Roger Cicala tests new Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM, confirms 'insanely good' MTF results

Another ridiculous “who needs sharpness” argument..

So what would be a great deal about lens for you!?

24gm, 50z, 85gm are strange focal lengths for statement lenses!? All of those are superb lenses with classic fl. Quit TRU, quit man...

In this particular focal lens and for portraits purpose I would appreciate more a creamy bokeh and low aberrations than super sharpness.

This Sony lens is a good one for sure, could even be stellar, don't misunderstand me. But I would like to mention that are other aspects important besides shapness to make a portrait lens good.

@Thoughts R Us - "The only real "weakness" IMHO is that this is not a very popular focal length of a lens."

"Popular" is relative. Throughout the history of photography, the fast 135mm focal length has been an ever-present lens. Nikon introduced the Nikkor 135mm f/2.0 in 1975, updated with AI coupling in 1977, updated with AI-S in 1981. And those weren't even their only 135mm lenses in that era! They also had the Nikkor 135/2.8 and 135/3.5 as well!
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/135mm.htm
In the modern era, Nikon has the 135/2 DC. Canon has the EF 135/2L. Zeiss has the Milvus 135/2 and 135/2 APO Sonnar T*. Samyang has the 135/2 ED UMC. Sigma has the 135/1.8. For a "not a very popular focal length of a lens", there sure are a lot of them from various manufacturers, lol! Apparently, manufacturers feel that the 135mm focal does better than you seem to think.

And because this lens focuses like a BEAST, it's definitely a sports lens for certain applications.

@MikeRan - Back in days, I've shot theater performances and shows with EF 135/2 and it was blast. I bet this would find its place in theaters across world also.

Actually I shoot dance a lot. This would be fantastic for stage stuff indoors. 1.8 is 1 1/3 stops more light than my 70-200.
Just don’t know if I can justify it.. I need to go back and look at my dance stuff and see where I ended up focal length wise in the past. From the back of the auditorium I think most is 130-200mm..

This lens will make even less sense to commentators when the 100/1.4 comes out, if they think of it only as portrait lens.

You need to think about it on a crop camera. The lens gives a 202.5mm focal length on aps-c. And we know Sony is planning a D500-style aps-c camera for sports and wild-life.

I get what halfaman is saying about sharpness. And i tend to agree. Wide open this will almost always be used for portraits. Bokeh is way more important than sharpness. As is spherochromatism control.

One of the things i like about my Nikkor 50mm f1.4G is that it's actually NOT sharp wide open. Great bokeh and nice skin; the way traditional portraits should be. My GF gripes about her skin even when she's not even in-focus, lol! Girls... 🙄 Stop it down to f2 or f2.8 and it's nice and sharp. It could do better handling spherochromatism though. For "sharp and shallow" 50mm i just shoot my 50mm f1.8G wide open. Focuses way faster than the f1.4G also. Continued...

"Although a remarkable achievement I think it has been done in the wrong lens."

Ever consider this may be the new standard across all Sony lenses?

This conversation has turned ridiculous...

It's so weird. People are suddenly preaching that sharpness isn't end all be all. Okay, should Sony have made it less sharp so canikonites wouldn't feel inadequate?

Much of the bitter feelings are from Sony folk fighting straw man arguments and imaging all of this pushback.

Sure there are some negative comments about Sony but look at who is doing most of the complaining. I said some nice things about Sony and even then got insulted by Sony fans.

@Thoughts R Us - Wow, what an amazing level of denial and cognitive dissonance you are exhibiting. Everyone here knows that you have been leading the charge (and "pushback") against Sony for the longest time. And what you don't seem to realize is that most Sony users are former Canon/Nikon users who are simply more open-minded, objective, more open to change, and not married to a brand. People who have made a switch (ie, most Sony users) are definitely not married to a brand, as shown by their actions. Why would they be "bitter" about Sony cranking out great products? No, the "bitter" ones are the ones that are still devoted to the status quo brands and who don't like the idea that things are changing. The rest of us have accepted that change happens, and we're embracing that change.

Much of the bitterness stems from the fact that Sony has been producing good stuff for some time now and CaNikon fanboys have been putting the stuff down forever (and the people that use it). Now that it’s becoming impossible to argue against what they are accomplishing things are changing and the CaNikon crew aren’t so comfortable about it anymore..

@Thoughts R Us

Some of the 'nice' things you said in this thread:

""Wow...all of this hyperbole based on one lens. Yes, I'm sure it's a great lens...and Sony has other great lenses, but in case you missed it, so does Canon and Nikon.""

""With the top lenses from the great glass companies, they all are stellar. Can one tell much difference between the top lenses of the top brands?""

""I'm rather shocked that Sony didn't release a 35 f1.8 instead""

""Bottom line: there are amazing products out there by all companies""

""Bottom line: all of these companies offer some amazing lenses. There's this overreaction which is funny. And speaking of a system of lenses, the Canon RF lenses both released and announced amount to something more substantial than this one lens.""

""And one lens does not a system make. Canon still has probably the best overall lineup""

""Even the Canon 135 f2, which was released in 1996, is still a classic and this new Sony lens doesn't change that.""

Contd.

""At this stage of all of the similar lenses will be great. And sharpness is not everything. Now perhaps the Zeiss may be better at color rendering, etc.""
.
.
The only compliment you made was this:

""First off congrats to Sony for making a world class lens.""

You then immediately added:

""But let's keep this in perspective: it's one lens. It's a great one, but so are a lot of other lenses by Zeiss, Leica, Canon, etc mentioned here.""

All of your remarks are 'damning with faint praise' and caveated. Let's see what you write when you REALLY think a lens is good:

""The RF lenses are literally the strongest ever seen for a new system. They are the biggest grand slam home run.""

Those RF lenses were mock ups, that had no glass in them. You also said:

""Lenses make the system. Always has, always will.
Canon gets this simple fact.
And hey, if you want fast lenses, well you have to go with Canon right now. Nikon may eventually join them. Sony cannot.""

Rubberdials. It’s his defense mechanism.

Hautedawg, see, your point proven in your own comment thread even!!!

@RubberDials: Nice to know you are such a follower and do such thorough research on my remarks. And I will still place my remarks against some of the others by Sony promoters in terms of decency and attitude.

Again, thanks for being such a fan.

@Thoughts R Us

Not a fan and no need for any research, your comments are all over the thread.

I don't care that you hate Sony, that's up to you - it's your whitewashing of yourself as some fair minded commenter that gets on my nerves.

""I said some nice things about Sony and even then got insulted by Sony fans.""

As reproducing your words above shows, you did nothing of the kind.

@Thoughts R Us - Would you like to read the rant of a well-known anti-Sony zealot expressing his wishful "pushback" against Sony? Read:

"The real loser is Sony. Canon will crush Sony from here on out. And Sony gets no more converts from Canon or Nikon. Maybe a few switching back. To new users, they will no longer see Sony as the only game in town if you want smaller high quality FF mirrorless. They will see the names of the giants and many will choose them over Sony.

Nikon will outsell Sony. I can guarantee you that Canon will outsell Sony by a very wide margin. Sony will be consigned to small share of the FF mirrorless market; they've had 100% with no competition. Now they will are going to get besieged by all sides. Even Panasonic will swoop in and take away the video shooters from Sony."

Those were your words:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8428210001/rumors-point-to-imminent-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launch?comment=2677548079

@Thoughts R Us- Sorry to burst your bubble, but your claims of Canon "[crushing] Sony from here on out" were just nonsense. Nikon isn't outselling Sony either. Just wishful thinking from an anti-Sony zealot.

For example, here are all the FF mirrorless sales rankings on Amazon's Best Sellers in Mirrorless list (in the top 50 best sellers):
https://ibb.co/9yWfCDV
https://ibb.co/B2xgdww
#1. A7III body
#10. A7III kit
#17. A7RIII body
#20. A7II kit
#21. A7II body
#22. A7RII body
#33. A7RII + battery grip
#42. A7 kit
#44. EOS RP kit
The EOS R is at #95 (kit) and #96 (body). Z6 is #73. Z7 not in top 100.
https://ibb.co/JyWyzHV
Again, your words: "Nikon will outsell Sony. I can guarantee you that Canon will outsell Sony by a very wide margin." Really? Even the cheap EOS RP (#44 on Amazon) is floundering against older Sony FF bodies!!

@Thoughts R Us - Anyways, you can't escape your own words. Your "pushback" is well documented. It is not imagined. So to deny it is foolish.

Why would you use face detection? Use Eye AF on the a7iii, a7riii and a9, and virtually ALL your shots will be perfectly in focus on the eye! Welcome to the future.

@GarysInSoCal - BS!

Maybe bottom line for your credibility here, this is simply not true...

I agree the dof will be very narrow at f1.8. Of course, whether that is an issue or not will depend on your subject. I prefer having my faces fully in focus so shooting at f/4-f5.6 or so would be preferable. I've been burned on that more than once. Eye AF may get the eye in focus, but if the eyebrows or ears, etc are blurred, it's not very attractive, at least to me.

"The 'face detection' focusing on your Sony could very well maintain sharp focus on your subject's nose or ears, and lose the eyes completely."

Wow is that a foolish, outdated statement. DSLRs have that problem. Sony has very precise eye AF. Sony's AI-powered AF system is far smarter than DSLR AF systems. DSLRs are known for their nose and ear AF (lol) because DSLR AF systems just aren't that smart. On-sensor AF systems are far more advanced.

@JPatrick - This is why these lenses have adjustable apertures. Sometimes you want to be at f/1.8, sometimes you don't. Are people seriously complaining about the f/1.8 max aperture? Do people also complain about Canon and Nikon having 200mm f/2 lenses? Or is this kind of complaining reserved just for Sony and their 135mm f/1.8, LOL? Learn to adjust your aperture, people!

GarysInSoCal
BOTTOM LINE TIME.. You need to work with better focusing cameras.
You can watch the video below to see how precisely wrong you are...

Skip to 2:25 if you want to cut to the chase:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww8HT_FbL1g

You can all 'talk the big talk' about nailing sharp focus with this 135mm lens at F1.8... but can 'walk the walk'? Seriously doubt it! Even the sample picture listed here (wrestler with face mask) shows just how impossible it is. In that photo, the wrestler's right eye is sharp... while his left eye definitely is NOT! You can attempt to disprove me all you want... but the proof is in the pudding! ;)

You said.... “The 'face detection' focusing on your Sony could very well maintain sharp focus on your subject's nose or ears, and lose the eyes completely.”

Of course since you use Nikon, you don’t know anything about EyeAF which is why you said Face detect and only talk about noses in focus.

Sony has no problem keeping focus on the closest eye in the video. Sorry your Nikon isn’t keeping up with technology. And perhaps that’s why Nikon doesn’t offer a 135/1.8. But don’t poo-poo others ability to use it simply because you or your camera can’t hack it..

@GarysInSoCal

> but can 'walk the walk'?

Please do yourself a favor and click on the link from MikeRan's post just above yours... and stop embarrassing yourself.

@GarysInSoCal - Do yourself a favor and watch the video that MikeRan linked to. It's quite amazing what this lens can do when combined with Sony's eye AF system. And stop whining about fast lenses. Fast lenses have been around for a long time. Canon introduced their EF 135/2L in 1997 at a time when AF systems were a lot less capable than what Sony's AF system is capable of. And even before that, Canon introduced the EF 200/1.8L back in 1988! Nikon introduced their first 135/2 in 1975 as a manual focus lens. Nothing wrong with fast lenses. If you can't handle them, then don't use them.

I actually did watch at 'Gary Fong' video you guys are all referring to... and YES... focusing was pretty quick and sharp on eyes... BUT... the ears (earrings) and nose are NOT sharp... which I find quite distracting and unfortunate... especially if you created those earrings and wanted to see the detail there. You WONT be able to accomplish complete face focus (eyes/nose/ears) at that focal length and wide open F-stop. You can STILL blow the background out of focus at F2.4 while maintaining complete face (ears/nose/eyes) focus.

@GarysInSoCal - "BUT... the ears (earrings) and nose are NOT sharp"

That's the choice of the photographer. There's a reason why Canon and Nikon have had 135/2 lenses for decades now. Nikon introduced a Nikkor 135/2 back in 1975. Canon introduced the FD 135/2 in 1980. Canon's venerable EF 135/2L has been a long-time success in the EOS era. People like fast lenses. They have their uses. More recently, look at Nikon's upcoming Z 58mm f/0.95, Canon's RF 85/1.2L, RF 50/1.2L, RF 28-70/2L. All of these lenses can potentially lead to "NOT sharp ears or noses", depending on how close you are. Sorry, buddy, but fast lenses such as the 135 f/1.8 or f/2 are nothing new. They've been around for a long time. And they aren't going away. It's a little late to be whining about them now. You're a few decades late! LOL.

@GarysInSoCal - No, you're clearly a whiner. Sure, you may have the 85/1.8, but you probably whine about people who buy an 85/1.2! LOL.

BTW, there are other reasons why someone might want a 135/1.8, such as low light shooting and/or fast action. Sometimes you want as much light coming through the lens as possible at that focal length. That's why someone might want a 400/2.8 over a 400/4. It's not just an issue of having shallower DOF, it's also an issue of light.

Lol... just check out this video and start at 2:20 mark and see how it does wide open at F1.8 at 20fps....

@GarysInSoCal - Theres' no proof in nonsense. You paparazzi guys just don't get it. Sometimes we don't need everything in focus, not even ears :). Use your 70-300mm for paparazzing, that's all.

@T3 Actually, the primary reason lenses such as the EF 135mm f/2 L and Nikkor 135mm F/2 were introduced was due to the "speed" limitations of film. We shoot at such insanely high ISO now that we forget that once-upon-a-time using anything over ASA 400 film was a significant compromise in image quality.

@MGradyC - Right, that's why Canon is not making new lenses such at the RF 28-70/2, RF 50/1.2, RF 85/1.2 and Nikon isn't making a 58/0.95...because we all shoot at insanely high ISO and therefore longer need fast lenses! Lol. You seem to be ignoring the fact that these are all recent digital-era lenses, as well as the Sigma 135/1.8, Samyang 135/2 ED UMC, Zeiss Milvus 135/2 and Sony 135/1.8. None of these lenses come from the film era!

Having higher and higher usable ISOs allows to shoot in darker and darker conditions. But there are no limits. We still need wide apertures. It is very silly to assume that what you have now is good enough for everything and that it will be like that forever.
Back in the film days people were saying things like - "why would I need this crazy ASA800 film speed when I have this F1.4 lens". Now people are shooting at F1.4 ISO6400 while getting much better results than on film and are thinking about getting F1.2 lens instead, to shave off some noise.

there is
*puts his Sigma SD Quattro H down*

no, people are hating on this lens because it is Sony

...
5. And it doesn't cost $3000

@Max Iso

In the time it took you to apply your Kiss tribute make-up at least three M43 users switched to Sony.

2013 - Sony doesn't have any lenses
2016 - Sony doesn't have great lenses
2017 - Sony doesn't have good quality control
2019 - Sony is forcing me to change the definition of a great lens
2020 - Lenses and quality control are overrated, it's really all about ergonomics and color science

I see the brigade is on patrol.

So what comes next...SONY A10 with larger body in proportion to these lenses; the design made difficult by the lens-body mount size. Owning SONY A7 with 35mm f2,8 comes with definite vignetting effect which seems unavoidable. Not that I intend to sell this camera as it is a light-traveller giving out acceptable results. But my next stop will not be SONY; MFT just to be different?

If you find a good copy yes the 24 GM can be nice.

In which case you shouldn't get the 35mm. For a lot of us, we'd rather have a 35/85 combo, and skip the 55.

Depends what you shoot. In the film era I favoured a 24, 35,100 on 35mm. But there's nothing wrong with having both an 85 and a 135 if you shoot portraits. The 135GM is such a good lens that it has a wide appeal I think. It stops down to f22, has linear focus for video and an aperture ring and focusses down to 2ft. It's a an attractive lens.

I've been waiting for a FE 35mm 1.8 or 2.0 for years! I shoot 80% of my photos with a 35 (right now with a Zeiss with manual focus). Why is it taking so long for Sony to launch such a no-brainer lens??

Sony launched their FF mirrorless system with a 35mm lens. It just happened to be f2.8 because they were trying to make it small as possible.

Understandably Sony would like you to buy the lens they already make rather than design a new one, but they DO listen to their users so I think they will release a slighter faster lens for the nimrods who NEED that extra f stop.

Too close to. 135mm 1.8 unfortunately, just remove the 1

I don't know why people can't just buy the damn 28mm F2 and stop complaining

They launched their FE system with a 35mm lens, like Nikon and Canon. The difference is it was a 2.8 instead of 1.8 because Sony were concentrating on making a small system. It is still the smallest OEM AF 35mm lens on the market - almost a pancake.

Sony is rumoured to be be releasing an f1.8 version of the same FL as one of their 12 lenses announced at Photokina.

One f stop might be important on a Canon system without out IBIS and a noisier sensor, but it is scarcely an issue on a modern Sony FF camera which is eminently usable at 3200 ISO.

Talk about first world problems.

The Canon RF 50/1.2 costs £2200. For the same money I can buy a Sony 50/1.4ZA AND a 90/2.8 Macro and pocket £20 change. Difficult decision.

But the Canon RF 50 f1.2 works if you own a Canon R camera and those Sony's do not. And arguably that Canon RF 50 is a better lens than either of those Sony's.

But again, one doesn't buy lenses in a vacuum. Either you own one mount or the other.

But the point that UllerellU was making is that we are living in a golden time for photographic gear, where many companies are releasing world class lenses. Strolic simply mentioned 2 other fabulous lenses. It doesn't always have to be about Sony competing against everyone else.

I always come back to Roger Cicala's comment about Sony fans not wanting people to be happy with any other brand.

Sorry but there's no chance the 50/1.2 is a better lens than the 50/1.4ZA. You pay a big price in terms of contrast, flare, and light scatter for that extra third of a stop.

Yeah, if you've got the R you're going to buy the Canon - obvs - but nobody else is going to.

The fact that you can get the Sony 50/1.4 plus the 90 macro for less than the one Canon lens is a good argument for the Sony system. The bodies are vastly better, so that 1/3 stop is purchased at a colossal cost. I can't imagine anyone would pay the price - except you.

""It doesn't always have to be about Sony competing against everyone else.

I always come back to Roger Cicala's comment about Sony fans not wanting people to be happy with any other brand.""

Thoughts R Us as man of the people - Lightroom warrior - championing the harassed hobbyist photographer, joyously liberated from fixer-stained shirts and marriage-busting hours in darkroom by the gift of digital technology...

And bad Sony user! Why the nasty attitude? Why not just lie down while Canon and Nikon users pour buckets of crap over you?

Give it a rest.

Roger C isn't Standing behind you - no-one is. Your Sony bashing is on you.

@RubberDials: I can tell from the degradation in your comments that I'm getting in your head again.

Oh yeah, that Sony 50 f1.4 plus 90 macro actually costs a little more than the RF 50...in the US it's $2400 vs $2100, but the bottom line is that it is about the same cost.

That RF will be a classic lens for years to come, as will many RF lenses. And I am not alone in my preference for Canon over Sony.

"I always come back to Roger Cicala's comment about Sony fans not wanting people to be happy with any other brand."

I appreciate Roger's contribution to our collective photographic knowledge, but I can't agree that all Sony fans do not want people to be happy with their other gear choices. That would be very petty indeed. I agree this is a golden era for camera gear, and think there are many very excellent choices out there. It's really hard to go wrong with any of them.

I think the problem is that people assign self worth to the choices they've made and then they have their feelings hurt when someone ridicules those choices. And then they in turn hurt others. It's a vicious cycle, and a rather stupid one that serves no real purpose.

Let's just enjoy this hobby/interest we all have, and live, and let live. How about that?

@JPatrick: the problem that Roger alluded to, that he has observed first hand on his blog, that many others have noted, is that there are some very vocal Sony fans online that are very militant about their brand and take to bashing other brands and those that dare to like and use other brands.

Of course this doesn't apply to literally every Sony user; no one suggests it does.

I do agree that we should all enjoy the choices out there.

@Thoughts R Us

Your posts would make a man who'd just woken up start yawning.

You're posting in a comment thread about a lens that is both technically and optically innovative and all you can do is trash the lens's users, co-opting the remarks of someone who doesn't know who you are, who wouldn't agree with you if he did and was talking about his blog, not this site.

It's clearly pointless trying to appeal to your better nature, because you have none. You are hardier and more tenacious than a cockroach in your obsession and need to rubbish Sony at every opportunity.

What a tragic situation. Canon shows a bunch of empty tubes at a presentation and you fall over yourself gushing about how they are the best lenses available and that lenses matter more than bodies and when an actual lens - not a tube - makes the news all you can muster is bile at Sony users! Seriously, please consider before you post again in this thread.

Geez guys! What's with this petty BS? Take a break...

Sorry but RubberDials hasn't get the point, we started talking about great gear in general, he obviously see the chance to bash the RF 50 f1.2, typical behaviour, jeez. I will get the 50 f1.2 anyway anytime instead the 50 f1.4 for sony, anyway anytime, but that was not the point of discussion.

Sir 7, you're totally right, no one here is bashing Sony.

'No one here is bashing sony' .

Except the perennial sony basher in the thread.

Sorry but if you read this particular part of thread nobody was bashing anybody until someone started talking "this is better than that". Full stop. Even when somebody says "there are very nice lenses out there" someone feels the right to step in and bashing or lamenting something, jeez people, get a life.

I'm done with this conversation.

@Strolic

You shared some of your 24/1.4 arws with me and I very much appreciate that, but please don't misrepresent me. I did not 'see a chance to bash the 50 f1.2' as you put it.

I haven't bashed the lens here or anywhere, I merely pointed out that a premium f1.2 lens is not going to better than a premium f1.4 lens. That's not even remotely controversial. A larger objective element always means reduced contrast and more flare, all things being equal. For those who want it, the extra third of a stop between 1.2-1.4 is a costly purchase - enough to buy another good lens and have change. You will not see any 'bokeh difference' between the lenses in practice - it is essentially about bragging rights.

Canon has no real choice but to release such a lens as they must be seen to be reproducing their EF range in RF or will lose even more users. 'L' branding is extremely important to the Canon name - perhaps paramount.

@RD:
Respectfully beg to differ regarding an f1.2 lens' inability to best a premium f1.4. To note, obviously all f1.2 lenses will also be premium lenses.

While it's true that bigger elements mean more chance of ghosting and flaring, modern coatings do a fantastic job keeping that in check. The RF 50mm f1.2 is a whole new lens design with more elements in more groups than the EF 50mm f1.2, so technically an even greater chance of ghosting and flaring. Again, with modern coatings, you really almost have to *try* to ghost/flare by literally shooting right at the sun. Ken Rockwell covered this in his review. He's too Canon-infatuated for my taste, but it's a good review.

Nobody disputes the RF 50mm f1.2's sharpness. It's among the (maybe THE) sharpest lenses ever created when shot at f1.4 or faster. What matters to me personally with lenses f2 and faster isn't sharpness at all though. It's how well spherochromatism is controlled and what the bokeh looks like. Continued...

That was supposed to be a joke in case you're serious.

It's covered by 70-200GM, so it's not a high priority lens to get. Sure I wouldnt mind having it.

I think the Achilles heel of this lens is simply the fact that 135 mm is not exactly a popular focal length. As others have mentioned, most high end users who will value this type of lens will surely have a 70-200 f2.8 and will prefer using that overall.

One commenter here noted that the reason why 135 even exists is that it used to be the longest lens that had rangefinder coupling. So it may be a focal length that is kind of an anachronism. That maybe why neither Canon nor Nikon have updated their 135's for a while; they realize there's not much market for that length.

I'm rather shocked that Sony didn't release a 35 f1.8 instead with so many of their users clamoring for one. I'm sure given their excellent 24 f1.4 that they could produce a really nice lens.

@Sir7: Nothing wrong with cat photos or loving cats! All animals are great and we should all appreciate them for the miracles they are.

Not sure why you think life isn't complete without a 14-24 f/2.8 ?
The 16-35 2.8 is already one of the best super-wides out there... get yourself a SamYang 14mm 2.8 and call it a day.

Indeed. And do not forget the 12-24/4 G. A great lens even wider.

People have to remember that Sony only got into the pro market a couple years ago. The A9, their first pro body, was released in 2017. The FE 24-70/2.8 and FE 70-200/2.8 weren't introduced until 2016. The FE 16-35/2.8 wasn't introduced until 2017. The Sony pro system is still very, very new and young. But it is expanding very rapidly. The notion that a camera company should release an entire, complete lens system all at once is ridiculous. That's just not how it works.

As for manual focus tilt-shift lenses, I see no pressing need for Sony to introduce those lenses for the FE system. Manual lenses are manual lenses. Just get a cheap adapter and use Canon TS lenses. Heck, those TS lenses will work even better on Sony IBIS bodies with focus peaking and focus magnification than they do on the Canon DSLR bodies they were made for!

@ Thoughts

Illogical. You only speak fir yourself. Many pros are already planning to switch / have already switched to Sony not only of this lens but due to myriad other reasons.

@avatar: the data backs up my assertion moreso than yours. Of course a relatively small number of pro's have switched; that's normal no matter which brand. But there is no wholesale change in the universe of professionals. We would know that; Sony would make sure that we would know that.

It's only one type of pro, but a highly visible one, but consider sports pro's...look at the sidelines of any big contest and it's not Sony equipment.

@avatar: and just to follow up, please know that my commentary on why/how pro's are loathe to change equipment is not a commentary on the relative merits of Sony. Pro's need a compelling commercial case to switch, as in "I need to switch to make more money or at least to keep the jobs I have."

The last time that happened in a big way was with the Canon EOS/EF system, due to its AF advantage. Now that was a clear enough advantage to merit the switch for most professionals. But that type of disruption is very rare.

@ Thoughts

Keep on bashing Sony dude. That's your job.
There is no more compelling evidence than to realize that your ranks are thinning and you find out that you have lesser and lesser straws to grasp.
Sign out. Peace.

*
24mm F1.4 GM - worlds best
135mm F1.8 GM - worlds best
16-35mm F2.8 GM - worlds best

Sony on a roll.

The joke is on anyone pretending they are just a "playstation company" or "sensor company".....their glass is exceptional.

@ Thoughts You make a compelling argument regarding Pro's using the equipment they already have. It only makes sense. However, the notion that it's important for Sony sales may be incorrect. There are a lot more enthusiast photographers than pros and they are the ones that Sony needs to win over, and in fact, they are winning them over in large numbers.

Of course, it certainly doesn't hurt when you see pro sports photographers shooting with Sony gear, such as I what I saw at this year's Superbowl. But I still mainly agree with you. Most pro's are not going to shed their gear for the next big thing until it breaks or wears out. As far as wildlife and sports photography go, big lenses are very important, and Sony still only has the 400mm as their largest lens. There is significant inertia with any camera system that's going to keep Canikon in the game for a long time.

@TRU You are correct considering lenses in a vacuum but you have to think of the total system. Sony's bodies bring a lot to the table so IMO the lens system needs to be competitive and not all conquering. IMO the biggest hurdle for Sony is to get their pro services up to scratch

@Thoughts R Us - "Doubtful. Pro's only switch if there is a clear competitive advantage in doing so."

First of all, the advantages that Sony is offering are far greater than the differences between the Nikon F system and the Canon EOS system back in the 1990s, and yet plenty of pros switched from Nikon F to Canon EOS throughout that decade. Secondly, the hurdle for switching back then was far higher than it is today because today we have smart adapters. Switching systems in the past meant you had to dump your entire lens collection. There was no such thing as maintaining AF capabilities when adapting lenses back then. That's definitely not the case these days. Smart adapters allow you to transition quite easily and at your own pace. So the barrier for switching is far lower these days. As a Canon user, I have found it quite easy to "switch", since I can still use my existing Canon EF lenses with full functionality. Plenty of people are transitioning in this manner.

@Thoughts R Us - "but consider sports pro's...look at the sidelines of any big contest and it's not Sony equipment."

You say that now, but wait until Sony releases the FE 500/4 and FE 600/4 lenses that are capable of keeping up with Sony's 20fps shooting speeds (like the current FE 400/2.8 can). A lot of pros have simply been waiting for Sony to fill out their telephoto lens line, to match up with the performance of the A9. The fastest DSLRs max out at about 10-11 in-focus frames due to slower helical focus actuators in DSLR lenses. To be able to have twice as many frames to select from, in focus, with face and/or eye AF precision, is a huge advantage in the highly competitive world of sports photography. Plus, the Sony A9 is only $3,998 now, compared to the Canon 1DX II which is $5,499, or the Nikon D5 which is $6,496. Pros always want the competitive edge, which the A9 offers, but it's even more attractive and enticing with Sony being so aggressive with the pricing of the A9.

@T3: We will see what happens when/if Sony releases the 500/4 and 600/4 lenses. The a9 does have some amazing AF tricks but it lacks one thing for pro's: a rugged body. It's too small and it seems too frail for pro level use.

And even then, MHO pro's are not going to switch in large numbers for reasons already discussed. But we shall see.

In June last year Sony announced it's long trailed 400/2.8, which had a revolutionary optical design that placed the majority of the elements at the rear of the lens to make it less front heavy. This, combined with the use of lighter construction materials managed to shave a kilo off the weight of comparable lenses from Canon and Nikon.

It was widely mocked at launch by Canikon users with one bald influencer even suggesting the design was an attempt to rip off the customer by using smaller, (therefore cheaper) elements.

Four months later Canon announced mark 3 versions of their 400 and 600mm lenses utilising exactly the same design strategy. They even went to the effort of making sure their 400mm 24 grams lighter than the Sony, thereby depriving them of their 'lightest 400mm' crown.

That's how seriously Canon takes Sony in the sports/action market. What did Nikon do? Nothing. Canon will fight hard to keep the segment but in truth they don't have the mirrorless technology to hold it.

I've used the Canon 400 mark 3 and it is indeed a fantastic lens; the weight reduction and better weight distribution are very welcome.

But please do not think that Canon designed and manufactured their new 400 and 600 lenses in just 4 months, in response to Sony. I am sure Canon had these lenses in design stage well before Sony even announced. Heck I could say that Sony got wind of what Canon was doing and took their design and accelerated it to market just to be first before Canon.

I do think that Canon takes Sony seriously, as they should. For now Canon doesn't need the mirrorless equivalent of their 1DX series to hold this market segment; a new 1DXIII will do just fine and that will suffice for the next 4 years.

We will see how it all plays out; fun times ahead.

Love all this laughable nonsense that a ‘pro’ will change their system because Sony has brought out an above average 135mm lens - dream on gadget geeks......😁

@Kandid - Heard back in the early 1990s from Nikon users:
"Love all this laughable nonsense that a ‘pro’ will change their system because Canon has brought out an above average 135mm lens - dream on gadget geeks..."

People were arrogant, smug and dismissive back then; people are arrogant, smug and dismissive today. It's deja vu.

@Thoughts R Us - "a new 1DXIII will do just fine and that will suffice for the next 4 years."

Going up against a $4000 (or cheaper) Sony A9 with 20fps, zero viewfinder blackout, totally silent shooting, Sony's Real Time focus tracking face/eye AF, IBIS, and full-frame focus point coverage out to the edges of the frame? Good luck with that. Good luck having any DSLR go up against that. And who knows what an A9 II would bring? Pros want whatever competitive edge they can get. And they will switch to get it. How do you think Canon EOS went from having zero market share in 1987 to dominating the pro market by the mid 1990s? It's amazing how some people just want to bury their head in the sand, thinking that the status quo will never change. It does change. After Canon abandoned the FD system, many people left Canon for dead, assuming that Canon had just committed suicide. By the mid-1990s, all those naysayers had mud on their face.

@Thoughts R Us - Oh men, we waited for your bashing and manipulation! You are one true mercenary, bad Sony, good Canon and Nikon and everybody else. Obviously paid job and I'm thinking of poll - who pays you? My guess Nikon...
Man you really need new account/nick here, it compromised, almost like Fony Northrup...

@Thoughts R Us

""I've used the Canon 400 mark 3 and it is indeed a fantastic lens; the weight reduction and better weight distribution are very welcome.""

Did you use it on your R or your z7?

@T3: if the a9 had what it took for pro's to switch in large numbers they would have already. Didn't see a single one at the Super Bowl this year or any major sporting event.

And please note what I also wrote: the a9 body is too fragile and small for sports pro's. It doesn't matter what specs the a9 has if pro's don't have confidence the body will hold up under real world conditions. Sony needs to improve that with their next iteration.

@RubberDials: I used the Canon 400 on the 1DXII; works fabulously well. Of course with adapter it would work just fine with the R but you already know that. Of course you should also know that Canon did not design and manufacture their new 400 and 600 lenses in just 4 months.

I didn't see anyone driving a Mercedes at my local drag racing strip.

Mercedes stinks!

@Thoughts R Us - "if the a9 had what it took for pro's to switch in large numbers they would have already. Didn't see a single one at the Super Bowl this year or any major sporting event."

LOL, it's the old "if it hasn't happened yet, it never will" argument. Remember, the A9 was just released in mid-2017, and the FE 400/2.8 didn't hit the market until late last year! It's still very early days. People forget that it took several years before Canon EOS started gaining traction among pros. Canon released their first pro EOS body, the EOS 1, in 1989. It wasn't until they introduced the EOS 1N in 1994 that Canon started gaining traction among pros. By 1995-96, you started seeing a lot of Canon at sporting events. So for many years, short-sighted people like yourself kept saying, "Pros aren't switching to Canon in large numbers! Canon is failing!" LOL. It just goes to show how foolish and dead wrong these people were with their time scale, just like you are doing right now!

@Thoughts R Us - "the a9 body is too fragile and small for sports pro's."

No it's not. You can add a battery grip, most sports pros shoot on monopods, and the A9 has a solid magnesium body. That's just your foolish fanatic bias talking. It just reminds me of when Nikon fanboys used to disparage Canon for using polycarbonate outer bodies for their EOS 1, 1N, 1N RS, etc. "Canon bodies are too fragile!" Well, it was with the plastic-bodied 1N and EOS 3 that Canon took over the pro market!

@Kandid - Yes, Nikonians did say that kind of crap about the upstart EOS system. Now we have the same ignorant, territorial fools doing the same thing to the upstart Sony system It's deja vu all over again.

@Kandid - LOL, same ignorant, territorial, denialist fools, different decade! It was actually worse for Canon because people hated Canon for abandoning their FD system. People felt betrayed by Canon. And yet, in the end, Canon's technological superiority over Nikon won out over foolish attempts at slandering Canon. The same will happen with Sony.

This lens is pretty small and light for its combination of focal length and aperture. Hardly a monster lens. Only you can choose whether you want one in your bag. But silly to insinuate sharpness isn’t important. It isn’t important unless you don’t have it.

The magic of the 135mm FL comes from rangefinder times. 135mm lenses were the longest that had rangefinder coupling (few exceptions exist, but these are pretty much impossible to focus at closer distances).

Nikon and Canon have a lot more than ONE exceptional lens.
Just not for mirrorless!
But I am sure that Nikon and Canon will make a lot of great lenses for their mirrorless cameras if that system will dominate (like so many mirrorless fans predict).

That is cognitive dissonance, multiplied by confirmation bias, at work.

"HiFi ... would debate arcane specs"

This continued into the digital age, where sampling rates, compression algorithms and A/D converter qualities become fodder for "debates". Then the arguments drifted into subjective assessments where analog (tube amps, vinyl, turn tables, etc.) is proclaimed as "warmer" and such, especially if the analog equipment is expensive. Kind-of like the mini-resurgence of film, though it seems that most film pics are immediately digitized (I still can't sell or even give away my once-expensive enlarger).

And here's what is likely to happen: with in the year probably some other lens will come out to temporarily claim the title of "sharpest." Then that will eventually be surpassed, etc... Every time a new lens grabs that title, it will ignite a new debate as to which brand is best.

In the meantime, no one will be able to discern a difference between all of these world class lenses. But the debates will rage on.

And then someone will say, wait a minute, these lenses have gotten too sharp, I prefer the old school ones with more character and charm. And so one and so forth.

In the meantime the camera market will continue to shrink and people will wonder why.

@Thoughts R Us - Man I'm admiring your hypocrisy, truly and honestly. When Canon and Nikon put out some good glass, you run around this forum and shouts how good glass is important. You shout it so loud it makes unbearable to read your posts. Now Sony has new, great glass and you go - so what, who cares, just another good glass. You trolls are just unbelievable...

Cosinaphile, yes. Mental domination. Your brain clearly cannot handle the great products Sony has been releasing recently.

Well mike, below is the comment i made about r cialas review just released about sonys new lens .
i said :
" high praise from RC .... a voice and a methodology you can believe.

,a really superior lens"

.......So obviously my brain CAN handle a great sony made product .....lol
what i take issue with are silly childish displays of fanboyism like the comment above :

it said " "SONY = DOMINATION"

All caps and teenage level braggadocio, which is both childish and embarrassing ....... but not to you ? apparently ....

The kind of bragging and yelling that lowers the tone and the quality of this comments section .

Your reply to a childish comment was equally childish.

This is why we can't have nice tests.

Thanks for the nice test. Combined with the AF performance evidenced in many videos, this does seem like a really nice option for people looking for this focal length.

Sony = Elcassette! Ok, Betamax. Noble gladiators, surrender.

Read the article, dude.

Sony is taking optics and imaging very seriously, and finding partners which assist in that endeavor. The complacency of Canon and Nikon can't be overstated. They watched Sony grow the professional mirrorless business over 5 years before sticking their toe in the water. During that time Sony has produced about 20 world-class primes, not counting zoom lenses, while Canikon has almost completely ignored prime lenses until this year. Even now, their efforts with mirrorless are hampered by a reluctance to threaten their DSLR market (which is likely to disappear anyway).

Wow...all of this hyperbole based on one lens. Yes, I'm sure it's a great lens...and Sony has other great lenses, but in case you missed it, so does Canon and Nikon.

@Ed: Canon and Nikon have hardly been complacent in their lens releases. Consider the new Canon RF lenses...world class and in some cases totally unique. As to Canon/Nikon ignoring prime lenses these last 5 years: nothing could be further from the truth. How about the Canon 35 f1.4 L II? The Nikon 105 f1.4? The Canon RF 50 f1.2? And I don't know about Sony producing 20 world class primes...sure they have released a lot because they had to in order to build up their system.

Bottom line: all of these companies offer some amazing lenses. There's this overreaction which is funny. And speaking of a system of lenses, the Canon RF lenses both released and announced amount to something more substantial than this one lens.

actually the sony fanboys should wrap their head around the truth of sonys lateness to lens excellence and also a meaningful stable for the user, where sonys foots dragging was the source of much criticism

that was the number one criticism of sony the lack of lenses and the quality of lenses producing embarassing kit lenses etc

this lens is superb ,it seems,..... and sony, at least, should be credit for turning things around in the last few lenses made.

It could be true, but I have more than a suspicion that like many Sony lenses this one is designed and built for them by KonicaMinolta. It hasn't gone away, and still supplies Sony with at least some of its lenses.

Two statements by Thoughts R Us that I see he's not living up to...

"Thoughts R Us: what I hate is when Sony trolls descend on threads for other brands and just criticize them, all to promote Sony in their marketing campaign.

I don't go to Sony forums and trash Sony."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1229873877/live-q-a-with-dpreview-editors-about-the-canon-eos-rp?comment=5686420565

"Thoughts R Us: It's simple. There's seems to be a deliberate strategy by Sony to denigrate other brands on social media and forums. Everyone notices that only the Sony folks are so aggressive in putting down other brands."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1229873877/live-q-a-with-dpreview-editors-about-the-canon-eos-rp?comment=3753250869

@RubberDials: first of all, I have not criticized the lens at all on this discussion. On the contrary, I have noted it seems to be a great lens.

If the Sony trolls had been as nice as I have been to another brand I would have no problems.

Second, this is a an article on the front page of DPR, not in a Sony forum. You cannot find me on a Sony forum trashing their products, as happened with the intro of both the Canon and Nikon FF MILCs, where those forums were descended upon by Sony trolls.

So it's interesting that you so try to character assassinate me, and even then fall short of the mark.

@Thoughts R Us

You must think we were born yesterday. Every post you've made is an attempt to damn the lens with faint praise.

"""Wow...all of this hyperbole based on one lens. Yes, I'm sure it's a great lens...and Sony has other great lenses, but in case you missed it, so does Canon and Nikon."""

You've wheeled out your Hi Fi analogy a couple of times to downplay the significance of the lens's high resolving power – an incredible almost 80% at 100lp/m.

The reason you don't post in the Sony forums is because you'd be banned immediately.

@RubberDials: first, thanks for being so obsessed with me once again. I consider it a compliment. It's nice to know that I have at least one follower.

Second, you are reading into my comments what you want. Take them at face value. I don't mention much about the lens except to assume it's a really great one based on Roger's tests, because I haven't used it. That's about all I can say. And I do trust Roger's results; he's a credible source.

I've used my HiFi analogy many times in many threads because it applies; I'm not the only one to use that. It's a reminder that we all sometimes get too caught up in specs (me included). That doesn't diminish the product but it reminds us how silly all of our debates are over technical minutiae.

I don't post in Sony forums because I have no interest in doing so. Thanks again for reading my mind. But thanks most of all for giving giving me free rent inside of your head.

@Thoughts R Us

I'm not obsessed with you I'm just dog tired of your particular brand of trolling which is relentless and calculated to just clear the radar of any moderation.

Snipe from the sidelines - usually the Canon forums, but also the Nikon ones (you claim to own both the EOS R and the Nikon z7), chuck in a bit of faint praise or a single, decisive caveat: "I rented the A9 - it was impressive but -", "I would have bought one but I wasn't convinced by the build -" etc. Rinse and repeat - over and over.

I don't believe people should stick to their brand forums and one reason these comment threads are good is because they attract users of non Sony brands but people should post with a point.

You don't. you don't have anything to say, other than you dislike Sony and you say it over and over again, always politely, always in such a way that a single post seems reasonable so you're not going to get moderated, but look at your posts as whole and 70% of them are knocking Sony.

Contd.

Look what you've said about this lens. Every comment has been a passive aggressive effort to downplay the significance of it - you even called it hyperbole.

Yet this is what you write about a Canon lens:

""Lenses make the system. Always has, always will.

Canon gets this simple fact.

And hey, if you want fast lenses, well you have to go with Canon right now. Nikon may eventually join them. Sony cannot.

And that 70-200...ooh...that is breakthrough.""

I don't slam you for liking Canon (the R is the camera you probably have - I doubt you also have a z7) but there is a real dishonesty to what you write.

The best analogy I can think of is a football/soccer one about a player who fouls when the ref's not looking then adopts a smile and helps the player up. That's what I don't like. I'm not alone.

@Rubberdub
You are definitely one sandwich short of the full picnic 🥪😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

@RubberDials Don't let Your Thoughts R not Us get to you. He has his point of view(s), and you have yours. Just keep on doing your thing. You aren't without supporters. :-) Arguing just makes YOU feel bad, and usually the other person doesn't care.

"this lens makes me wanna switch to sony"

I already switched to Sony. This lens just confirms I made the right choice. It's been fun watching Sony to see what they come up with next.

@JPatrick
Nah - let him get to him (and you it seems 😁)

@Thoughts R Us - Man go change account, quit, join TN cult, do whatever just quit. It's so obvious you paid job is to bash Sony, it's pathetic, change nick please, start over, this one wear out completely, Kaput man...

@JPatrick

Cheers Patrick. I think you made the right choice. If you peek in the Canon R forum Canon users are hoping that their next camera will include IBIS, something Sony cameras had 13 years ago. :/ Even committed users don't expect the next camera to be anything other than a mirrorless makeover of the 5DR. It's genuinely hard to understand how people's expectations can be so low.

Perhaps even harder to understand is faced with such an austere reality and dispiriting predicted future some of those users see fit to spit at Sony, but human nature can be fairly revolting upon examination.

@RD and Thoughts:
You guys need to mellow-out on each other. Take a breather, please.

Peace. 🕊

@arbux
You have no idea what are you talking about...

Go to the lens rental blog post. This lens has much better sharpness than the sigma art. That was the first comparison they did as the sigma was the best before this lens.

Look....it is known as the sharpest lens in A mount

I own the ZA 135/1.8. I am not very impressed with it. It wouldn't stand a chance against the GM or the new Sigma Art.

@mick232:

In what ways so you find the ZA 135mm lacking?

What is wrong with the Batis 25mm F2?

@pantherfan there's only one thing wrong with the batis... it costs $1,500. im hoping sony make a 24 and 35 version of the outstanding 85/1.8 FE at a similar price

The Loxia 25/2.4 is even better than the Batis 25/2, and half the size (but heavier), if you don't mind cranking the lens barrel. World-class cameras deserve world-class lenses. If you're on a Chevy budget, don't expect Maserati performance (or dis it).

@miggylicious

If you can settle for F2.8 and need AF, Samyang recently released an interesting and very small 24mm F2.8 AF for the Sony E-mount.
And at 299$ it is dirt cheap

I guess you guys don’t understand irony......lolz

Or making/designing lenses takes years?

We mostly shoot various focal lengths to frame subjects. I find (as an example) using a 70-200mm lens I tend to be on the long size on average (150-200mm) so 135mm and shorter shots are less frequent than 70-149mm shots. If I were getting a prime to do a job, I'd likely be looking for something longer as using the 135mm would result in cropping (relative to 150-200mm) and that would reduce whatever resolution I gained because the lens was better.

Yes. Cause the Sigma already is sharper ;-)