First shots from Sigma 135 Art

[[email protected]]

It came in today. Had some daylight to do some quick random shots and was impressed. I haven't AFMA'd it, etc., but right out of the box it's hitting targets with a sharpness absent any other lens I've used.

Here is an example. Below it is a 1:1 crop in png.

Also, I had heard people poking fun at its size as a "pickle jar." So I got out some pickles my father-in-law made last year and put them on the scale. Where the Sigma lens weighs 2 pounds, 11 ounces, the quart of pickles weighed 3 pounds, 2 ounces. So, no, the siggy weighs only 5/6ths of a pickle jar. However, it was eerily similar in size and dimensions.

 

[[email protected]]

A couple more...

A couple more from the Sigma 135 Art...

 

[Maximilian]

Thanks for sharing!

Looks like Sigma did a good job. Personally I find the bokeh a little bit nervous for such a lens, esp. when I look at the pic of the snowdrops.

 

[tpatana]

Interesting lens for sure.

 

[ahsanford]

Also, I had heard people poking fun at its size as a "pickle jar." So I got out some pickles my father-in-law made last year and put them on the scale. Where the Sigma lens weighs 2 pounds, 11 ounces, the quart of pickles weighed 3 pounds, 2 ounces. So, no, the siggy weighs only 5/6ths of a pickle jar. However, it was eerily similar in size and dimensions.

That would be me. Thank you for taking the time to breathe life into my joke. Well done!

- A

 

[Mikehit]

Also, I had heard people poking fun at its size as a "pickle jar." So I got out some pickles my father-in-law made last year and put them on the scale. Where the Sigma lens weighs 2 pounds, 11 ounces, the quart of pickles weighed 3 pounds, 2 ounces. So, no, the siggy weighs only 5/6ths of a pickle jar. However, it was eerily similar in size and dimensions.

That would be me. Thank you for taking the time to breathe life into my joke. Well done!

- A

Mind you, what comes out of the lens is sharper than what comes out of a pickle jar.

Not sure it would be as good on a curry, though.

 

[[email protected]]

I find the bokeh a little bit nervous for such a lens, esp. when I look at the pic of the snowdrops.

I can see how you'd think that, but I think there are 2 mitigating factors:
1) It was shot at f/4.5 to get more flower in focus.
2) Those flowers were right in front of some very patchy leaf litter that partially covered grass, making for busy color splotches.

In the next few days, I'll put together some fully open examples.

 

[Maximilian]

I find the bokeh a little bit nervous for such a lens, esp. when I look at the pic of the snowdrops.

I can see how you'd think that, but I think there are 2 mitigating factors:
1) It was shot at f/4.5 to get more flower in focus.
2) Those flowers were right in front of some very patchy leaf litter that partially covered grass, making for busy color splotches.

In the next few days, I'll put together some fully open examples.

Thank you for this additional information.

To me these are not really explaining, what I see.
Of cause the bokeh is getting more prominent when the aperture is wide open.
But especially with busy background - if far enough away - I want this to become more creamy than this.
But this seems to be a little bit difficult to achieve with lenses designed for maximum resolution.
Don't get me wrong. I not looking for nitpicking and this bokeh is still good to very good but not excellent.
And I got this feeling from other samples of this lens as well.

But I'm looking forward to see more pictures

 

[ahsanford]

LensTip just posted its sample gallery (no review yet, but soon):
http://www.lenstip.com/2230-news-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_-_sample_gallery.html

I pulled one out for the bokeh people. f/2.2 on a 5D3.

Opened and saved as JPEG quality 10 to get it under the 5MB limit. If you are a real pixel peeper, head to the gallery link to get the original file.

- A

 

[[email protected]]

More examples

This lens has some additional surprises. It's not just Sigma sharp.

1) The autofocus on this lens is as good as any lens I've used, which includes some of the fastest focusing Canon glass. I am continually impressed. I've been shooting at f/2 for the most part, and it doesn't seem to care. On a lark, I trained it on some osprey that were flying toward and over us, and it tracked the fast-incoming bird perfectly, even as it was coming head-on quickly. See the first picture below. That's a 1:1 crop.

2) There is a certain type of shot I'm finding particularly well suited to the Sigma 135. When you have relatively dark tones, coupled with some subject highlights, it renders a beautifully-contrasted image. I think the Sigma yellowish tint comes into play a little bit here too. See the second and third images below.

3) The bokeh is quite smooth. I stressed tested it with this shot (4th below). It's hard to get across how difficult this one was, with a background of buds that had water droplets on them, reflecting the sun.

4) I stuck it on my 7D2, and was surprised how well it worked on that. See the last picture of the osprey below. I am now taking this 135 with me into blinds to extend my blue hour time out there by using the 135's wide aperture, along with the crop factor for a later evening wildlife lens.

I am finding that I am liking this lens much more than anticipated. I cannot give a direct comparison to any other 135 lens, however, due to inexperience with the competing options.

 

[sanj]

Very nice

 

[9VIII]

Seeing people use this for wildlife makes me wish that much more that Sigma would do a 200 f2.0 at a reasonable cost.
With the size of front elements on the Superzooms you'd think it should be a fairly simple matter to get a Prime lens with a similar amount of glass out at a similar cost.
Heck, just for the sake of re-using some manufactuing equipment and save a few bucks, make it 190mm f2.0 (95mm front aperture, the same as 600 f6.3).

I've seen enough comments from people about the qualities of 200f2 for portraiture and outdoor work to think it has a bit more broad appeal than some other long primes.

 

[[email protected]]

A quick album of 135 shots from this past week of vacation with the kids. I had 103 keepers from this last week. 38 of them were with this lens, which I find remarkable, given that I was borrowing a 400mm f/4 DO II as well.

You'll see from one of the last shots, I even used it to some effect for night wildlife. There is a known barn owl nest that I've never been able to shoot successfully. Had tried with the 70-200 2.8 II and not quite gotten it. The f/1.8 135 Sigma Art got me an OK result. I've been surprised at how versatile it actually is.

https://adobe.ly/2oSYxPX

 

[meywd]

well, for starter the photos are amazing, and really amazing sharpness, though I would agree the bokeh is noisy, however we can never know for sure unless both lenses (the other being the 135L) are compared side to side.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The colour rendition in these samples looks typically Sigma. A little brown cast and a little drab looking to my eyes. It's like a built in warm up filter ha been applied. There's also the odd thing in the spectacular highlights through hair that always looks odd to me too. It's sort of a bloom that occurs. I like the Bokeh, I think it looks very wide and gentle (i'm guessing due to the f1.8 aperture). It certainly looks sharp and with healthy contrast. But no I wouldn't buy this lens. I don't trust Sigma's AF shot to shot consistency or build quality. Also this lens' colour rendition would really stick out in a collection of photographs with Canon lenses.

 

[markhbfindlay]

I'm intrigued that you get pictures of snowdrops in April. Where are you? They finished in February here in southern England.

Nice pics; full of envy over the ospreys; we don't get them here, only in Scotland and a few parts of northern England.

 

[Larsskv]

I'm only on my phone for the weekend, but I have to say, the sample pictures I've seen from both the 85ART and 135ART look really good, much better than the 50ART (which I have found to look flat and with a "sticker effect" as described in other threads).

The size of these lenses seems to be their only drawback.

 

[bholliman]

I'm only on my phone for the weekend, but I have to say, the sample pictures I've seen from both the 85ART and 135ART look really good, much better than the 50ART (which I have found to look flat and with a "sticker effect" as described in other threads).
The size of these lenses seems to be their only drawback.

Size and possible AF issues. I'm looking for a 85mm or 135mm prime, so have been reading everything available on both lenses. Most reviews report much improved AF over the 35/50 Art, but there are plenty of owner comments of AF inconsistency and inaccuracy as well. At this point, I'm planning to rent both at some point along with the dock to see how they perform on my cameras. I already rented a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 and was pretty impressed with the AF and performance of that lens.

 

[scyrene]

Nice pics; full of envy over the ospreys; we don't get them here, only in Scotland and a few parts of northern England.

Don't forget Rutland!

 

[geekpower]

amazingly sharp, but ugh, that bokeh is shocking (not in a good way)