This will be asked a lot - which 135mm?

[MusoD]

Hi Folks,

I'm sure that this question has and will be asked a lot... I'm in the market for a good portrait lens and I'm looking at the 135mm range, I'll be using this on 5Diii.

In the UK at the moment we have the Canon 135mm f2.0 selling at £859, and then there's the new Sigma Art 135 f1.8 at £1399, which is a reasonable difference, but certainly not a deciding factor.

Looking at the reviews around currently, the two lenses appear to be quite close in performance, with perhaps the Sigma having the edge.

Now, I currently have the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4, and I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with it. It does get used a lot, and when it nails it, the lens is stunning. It gets a lot of general use, but primarily it's used to take images of babies and small children. I do, however, find myself taking a lot more shots than I really should need to to ensure that focus is bang on.

This leaves me slightly concerned, and I'm currently leaning towards the Canon 135mm, and the price difference just being another advantage.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

MusoD

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 135mm L is tough to beat. It has low abberations which gives it a clearer look than the lens tests show. I would not hesitate to get it. It has fast and accurate autofocus as well. As a short telephoto, its on the borderline point where IS could be of benefit in some situations, more so for crop that your 5D MK III.

I sold mine after getting the 70-200mmL II and finding it was no longer getting used.

 

[pwp]

The 135mm L is tough to beat. It has low aberrations which gives it a clearer look than the lens tests show. I would not hesitate to get it. It has fast and accurate autofocus as well. As a short telephoto, its on the borderline point where IS could be of benefit in some situations, more so for crop that your 5D MK III.

I sold mine after getting the 70-200mmL II and finding it was no longer getting used.

+1

If you've got steadier hands than I have, the 135L is a great buy. If it's going to be one or the other for you, do consider the massive bulk/weight penalty with the Sigma vs the svelte 135L. Personally I need IS at this focal length. In this focal range, like Mt Spokane I also reach for the incomparable 70-200 F/2.8isII.

FWIW I have resolved not to buy any more Sigma glass after a string of disappointments, all relating to AF inconsistency. All my glass now is L Canon. No doubt things have improved with Sigma AF and will continue to do so, but I've been bitten one too many times.

-pw

 

[Ozarker]

I only have experience with the EF 135mm f/2L and love it, but isn't there a rumored 135L with IS coming? It would probably cost much more when released.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I was one of the people saying "Why would Canon refresh the 135/2L? It's plenty sharp!". It is, but clearly better is possible. The problem the Sigma faces (for me) is that the Canon is still mighty good, with native AF and lower prices. The case for the 50A was very clear (sharper than the 50/1.4, cheaper & sharper than the 50L, though not "magical"). The case for the 85A was very much like the 50A. There were holes, or at least relative weaknesses, in Canon's lineup for them. The 135A feels very much like the 24-105A in being a sizeable price premium for a slight improvement over the Canon that is widely-available and well-regarded.

 

[tpatana]

The 135mm L is tough to beat. It has low abberations which gives it a clearer look than the lens tests show. I would not hesitate to get it. It has fast and accurate autofocus as well. As a short telephoto, its on the borderline point where IS could be of benefit in some situations, more so for crop that your 5D MK III.

I sold mine after getting the 70-200mmL II and finding it was no longer getting used.

Sold my third copy of 135L today, exactly for that reason. Love the lens, just don't use it as much as I should since 70-200 II is such a beast.

 

[Ozarker]

I was one of the people saying "Why would Canon refresh the 135/2L? It's plenty sharp!". It is, but clearly better is possible. The problem the Sigma faces (for me) is that the Canon is still mighty good, with native AF and lower prices. The case for the 50A was very clear (sharper than the 50/1.4, cheaper & sharper than the 50L, though not "magical"). The case for the 85A was very much like the 50A. There were holes, or at least relative weaknesses, in Canon's lineup for them. The 135A feels very much like the 24-105A in being a sizeable price premium for a slight improvement over the Canon that is widely-available and well-regarded.

The Canon is a great lens. Especially for the money. However, I think IS and better CA control might make me consider upgrading if those two things happen. Maybe the BR can be used in the new lens. I don't know since not every new lens is getting that treatment.

I would consider upgrading for IS and better CA control. Even at twice the price of the old lens.

 

[[email protected]]

The two last prime Sigma Arts (85 and 135) have an AF motor with more torque. There haven't seem to have been as many reports of focus problems. I have 3 others, and I never had a problem with them any of them anyway. The Sigma 135 is my new favorite lens. I don't think any lens designed prior to the lens element coatings revolution can really stand a chance the new premium designs from Canon, Sigma or even Tamron.

I've used the 135 f/2 only once, and not while I had my new Sigma, so I can't speak to direct comparisons.

Lensrentals did a direct comparison, though, (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/lensrentals-reviews-the-new-sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-series-lens/), and the conclusion was...

"So is the Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art Series lens good? Yes, absolutely. The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art Series surpassed my expectations, corrected my doubt, and overshot my love for the Canon 135L. The autofocus is fast and incredibly accurate, the images are exceptionally sharp, and the bokeh is incredible. The Sigma 135mm f.1,8 Art Series takes everything I always loved about the Canon 135mm f/2L and surpasses it in every way."

 

[MusoD]

The 135mm L is tough to beat. It has low abberations which gives it a clearer look than the lens tests show. I would not hesitate to get it. It has fast and accurate autofocus as well. As a short telephoto, its on the borderline point where IS could be of benefit in some situations, more so for crop that your 5D MK III.

I sold mine after getting the 70-200mmL II and finding it was no longer getting used.

Sold my third copy of 135L today, exactly for that reason. Love the lens, just don't use it as much as I should since 70-200 II is such a beast.

I have the 70-200 F4 IS, and had it a long time. It's a great lens, but I was looking for the wider aperture of the 135mm options. That along with the 16-35mm F4 both have accurate and fast AF, in a relatively compact and light package, which is tempting me to the Canon over the Sigma.

 

[MusoD]

I was one of the people saying "Why would Canon refresh the 135/2L? It's plenty sharp!". It is, but clearly better is possible. The problem the Sigma faces (for me) is that the Canon is still mighty good, with native AF and lower prices. The case for the 50A was very clear (sharper than the 50/1.4, cheaper & sharper than the 50L, though not "magical"). The case for the 85A was very much like the 50A. There were holes, or at least relative weaknesses, in Canon's lineup for them. The 135A feels very much like the 24-105A in being a sizeable price premium for a slight improvement over the Canon that is widely-available and well-regarded.

The Canon is a great lens. Especially for the money. However, I think IS and better CA control might make me consider upgrading if those two things happen. Maybe the BR can be used in the new lens. I don't know since not every new lens is getting that treatment.

I would consider upgrading for IS and better CA control. Even at twice the price of the old lens.

Yes, an upgraded Canon 135 with IS and better CA control sounds great, but I suspect that this is still a while away, and I'm wanting to get something soonish. I guess there is always the option to trade in and upgrade as and when something new is released.

 

[bholliman]

I was one of the people saying "Why would Canon refresh the 135/2L? It's plenty sharp!". It is, but clearly better is possible. The problem the Sigma faces (for me) is that the Canon is still mighty good, with native AF and lower prices. The case for the 50A was very clear (sharper than the 50/1.4, cheaper & sharper than the 50L, though not "magical"). The case for the 85A was very much like the 50A. There were holes, or at least relative weaknesses, in Canon's lineup for them. The 135A feels very much like the 24-105A in being a sizeable price premium for a slight improvement over the Canon that is widely-available and well-regarded.

+1 No doubt the Sigma Art 135 is sharper with lower CA than the venerable Canon 135L, but how much better? Is the difference worth the significant price premium and weight increase?

I owned a 135L for several years and I often miss it. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 II that generally covers what I used the 135L for, but its much larger and heavier. I enjoyed using the 135L along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II as a very effective and light travel kit.

If I were to add a 135mm prime today, it would probably be a 135L as I value its small format, reasonable price and terrific AF performance over ultimate sharpness.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I was one of the people saying "Why would Canon refresh the 135/2L? It's plenty sharp!". It is, but clearly better is possible. The problem the Sigma faces (for me) is that the Canon is still mighty good, with native AF and lower prices. The case for the 50A was very clear (sharper than the 50/1.4, cheaper & sharper than the 50L, though not "magical"). The case for the 85A was very much like the 50A. There were holes, or at least relative weaknesses, in Canon's lineup for them. The 135A feels very much like the 24-105A in being a sizeable price premium for a slight improvement over the Canon that is widely-available and well-regarded.

The Canon is a great lens. Especially for the money. However, I think IS and better CA control might make me consider upgrading if those two things happen. Maybe the BR can be used in the new lens. I don't know since not every new lens is getting that treatment.

I would consider upgrading for IS and better CA control. Even at twice the price of the old lens.

Oh sure, and maybe Canon will make such a lens (I'm not holding my breath for IS in a wide-aperture short telephoto though, until I see it on shelves). I was just comparing to the two premium 135s available now, and while the Sigma appears to be superior optically, the price for the size of that gain is a tougher sell than for other options. It's just not a particularly weak spot in Canon's lens lineup (and there aren't many weak spots in it, though there are a few).

 

[MusoD]

It appears that the general feeling is that while the Sigma is a fabulous lens, the size, weight and cost gain over the Canon is not really worth it at the present time for such an incremental performance gain.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I'm not especially fond of Sigma, except for MF, but if I were to consider a 135mm, I would try the Sigma first. And test it extensively.

 

[Larsskv]

The Canon 135 L is optically very good at f2 even on the 5Ds, and at f4 close to perfect across the frame. AF is fast and accurate. The Sigma is obviously even better optically, but I don't believe the difference can be sufficient enough that I would pick it over the much smaller and lighter Canon.

I would much rather have IS than better optical performance from my 135mm lens.

If I could have either one for free/same price, I would pick the Canon due to size and weight. If wide open optical performance is the one and only priority, the Sigma will be the way to go.