TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

CheshireCat wrote in post #18352540
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 crappy lenses for sale.
Also, some third-party manufacturers are more serious than others in this regard. Zeiss is a good example.

Extra comedic value props to you for complaining about "low-performance AF, low-performance IS" and then talking about how Zeiss is more serious in that regard. That was especially entertaining.

I noticed that you didn't answer my question at all. I want to hear about lens design which according to you, I don't know much about so educate me. I want to know how you think lens manufacturers design a lens like a Volkswagen diesel engine that performs well on a test like a chart, but then performs poorly on a real world image thus giving soft images? Please try to stay on topic and not try to redirect and just answer the question this time.

05Xrunner wrote in post #18352634
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

they look to be processed by two people. I was dusting off the old 135L and shooting it a bit last night, and honestly I'm fine with what it does. Just so darn heavy nowadays.... I'm sure the sigma is an additional 300g...

according to the video..all images are processed by the same guy

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.

Thanks for posting the images. Perfect example for real world use and you guys used 2 different camera brands. Bravo !!!

Bokeh to my eye in non distinguishable. Looks the same on both files to my eye.

Sharpness looks identical.

agreed I dont see $700.00 in improvement in IQ

stand by my original statements. The sigma 135 is going to be a great lens for Nikon shooters. Zero reason fir a canon shooter to jump on this sigma when 135Ls are so cheap and readily available in the $700.00 price range

Sigma seems to make some big heavy primes. I personally find Canon L primes are borderline of what I want to carry.

For example I often use my 135 with my 50.

Canon weight of 50/135 - 1340g
Sigma weight of 50/135 - 1945g

With Canon I can carry my 16-35 and it would be about the same weight.

FEChariot wrote in post #18352699
I noticed that you didn't answer my question at all. I want to hear about lens design which according to you, I don't know much about so educate me.

Sorry, not with that attitude. Do your own homework.

In the video yes. But the Canon images I posted in this thread I did the processing.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18352858
Sorry, not with that attitude. Do your own homework.

More deflection because there is no such thing as any proof to provide that a lens could magically be designed to perform with great sharpness on a test chart and then be soft on real life subjects.

05Xrunner wrote in post #18352634
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

Different Cameras too, different PP,. no telling where the stronger greens come from, but I am guessing Canon Vs. Nikon.

Perhaps ironically, I like the look of the SIGMA/Nikon images better, but I would not use that to suggest that either the SIGMA lens or the Nikon body is in any way better. Too many variables involved.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18353171
Different Cameras too, different PP,. no telling where the stronger greens come from, but I am guessing Canon Vs. Nikon.

+1
White balance is also different, check the skin color.
Nice shots, but I agree that is not a proper comparison.
That said, I much prefer the rendering and treatment of the Sigma+Nikon though.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18353171
Different Cameras too, different PP,. no telling where the stronger greens come from, but I am guessing Canon Vs. Nikon.

Perhaps ironically, I like the look of the SIGMA/Nikon images better, but I would not use that to suggest that either the SIGMA lens or the Nikon body is in any way better. Too many variables involved.

It's funny, because I prefer the Canon in all three of these. It's actually the first time I've seen the "cold, clinical" look (some) people complain about with Sigmas.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18353238
It's funny, because I prefer the Canon in all three of these. It's actually the first time I've seen the "cold, clinical" look (some) people complain about with Sigmas.

So do I LonelyBoy. I was beginning to think there was something wrong with my perception with everyone else seemingly preferring the Sigma. To me the Sigma/Nikon images look flat in comparison to the Canon images.

They look very close and typical for the sensors and lens they are captured with. I think people are getting caught up about this. You should be comparing sharpness, bokeh, & color

Its going to be impossible to compare color because canon sensors and Nikon sensors will yield different colors especially for skin tones, greens and reds. Pretty well known through out the industry. Being that these comparisons are on different camera sensors, bokeh and sharpness is about the only thing you can make a comparison with.

umphotography wrote in post #18353264
They look very close and typical for the sensors and lens they are captured with. I think people are getting caught up about this. You should be comparing sharpness, bokeh, & color

Its going to be impossible to compare color because canon sensors and Nikon sensors will yield different colors especially for skin tones, greens and reds. Pretty well known through out the industry. Being that these comparisons are on different camera sensors, bokeh and sharpness is about the only thing you can make a comparison with.

As true as that may be... it still leaves me happy to be sitting on the Canon side of the fence.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18353279
As true as that may be... it still leaves me happy to be sitting on the Canon side of the fence.

A $3000 70-200/2.8 VR 3 also leaves me happy on this side too.