CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18395655
But my 135L has been with me since 2004, cost me a lot less, and does what I need it to. I have no desire to even look at a replacement/upgrade. Maybe if it ever dies (although it survived a dunk in the pacific ocean)
yes, I still have my 135L, and as great of a value as it is, the sigma is like 200/2 sharp with newer coatings. Is it worth it? I paid 650 used for the L and 1250 for the sigma art new. About double the price. I dont do 70-200, so I'm ok with spending that money. If I had to guess, the difference will be like the 200 f1.8 -> 200 f2. really good vs stunning and modern (even if the 200/2 not really modern anymore).
the main reason why sigma caught my attention was due to shooting a mixture of modern and old optics. I have a modern 85 that's blistering sharp and the clarity is just so high, and along with the 135L, the older L lens just seemed a tad dull. Curiosity got the best of me, so I tried out the siggy, and it's a stunning lens. You can crop the hell out of the sigma with a high resolution body. The SOOC clarity of the sigma is outstanding, it's just tough to unsee what it's produced. The lens is a keeper, the canon will be sold. AF is very fast, even adapted
Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC