135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

[pierceography]

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison. :

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

I have to agree with the others about the poor comparison. At f/2.8, the Canon is sharper in the center, and the corners are much improved. Bump it up to f/4 and the Canon is vastly superior, while also having the flexibility of an additional stop of light by going down to f/2. So I'd much rather have the Canon (and as it turns out, I do).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[zim]

If these new lenses actually happen and are all as good as the 35, wonder what Sigma's roadmap is for their bodies?

Well Sigma only makes bodies around the Foveon sensor with their current flagship being the SD1 Merrill. It is "only" an APS-C sized sensor and I think was originally sold for like $9000 though it is currently about $1800. Unless Sigma has a huge secret they have kept under wraps about making a full 24 x 36 mm sensor, they do not make a single camera that can fully utilize DG series lenses. They would be happy with all DC series if making lenses solely for their own line.

So it appears Sigma is still quite committed to being a third party lens line for the other major manufacturer bodies.

I agree that’s the case at the moment but just speculating for fun once they complete (whatever that might be) their Contemporary, Art and Sports lines what’s the next logical step I reckon a couple of new bodies. FWIW I really don’t care for the current design egon. so for me they have a lot of catch up but looking at the innovation going on with their lenses maybe they just have the taste for that?

 

[CarlTN]

I didn't realize anyone was criticizing the Canon 135 f/2. Mine is quite sharp everywhere, except the extreme corners wide open on a full frame. Even the extreme corners wide open on a crop camera are sharp. Again, the advantage a Sigma 135 f/1.8 would have, would be a fraction of a stop...and perhaps stabilization. I doubt it would be any sharper than the Canon...and instead likely perhaps a tad less resolution. The color might be better (i.e. warmer).

(Sorry to belabor the point over...but...) I do feel, that what is called for, are new focal length primes (and even zooms) that no one seems to be making...but maybe they won't ever get built?

Something like a 95mm f/0.9, and a 160mm f/1.4 or 1.6...would be nice. If Sigma, Tamron, or whoever...ever build anything close to these, their prices need not be much over $2.5k for the 95, and $3.5k for the 160. If they're high IQ, plenty of people would line up to buy them...even if there is no stabilization.

 

[RLPhoto]

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison. :

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

If your way of thinking is that skewed, consider the 60mm macro is as sharp as the 135L but you missing the whole reason someone buys the 135L, razor-sharpness @ f/2.

So yes, comparing a 900$ 135L to a 7000$ 200 f/2L is ludicrous, just as comparing the 135L to a macro, two whole different worlds.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

My old 200mm f2.8 II L was the sharpest prime I have ever used. It was a sublime lens. But I sold it because my 70-200 f2.8 II L IS was nearly as sharp but a lot more versatile. My 135L is sharp and yes it gets a bit of purple fringing....but Lightroom deals with this so well that it's a non issue. My 85mm f1.2 II L is a tad sharper. No one ever believes me when i say this, which I think is an opinion which goes against common forum mantra. But my copy is. My 135L is a stellar performer and I get great result out of it and I use it wide open often.
But it's a an old design and things have moved on. There's a possible 1/3 stop of brightness which can be extracted from the front filter size. IS could easily be added. AF could be tweeked. Newer coatings to help cleaning and flare control. More aperture blades and rounded ones would help the bokeh a bit. It's not weather sealed and mine's been back to Canon a few times for a loose front collar. The Hood is huge and it's flare control isn't as good as other lenses.
It's a bit like the 35mm f1.4, a brilliant lens. But just needs a little update to bring it up to epic status.

 

[funkboy]

Just in time to throw some more fat on this fire:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l

 

[RLPhoto]

Just in time to throw some more fat on this fire:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l

Pretty much agree, Razors to Razors but I wouldn't spend 1000$ more for the Zeiss. Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.

 

[Pi]

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Anybody who complains about the sharpness of the 135L is using that lens (assuming he has ever used it at all) for something lenses are not designed for.

 

[funkboy]

Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.

Agree. The Zeiss is certainly better wide open, but not $1200 better. It's more than double the price and almost double the weight.

I love MF wide-angles (especially lenses with good markings so it's easy to set hyperfocal), but for me anything longer than about 50mm *really* needs AF, preferably fast AF.

 

[wickidwombat]

Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.

Agree. The Zeiss is certainly better wide open, but not $1200 better. It's more than double the price and almost double the weight.

I love MF wide-angles (especially lenses with good markings so it's easy to set hyperfocal), but for me anything longer than about 50mm *really* needs AF, preferably fast AF.

also if the new sigma controls flare anything like the 35mm It will make it significantly better than the 135L as i feel it loses contrast quite easily when shooting into the sun however it will be mind blowing if they do make it sharper than the 135L and this will be quite a feat too

 

[switters]

Has there been any indication whatsoever that Sigma is going to produce an updated 50/1.4 anytime soon? I've seen these rumors of a 24mm and 135mm, but other than the fact that we might expect a 50, have any rumors about it surfaced?

 

[Jappe]

Has there been any news about this new Sigma 135 f1,8 lens? I haven't seen any additional information since this rumor appeared.

 

[adhocphotographer]

What do we think the chances are that:

a) there might be a sigma 24mm Art coming soon
b) it will be better IQ than the canon L II?

I'm not asking about price because it would obviously be cheaper...

 

[verysimplejason]

Bad Rumor.

1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!

That's what a lot of them said regarding the price of the 18-35 F1.8 APS-C. There are lots of doubters. Sigma seems to have a habit of in-your-facing most doubters. Pass the popcorn please. This will be interesting.

 

[TommyLee]

wow the zeiss is NEARLY as good in the corners ....as the center....
but I need autofocus...please

I love my 135 f2 Canon...
but then
I loved my 35L and sold it
and now use a much better performing lens ...the Sigma 35 1.4

my sigma 35 is sharp wideopen.... corners are pretty good..
but nuttin like LensRental's Zeiss test .........yikes!

Siggy made a nice f1.8 zoom that is well thought of...

so
I am ready for Sigma's f1.8 OS 85mm lens.....
(by the way I agree with comments that is will cost around $1300...a fair price IMO)
and if they even come close to zeiss corners....
Canon will need to call an emergency board meeting...to discuss Sigma versus Canon
(they should have done this yrs ago)


Canon STILL owes us their 35L II ...that THEY PULLED..... JUST as the Sigma 35 was released
this is ....waiting....waiting.....waiting.....hello?.........anyone home there?

just my observations

TOM

 

[CarlTN]

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

My old 200mm f2.8 II L was the sharpest prime I have ever used. It was a sublime lens. But I sold it because my 70-200 f2.8 II L IS was nearly as sharp but a lot more versatile. My 135L is sharp and yes it gets a bit of purple fringing....but Lightroom deals with this so well that it's a non issue. My 85mm f1.2 II L is a tad sharper. No one ever believes me when i say this, which I think is an opinion which goes against common forum mantra. But my copy is. My 135L is a stellar performer and I get great result out of it and I use it wide open often.
But it's a an old design and things have moved on. There's a possible 1/3 stop of brightness which can be extracted from the front filter size. IS could easily be added. AF could be tweeked. Newer coatings to help cleaning and flare control. More aperture blades and rounded ones would help the bokeh a bit. It's not weather sealed and mine's been back to Canon a few times for a loose front collar. The Hood is huge and it's flare control isn't as good as other lenses.
It's a bit like the 35mm f1.4, a brilliant lens. But just needs a little update to bring it up to epic status.

I don't notice any purple fringing on my 135, perhaps there is some sample deviation.

I would prefer a faster than f/1.8 lens, regardless whether the focal length is anywhere from 85mm to 200mm. Apparently nobody else wants that, but I do.

 

[Axilrod]

Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.

I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one, or if you did it was a bad copy.

 

[CarlTN]

Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.

I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one.

+1, but again it's possible there is some sample variation...even with a Canon L lens.

 

[Zv]

Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.

I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one.

+1, but again it's possible there is some sample variation...even with a Canon L lens.

Hmmm could be. I've not noticed all that much purple fringing, perhaps wide open in a brightly backlit situation you can and even then in the corners. Nothing like my 85 1.8 did! That thing drove me nuts!

I absolutely love love love my 135L. I mostly use it between f/2.2-2.8 which gives amazing results. I do wish it had IS but it's not a big deal. You can get sharp shots at around 1/125s. Does take away some of the low light advantage. Then again people don't stay very still and IS can't really help with that!

I recently used it on my 7D and the IQ was just outstanding. So good in fact I mislabeled my images as from "5D2" on import!

 

[AJ]

Bad Rumor.

1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!

That's my first reaction too.