Sony 135mm f1.8

Hey guys,

I have the A65 + 35mmf1.8 and Samyang 8mm. For a while i considered buying a zoom but i am really considering a good prime for portraits since il be focusing on that more from now on. Does anyone know or have experience with the Sony 135mm f1.8? obviusly it's a great lens but also a huge investment, would i do the right thing saving for this to get the best portrait lens, or should i just buy the 85mm f2.8 and save a load of money. Anyone familiar with theese, or aware of other nice portrait primes?

--
To snap, or not to snap

I have considered the 135mm f1.8 lens too, but not as a portrait lens. It is too long and you don't really need lower than f2.8 to get a great portrait.

The 85mm f2.8 is sharp wide open and really light. It's great for street photography because no one noitces it and with the lcd screen pointed downward one can get great natural portraits of people in a public setting. It is one of the gems of the Sony line that not many people talk about.

The 135mm f1.8 is good in my opinion as a really sharp indoor sports or event lens, doing this better than the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses.

I think you must mean the Zeiss 135 1.8 ? It is a brilliant piece of glass, but my least used lens, still I am pleased I got it (long forgot the price sting LOL)(also weighs a ton). The 100mm 2.8 is a fantastic macro lens that is also great for portrait work.

regards.
Ernest.

Oh you can check out all the lens info at http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/
--



May the Focus be with you
FD71, FD91, 707, 717, 828, R1, P8, H9, A700, A350, A77.
18-200mm, 18-250mm,100mm, 200-500mm, 75-300mm, 11-18mm, 135mm.

Landscapephoto99 said:

I have considered the 135mm f1.8 lens too, but not as a portrait lens. It is too long

Click to expand...

agreed for APS-C and studio, but still works when you can move back, tried it with great success on my a55, but it normally sits on the a900.

Landscapephoto99 said:

and you don't really need lower than f2.8 to get a great portrait.

Click to expand...

Some like extremely thin DOF portraits, some don't. I don't, but use the 1.8 on my CZ 135 for isolating pieces in still life, product shot and documentary work.

Landscapephoto99 said:

The 85mm f2.8 is sharp wide open and really light. It's great for street photography because no one noitces it and with the lcd screen pointed downward one can get great natural portraits of people in a public setting. It is one of the gems of the Sony line

Click to expand...

Totally agreed

Landscapephoto99 said:

that not many people talk about.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I have seen it receiving lots of praise recently after this
http://kurtmunger.com/85mm_compid310.html
was published, and don't forget these samples from Russia with love:
http://www.dpreview.com/members/7007547539/forums/threads

Landscapephoto99 said:

The 135mm f1.8 is good in my opinion as a really sharp indoor sports or event lens, doing this better than the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses.

Click to expand...

It is the best of its kind. Like.no.other, many a thread about it here:

http://search.dpreview.com/?forumid=1037&scope=Forums&sort=date&q=%22CZ+135%22&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

zigge said:

Hey guys,

I have the A65 + 35mmf1.8 and Samyang 8mm. For a while i considered buying a zoom but i am really considering a good prime for portraits since il be focusing on that more from now on. Does anyone know or have experience with the Sony 135mm f1.8? obviusly it's a great lens but also a huge investment, would i do the right thing saving for this to get the best portrait lens, or should i just buy the 85mm f2.8 and save a load of money. Anyone familiar with theese, or aware of other nice portrait primes?

--
To snap, or not to snap

Click to expand...

I have this lens and it IS my favorite lens for portraits BUT on my full frame a900. I have used it before on my a77 for portraits (just because I wanted to see how it would be), and the results were great, however... luckily, we were outdoors at a park where I had a lot of room to work with

CZ135 f1.8 with a77

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63271580@N00/6586666089/sizes/z/in/set-72157627548001200/

I totally agree with what's been posted so far... on a crop body, the 85mm is a better mix (it's about 127mm equivalent). So, you have the options of going f1.4 or f2.8 on the 85mm. The Carl Zeiss 85 is pricey but a great lens... the f2.8 is a bargain, but you gotta ask yourself... do you really need to go wider than f2.8? If you do, then the options for a 85mm f1.4 are: Carl Zeiss, Sigma or a used Minolta. I would stay away from the Sigma for now due to incompatibility issues with the a77/a765. I HAVE the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and LOVE it, however of all the Sigma lenses I have, that lens ended up being the only one with incompatibility issues.

I have owned the 85 2.8, Minolta 85 1.4 and Zeiss 135 but I only shoot FF. At 2.8, they are all great. Very sharp, extremely usable. That 85 2.8 is surprisingly good optically, great colors, sharpness, bokeh and that MFD is wonderful. Just a word, for indoor photos, I wouldn't shoot 2.8 at 128mm. Plus, you'll have very flat DOF at 2.8 on crop. Therefore, I'd look at the Zeiss 135 or an 85. 135 is long on crop, and the zeiss is big and expensive. Plus, with the extra distance and slightly slower aperture, you'll need more light. I find my Minolta 85 1.4 being used much more than my 135, and consequently, I am selling my Zeiss 135, though it is a absolute champion of a lens, possibly the best I ever used. Once again, especially on crop, I wouldn't want that Zeiss 135. And I have used a Sigma 85 1.4 on a D7000 before I shot Sony, and it was fabulous (the lens and the focal length). So yeah, go 85 1.4. I can post some photos, but I didn't want to pollute the thread, but if you want, just shout. Hope this helps.

Good luck.

I use mine as a short tele for candids and flower closeups.

The 135z is superb... but if you want the true king of portrait lenses of ANY brand get the Sony 135 Smooth Trans Focus. It is in most respects a niche specialty lens but well worth the money if subjects over creamy backgrounds is the intention.

It is not a widely recognized lens, yet no other current lenses match its unique bokeh ability and it is of ridiculous quality.

Too long?... a matter of opinion and shooting style.

I personally prefer portraits between 85 - 200, in the studio or not. The 70-200 is widely regarded as the sports lens and many people balk at it for portraits, yet size aside it is another favorite for this type of shooting. I prefer to put distance between the lkens and the subject, plus people simply look better from further back at full extension.

That said I would kill for something like the nikor 14-24 when I need to get up close and personal. I guess I will have to wait to grab the new premium ultra wide later this year for a sony option.

...

Thanks for the great inputs, still havent decided i just learned one thing, its expensive to buy cheap! As in investing small ammount in something you end up selling again. However it's good to hear that the 85mm f2.8 aint that bad, il try it out in the store and see if it fits my needs. But man the bokeh on thoose 135mm is to die for
--
To snap, or not to snap

There are two issues here:

1) Focal range on crop sensor. While it's true 135 is too long on crop sensor for portrait but if you can step back little more it could work, at least for head shot. Also with 1.5x crop factor, this is nice 200mm medium telephoto lens, perfect for some indoor sports & events. Samples with A55:









2) Let's say you are OK with 135mm, now the question is which one. I agree Sony 123STF is a gem. Someone I know even modified the metal mount to make it Nikon version. BUT it's manual focus, and aperture is much smaller than Zeiss f1.8. In practical sense, Zeiss 135 has good enough bokeh, and excellent sharpness right from f1.8, and improve to "out of this world" sharpness once stop down a little. I often used it as low-light "paparazzi" lens. Samples with A900 full frame:

"plus people simply look better from further back at full extension."

I agree that in most cases the longer the focal length the better -- short
focal lengths for portraiture require careful 'seeing' -- but do create a better
sense of volume: Chins, noses and foreheads become prominent the closer
you get.

And don't forget that proper viewing distance is related to the focal length used.

The 135 is a great lens. But, I frequently find it too long on my a850. I have never even considered it on my a700. Given that you have an a65, I would suggest thinking of a 50mm or 85mm. Remember you can get a feel for it yourself, but fixing a zoom lens to 135mm on your a65 and try taking pictures of things you might want to shoot with the 135. It will at least give you a feel for framing.

The 135CZ is by far the sharpest lens I own...even at f1.8.
--
yakkosmurf
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yakkosmurf/
a850, a700, R1
24-70CZ, 135 CZ, 16-80CZ, 70-300G, Sig 24 1.8 & 10-20 4.5
F58AM flash

I am having a same dilemma as the OP for my future a77/65.

I am considering seriously a Tamron 60mm f2 macro lens for portraits, plus then having also a macro for flowers and plants which I mostly shoot. It seems to be a very sharp and have also a quite pleasing bokeh.

Has anyone have experience with Tamron 60mm?

What about the CZ1635? Don't know the lens personally, but seems quite similar to the Nikon on paper.

I have both the 135 1.8 and 85 1.4. I love both lens and provide great bokeh.

If I need to keep one, it will be the 135 1.8

--
http://www.peterphamphotography.com