Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 135mm f2 vs Sigma 135mm f1.8 vs.. future possibilities?

Go to last post
S

slidewilson

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
336
Reaction score
479
I've been thinking of purchasing an "epic portrait lens" in the 135mm range for quite some time. I feel like the Nikon 135mm f2 is a classic, but may not give the best results on a D850. The Sigma 135mm seems to have some solid reviews. There's also the chance that NIkon might release an updated 135mm "sometime", but of course there's no real way of knowing when that might happen.

Any recommendations or suggestions? Thanks!
 
Depends if it's to make money with of for your own entertainment.

If you have the time to manual focus you can't beat the Samyang for IQ & value.

A good example of a used Nikon f2 is not going to lose you much money if you sell for the next big thing.

A Sigma f1.8 should be a lens you can depend on for a while to come because you can tune and update the firmware with the USB dock.
 
I handled the 135 f2 DC at photo plus, along with the Sigma 135 1.8, and the Nikon 105 1.4. In the few seconds I handled handled each, I thought the 105 1.4 was the best. The Sigma wasn't far behind however. The 135 f2 is a defocus control lens. Despite the quick tutorial I got from the Nikon rep, I didn't grasp the use of that control. I don't doubt that given more time with the lens, I would be able to grasp its uses, but there is a learning curve to its use and you should be aware of that. The Sigma was very sharp and worked with my D810 without issue. Both, the Nikon 135 and 105 were put on a D850. As I said, I thought the 105 1.4 was the best of the three, but at f2 with DC not in use, bokeh and sharpness were very good.

I don't consider my handling of the lenses to be adequate. When Im ready to buy, I'll spend a lot more time with each lens, before making a decision and hope that I don't have the return policy.
 
I have the 135 F2 but not the Sigma 135 although I did try it. I do have the Nikon 105 and 85 1.4. I had and sold the Sigma 85 Art. I do have the Sigma 35 and 24mm.

I have had the 135 F2 for a long time and it is useful in some circumstances and can work really well. The Sigma will undoubtedly be sharper and focus faster. The 135 is about dealing with distracting backgrounds or foregrounds and the defocus control is there to help with that if you use it sparingly. It is sharp enough stopped down a bit as well.

135 is longish lens for portraits and you need a fair working distance. That said of course people use 200 and 300mm lenses for portraits. 1.8 will naturally give you the shallower DOF. It is worth mentioning that (As I am sure you know) the focal length of a lens has nothing to do with depth of field for the same magnification it is just a factor of aperture and sensor size.

I think the Sigma is probably going to be a better choice although it is very very heavy. That said you could basically try the F2 for free if you are willing to buy and sell privately as it won't lose much value.

A couple from the 135 one was wide open with DC to deal with a background.





--
Instagram @vinnypimages
 

Attachments

  • 3668989.jpg
    3668989.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
slidewilson said:
I've been thinking of purchasing an "epic portrait lens" in the 135mm range for quite some time. I feel like the Nikon 135mm f2 is a classic, but may not give the best results on a D850. The Sigma 135mm seems to have some solid reviews.
Click to expand...
The Sigma is about as sharp as it gets at 135mm - but is that what you're looking for in your portraiture? If so, the only negative trait of the Sigma would be its LoCA at distances of 6 ft. or less.

If your subjects have less than perfect skin, the 135 DC has advantages. It is designed to defocus the reds slightly to even out skin imperfections and offers control of its SA correction. However, contrast is low at wide apertures, and even when stopped down to f/5.6, it lags most other 135mm lenses for sharpness.
slidewilson said:
There's also the chance that Nikon might release an updated 135mm "sometime", but of course there's no real way of knowing when that might happen.
Click to expand...
I'm also very interested to see what Nikon come up with, when they decide to offer a new 135mm. It may be a very good compromise between the Sigma Art and the 135 DC, if the 105/1.4E is any indication.
 
fishy wishy said:
Depends if it's to make money with of for your own entertainment.

If you have the time to manual focus you can't beat the Samyang for IQ & value.

A good example of a used Nikon f2 is not going to lose you much money if you sell for the next big thing.

A Sigma f1.8 should be a lens you can depend on for a while to come because you can tune and update the firmware with the USB dock.
Click to expand...
I had Samyang 135/2 for a few weeks, but very quickly passed it forward. It's sharp and even has kinda nice bokeh, but I didn't like how it rendered portraits. Maybe too sharp or something and I had trouble tweaking the colors to my liking in post.

I then got 135DC, which I still have and love, but it was a tad too soft and unpredictable for some professional shoots and I ended up getting the 105/1.4E, which is absolutely wonderful and lovely in every way.
 
slidewilson said:
I've been thinking of purchasing an "epic portrait lens" in the 135mm range for quite some time. I feel like the Nikon 135mm f2 is a classic, but may not give the best results on a D850. The Sigma 135mm seems to have some solid reviews. There's also the chance that NIkon might release an updated 135mm "sometime", but of course there's no real way of knowing when that might happen.

Any recommendations or suggestions? Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
I've been thinking of adding a 135mm lens to my bag of lenses.

Recently, I found a camera store near me that had a used Nikon 135mm f2 DC as well as a new Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art in stock. They were kind enough to let me test the lens in their store on both a d750 and d810 camera body. All testing I performed on the lenses was done at f2.8, f2 and f1.8 (on the Sigma). I was very surprised at my results....

This was not a lab test. This was not a completely controlled test. This was simply me shooting headshots and 3/4 body shots of a subject under the horrific lighting at the camera store. For all the shots I placed her on the right had side of the frame. (Off center). The DC was turned OFF on the Nikon 135mm for all shots.

I started testing with the d750 first. First thing I noticed was that the Sigma 135mm was backfocusing slightly. But even when this was compensated for, I didn't see any large sharpness bump from the Sigma over the Nikon. I was curious if this would carry over to the d810 (as that has a 36mp sensor).

Switching over the to d810, I was surprised to see that the Nikon still appeared to be equal, or perhaps even a bit sharper.

I've now had 3 weeks to review the RAW files I took. I'm honestly convinced that the Nikon 135mm is a better lens that I had originally thought.

There is something to keep in mind here......The sigma should, according to all current reviews, be sharper in the extreme corners. However, I just don't shoot my portrait lenses this way. I can not think of one example where I have placed a subject in an extreme corner. I will use the "rule of thirds" and often offset the subject of my photos.....but on a "bokeh lens" such as these 135mm I don't believe I will ever notice if the corners are sharper as I never place an object in focus in the corners.

So, its entirely possible that the Sigma is sharper in the corners. But what mattered most to me was how sharp the IN FOCUS parts of my portraits would be. In that regard, the Nikon was equal to if not sharper in the photos I took.

I came away very surprised. I still cannot believe the results. I keep thinking it must have been a horrible copy of the Sigma 135 or a great copy of the Nikon 135 (or both!). But I thought I would present my findings. Anyone that is curious to see the RAW files can feel free to message me.
 
slidewilson said:
I've been thinking of purchasing an "epic portrait lens" in the 135mm range for quite some time. I feel like the Nikon 135mm f2 is a classic, but may not give the best results on a D850. The Sigma 135mm seems to have some solid reviews. There's also the chance that NIkon might release an updated 135mm "sometime", but of course there's no real way of knowing when that might happen.

Any recommendations or suggestions? Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you can live without AF, I suggest you to try the Zeiss Milvus 135mm as well. Or if you want to save money you could try to find an older (but still extremely good) Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm.
 
Your test wasn't controlled, therefore, your results mean - nothing -.

Sorry man, that's just the way it is. The entire reason we control the variables in our tests and take the time to do them correctly is so we can actually trust the results. If you were really sick and the doctor told you specifically that he wanted to do a 12 hour fasting blood test on you, how accurate would the test be if you ignored his direction, or if he/she didn't keep track of the vials, or the lab tech was in a rush and didn't do his job correctly?

A quick 2 minutes in the camera store test without controls won't tell you much at all.

My old saying "nothing could be more potentially misleading than a poorly done, or incompletely done, test" stands true.

So, what you should have done (at a minimum) is to make SURE focus on both lenses was absolutely in the same spot and perfect. We have to realize that even slight misfocus can significantly remove sharpness. A tripod to remove motion blur would have helped too. The more you sit back and think about how many things can conspire against you to remove resolution, the more you'll see why I'm a bit "harsh" in my comments about controlling the test properly. (high ISO is another, subject movement, etc, etc is another) You could compare an Otus and a kit lens in the manner you did and get the same kind of results. The reality is that every objective test, and most every subjective test done on those two lenses says the Sigma art is sharper, particularly in the wider apertures. So if you aren't getting results that approach the consensus, that should be one big red flag that you didn't test properly.

-m
 
Last edited:
I do own the Sigma Art 135 and I did own the Nikon 105 DC. While I loved my Nikon 105 and still regret selling it I am very much surprised about your conclusion that the Sigma seems equally sharp or less sharper in the center when both lenses are used wide open.

And I am not saying that the DC lenses cannot produce very sharp pictures.

One gigantic difference is the respective autofocus performance where the Sigma is all over the Nikon. Might not be so relevant in a controlled studio setting.
 
anotherMike said:
Your test wasn't controlled, therefore, your results mean - nothing -.

Sorry man, that's just the way it is. The entire reason we control the variables in our tests and take the time to do them correctly is so we can actually trust the results. If you were really sick and the doctor told you specifically that he wanted to do a 12 hour fasting blood test on you, how accurate would the test be if you ignored his direction, or if he/she didn't keep track of the vials, or the lab tech was in a rush and didn't do his job correctly?

A quick 2 minutes in the camera store test without controls won't tell you much at all.

My old saying "nothing could be more potentially misleading than a poorly done, or incompletely done, test" stands true.

So, what you should have done (at a minimum) is to make SURE focus on both lenses was absolutely in the same spot and perfect. We have to realize that even slight misfocus can significantly remove sharpness. A tripod to remove motion blur would have helped too. The more you sit back and think about how many things can conspire against you to remove resolution, the more you'll see why I'm a bit "harsh" in my comments about controlling the test properly. (high ISO is another, subject movement, etc, etc is another) You could compare an Otus and a kit lens in the manner you did and get the same kind of results. The reality is that every objective test, and most every subjective test done on those two lenses says the Sigma art is sharper, particularly in the wider apertures. So if you aren't getting results that approach the consensus, that should be one big red flag that you didn't test properly.

-m
Click to expand...
I'm a wedding and portrait photographer. I tested both lenses for over an hour and have a multitude of examples. I wanted to test the lenses color fringing under high contrast subjects, I tested under backlighting, side lighting , sharpness wide open, stopped down, vignetting, distortion, etc etc etc. I simply don't own a laboratory and, in my humble experience, people will always challenge the testing methods and environments.

I'll be 100% honest with you. I could care less about testing them in a lab. I'm a wedding and portrait photographer and so I tested them under conditions that made the most sense to me (I don't shoot test charts for a living). The results were able to be duplicated by myself on several camera bodies. If I was at a wedding or a portrait photo-shoot, I'm confident that I could duplicate the results. This was not a situation where "sometimes" the Nikon lens was better......it was identical or better in 99% of the images I took.

While I respect your opinion, I do not know of ANYONE that has tested these two lenses. People have claimed to have done so, or have owned them and different time periods.....but to the best of my knowledge, I am the only one that has RAW files of both lenses being tested on the same camera, pointed at the same subject, under the same lighting, at the same time. Thus, my review is far more revealing than all the conjecture on the internet.

The point is that the Sigma 135mm ART lens is rated very highly and people love the lens. Everything I've heard, read or seen has been nothing but assumptions that the Sigma 135mm was "better" than the Nikon 135mm. But I have yet to see any type of controlled test (or any test for that matter), I have yet to see anyone compare RAW files........I could go on, but I'll assume you're intelligent and understand my point.

Could it be the Sigma 135mm lens I tested was a poor copy? Absolutely.

Could it be that the Nikon 135mm was the best copy in existence? Absolutely.

Could it also be that the Nikon 135mm is closer in performance to the Sigma 135mm than people want to admit? Absolutely.

Regardless, what I am trying to point out is that there should be further testing done between these lenses (with RAW files to prove the results) to see if my findings are accurate and can be duplicated by others. From my findings, it should not be assumed that the Sigma 135mm is a better lens. But I simply do not know of any other source that has tested both of these lenses.
 
kwe said:
I do own the Sigma Art 135 and I did own the Nikon 105 DC. While I loved my Nikon 105 and still regret selling it I am very much surprised about your conclusion that the Sigma seems equally sharp or less sharper in the center when both lenses are used wide open.

And I am not saying that the DC lenses cannot produce very sharp pictures.

One gigantic difference is the respective autofocus performance where the Sigma is all over the Nikon. Might not be so relevant in a controlled studio setting.
Click to expand...
I started my testing with the assumption that the Sigma 135mm was the better lens. I had every expectation to discover that it was sharper, better, etc etc.

The purpose of my test wasn't to prove which was a better lens. I was simply curious at HOW MUCH of a better lens the Sigma was. Did it warrant a $1400 price tag when I can purchase the Nikon 135mm used for $700? I was simply curious if the additional $700 for the Sigma would produce a result that my clients would be able to see.

I was completely shocked and surprised by my results.

On a side note. I also tested the Nikon 105mm f1.4 and performed the same tests as the 135mm lenses (So it should be considered in the comparison). The 105mm is a better lens than either 135mm. You can immediately tell its sharper and has better microcontrast. I had very little interest in the Nikon 105mm until I tested it against the 135mm lenses. Now, I'm torn between getting one of the 135mm or the Nikon 105mm.
 
I own both the 135mm f/2 Nikkor ai-s and the new sigma 135mm f/1.8, I don't shoot many portraits so I did not justify in my mind to buy the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 . Anyway, I have done tests comparing both (for my own sake) and honestly , I was impressed that the old Nikkor won in center sharpness. Purple fringing although very low, it was better controlled in the sigma (non existant?) .

If I would have known this from the beginning I would probably just kept the Nikkor and not buy the Sigma. Although AF is nice to have for an old person like me.
 
You're still missing the point. Because you did not at least ensure that focus was absolutely, dead on, spot on perfect with both candidate lenses, and because you didn't remove the variable of camera shake/subject blur from the equation, it is simply very basic: your test CAN NOT be relied upon to judge sharpness differences between the lenses.

It really is that simple. You don't need a lab to figure this one out. I test lenses in real life, subjectively, but I make sure I control what needs to be controlled, because I understand all too well the danger of improperly/incompletely done tests.

Look, testing is one gigantic, PITA. Lots of things I'd rather do than test lenses. Time consuming to do it right. However, if one takes the time to do it right, then two things occur:

1) One has an answer that is solid, that one can trust, and one that IMO is defensible.

2) One will also find, through the process, how their gear behaves in real life scenarios (this comes into play when testing wide angles - as an example - test correctly/thoroughly and you'll discover the field curvature tendencies of the lens, which is extremely handy to know for landscape work)

-m
 
Last edited:
Would be curious to see how in real world testing the Sigma 85mm F1.4 and Nikon 85 1.8 would compare.
 
85/1.8G Nikkor vs Sigma 85/1.4 Art?

Well, I own the 85/1.8 VC Tamron, Zeiss 85/1.4 Milvus, and 85/1.4 Sigma Art, and used to own the 85/1.8G Nikkor.

The Tamron is clearly better than the Nikkor, and both the Art and the Milvus are better than the Tamron.

Quite obvious near wide open, but still noticeable stopped down.

And that's proper, controlled testing, not cowboy in a camera store stuff. Spent a week doing that comparison way way back when the Tamron and Sigma were still fairly new.

-m
 
anotherMike said:
85/1.8G Nikkor vs Sigma 85/1.4 Art?

Well, I own the 85/1.8 VC Tamron, Zeiss 85/1.4 Milvus, and 85/1.4 Sigma Art, and used to own the 85/1.8G Nikkor.

The Tamron is clearly better than the Nikkor, and both the Art and the Milvus are better than the Tamron.

Quite obvious near wide open, but still noticeable stopped down.

And that's proper, controlled testing, not cowboy in a camera store stuff. Spent a week doing that comparison way way back when the Tamron and Sigma were still fairly new.

-m
Click to expand...
Thought it might be better. Wide open results are what I would be interested in. Though I expect the Milvus would have better bokeh.

Thanks
 
The testing that I do is whether or not I like the images from one lens/body combination better than the images from another lens/same body combination. While my testing is very subjective, it is far more fun testing with subject matter that I enjoy and typically shoot than spending a week with some test charts, etc. Like the old adage - the proof of the pudding . . .
 
theraven871 said:
While I respect your opinion, I do not know of ANYONE that has tested these two lenses.
Click to expand...
.....<snip>....
theraven871 said:
But I simply do not know of any other source that has tested both of these lenses.
Click to expand...
Check here:

Zeiss 135APO - an Otus for $1499

This is as fantastic of a lens as any Otus (I have all 3.. er uh.... 4) If you don't have you should get or borrow this lens. I thought it was a bargain at $2000 To be honest, I think Zeiss are feeling some pain from their Korean competitor. I've been looking at the Samyang/Rokinon 135 f/2...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top