another $700 or $800 on the Sigma.

Same could be said for selling the 70-200 2.8 IS II and spending another 3,000 on a 200 F2 IS

Talley wrote in post #18352462
Same could be said for selling the 70-200 2.8 IS II and spending another 3,000 on a 200 F2 IS

Possibly, but one of the main differences is the 200 F2 has a look that is so unique, if you placed 5 photos from the 200 f2 and 5 photos from the 70-200 f2.8 on a table, most photographers would probably be able to pick out the ones that came from the 200 f2. I don't think you could say that about the Canon and Sigma 135's.

Another thing is the date code on my 135 is from 10 years ago. Just the fact that we can even have a comparison between a lens that was built 10 years ago (with a design that is even older than that) with a brand new designed lens is amazing to me.

tim1970 wrote in post #18352467
Possibly, but one of the main differences is the 200 F2 has a look that is so unique, if you placed 5 photos from the 200 f2 and 5 photos from the 70-200 f2.8 on a table, most photographers would probably be able to pick out the ones that came from the 200 f2. I don't think you could say that about the Canon and Sigma 135's.

Another thing is the date code on my 135 is from 10 years ago. Just the fact that we can even have a comparison between a lens that was built 10 years ago (with a design that is even older than that) with a brand new designed lens is amazing to me.

but the 200f2 is a very niche product for most photographers by a large margin due to cost and size. The sigma on the other hand is much more attainable and can probably get close to the 200f2 look. it's not like the 135L's look is drastically different either.

If you had for some reason been shooting with my 135mm L, it would be more like 15 years old, and having survived a swim in the South Pacific Ocean.

FEChariot wrote in post #18352363
If I could get you to remove your tin foil cap for a few minutes so we can fully expose this conspiracy, but could you tell me how manufactures, and we might as well just come out and say third party manufacturers since Canon doesn't do it, how exactly these manufacturers design a lens to perform great on a test chart and at the same time are soft for portraits and or landscapes. This is a fascinating revelation on your part. I had no idea the conspiracy was this complex.

Sorry, there is no conspiracy. It's basic marketing.
The vast majority of buyers like you don't know much about optical design, and think the final truth is in lens charts. That's your "If it is great on a chart, then it must be great on real photos" myth.
Therefore some companies design low-cost lenses that are optimized for buyers like you. This allows saving money using cheap glass (i.e. crappy colors and purple/green fringing on out-of-focus areas), cheap coating (crappy colors and flare issues), low-performance AF, low-performance IS, bad performance with extenders, higher MTBF, et cetera.

You say Canon doesn't do this, but that's not true: Canon marketing knows there are lots of people like you, so they do have also some not-so-good lenses for sale.
Also, some third-party manufacturers are more serious than others in this regard. Zeiss is a good example.

tim1970 wrote in post #18352451
Me and another photographer did a shoot off comparing these 2 lenses in a real world example. In my opinion they are really close as far as image quality and bokeh. It would be difficult to find any differences that are not due to editing preferences.

Here are some examples from our shoot off. The Canon 135L images are mine, and the Sigma 135 images belong to Keydrin Franklin of NineTwentyFour photography, who has given me permission to post his pictures along with mine.

Here is a link to a video Keydrin produced of our shoot out. (I am the awkward looking tall guy that has no business in the front of a camera. )
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=8El3Sf0p8nc

Canon

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UHWw​yR Gabby-110 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UEgQ​1G Gabby-Web-17 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Canon

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TBWj​3d Gabby-102 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TrrH​r3 Gabby-Web-18 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Canon
https://flic.kr/p/TFzR​x4Gabby-101 by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

Sigma
https://flic.kr/p/UtCP​M5Gabby-Workshop-Web by Tim Richardson, on Flickr

They both look nice but going off these. The canon has a slight green tint to it it seems to me. The sigma photos have a nicer color and look. but then that could be maybe from the Sigma lens, or the Processing done or that you are shooting canon and he was shooting nikon. So its hard to judge this. either way 135L for under $700 used is hard to beat and hard to swallow an extra $700 for very minimal gains