TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

Gotta say that I buy glass based on performance and value to my business model

I have not found anything better than Canon zooms for my zoom needs.

But sigma has really stepped it up with the arts. My first experience with sigma was the 120-300. Great lens but at 100% just a little too soft and the darn thing was heavy. I sold it for the 300L

Came close to buying the 150-600 sport. stellar lens. Might buy one for our trip next year to Alaska to photograph grizzlys. Its on outstanding lens.

BUT- The arts are going to give Canon and Nikon a run for its money. The 85 Art I have is better than canons 85L....By a lot. This sigma 135 art is stellar. Great glass. But so is Canons 135L. They look almost identical to my eye. The 50 art and the 35 art are all great lens and it seems to me that the 50 art has same issues as canons 50L...results vary from different owners and/or different copies out there.

If Sigma can get into the zoom game with the arts series....Canon and Nikon will both be in trouble. Same for the super telephotos and big primes. Right now there is nothing that can touch a 300L and a 500F/4 especially if you pair with TC's.....If Sigma can get into this market like they have with the other arts.....I would zee zero reason to Buy canon primes, especially at their current prices

The 135mm market has two great choices and with these two MFg's being this close its all going to boil down to Price. For canon shooters at $700.00 the 135L is going to be a stellar value. I dont see a lot of guys jumping on the siggy. It appears to be excellent glass. My Nikon friends love having it in their bags

One thing is certain. Great time to be a photographer. Awesome choices out there.

umphotography wrote in post #18353555
Gotta say that I buy glass based on performance and value to my business model

Business = stick to canon. Me... I get to play around with all sorts of nice stuff. I'm fortunate for that.

umphotography wrote in post #18353555
Right now there is nothing that can touch a 300L and a 500F/4 especially if you pair with TC's.....If Sigma can get into this market like they have with the other arts.....I would zee zero reason to Buy canon primes

Don't forget Sigma's new 500/4 art. Price is a touch high imho compared to a used canon V1 but it's IQ so far is matching to the II.

You seem too obsessed with the 'art' label...it's not a separate series from sigma like the L series...it's just how they label their faster lenses...

... and by the way, isn't their 500/4 a "Sport" lens rather than "Art" ?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18353653
... and by the way, isn't their 500/4 a "Sport" lens rather than "Art" ?

Yes

DreDaze wrote in post #18353651
You seem too obsessed with the 'art' label...it's not a separate series from sigma like the L series...it's just how they label their faster lenses...

If there is anything I'm obsessed about it's quality lenses. I'm not very creative so I need all the help I can get but nothing erks me worse than softness, missed shots, CA, vignetting, poor colors, low contrast etc all of it. I simply demand excellence. I pick my lenses based on that.

Comment wasnt directed to you

Talley wrote in post #18353666
If there is anything I'm obsessed about it's quality lenses. I'm not very creative so I need all the help I can get but nothing erks me worse than softness, missed shots, CA, vignetting, poor colors, low contrast etc all of it. I simply demand excellence. I pick my lenses based on that.

From Internet reviews, it seems that the Sigma 500/4 has a considerable focus shift and not well corrected longitudinal CA. Not excellent.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18353674
From Internet reviews, it seems that the Sigma 500/4 has a considerable focus shift and not well corrected longitudinal CA. Not excellent.

I stand to be corrected. I'm not fond of a lens that is F4 but it has a market. I just know I'd rather spend the extra 1.5k and buy a used V2.

There is a sample thread started in the archive;

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1479970

I'm planning on switching my 85L for the 85 art. If the 85 art serves me well, then I'll probably switch the 135L too. Exciting times!

DreDaze wrote in post #18353651
You seem too obsessed with the 'art' label...it's not a separate series from sigma like the L series...it's just how they label their faster lenses...

just a reference on my part. As mentioned the 150-500 sport is a killer lens. So....If that 500F/4 is in the same league, I would consider. My problem with the 500's is usaually they are just too heavy to use w/o a tripod and plates to hold and balance. Big reason I went 300 F/2.8

Here is a side by side with the Sigma 135 and the Canon 200/2. I did this for my own curiosity.

1st image Canon left F2 , Sigma Right F1.8

2nd image Canon left @ 2.8, Sigma right @ 2.8

Talley wrote in post #18355751
Here is a side by side with the Sigma 135 and the Canon 200/2. I did this for my own curiosity.

1st image Canon left F2 , Sigma Right F1.8

2nd image Canon left @ 2.8, Sigma right @ 2.8

So I think I'm starting to vaguely understand these past "higher is better"... am I right in thinking that the difference between the radial and sagittal lines away from center for the 200/2 contribute to that "magical" look you love?

And uh, think LonelyGirl would notice another white lens?