Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 135mm f1.8

Go to last post
C

CRiddell

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
354
Reaction score
46
Location
Toronto, CA
I picked up this lens last week and all I can say is wow what a real nice lens.

I am using it on a Nikon D800E body. I was going to buy a Epson P800 as my Epson 7600 is long in the tooth and I have not bought new ink, which it needs, and I did not want to buy for such a old printer. So I was on the fence as to what to spend my 2year saved change on. I took a look at Maoby shots and thought what the hell, I will get the lens.

I still really want a new printer :) but could not be happier with the new lens.

here is a shot from last weekend. Please go to 100% to see the detail. Also look how nice the out of focus transition is.

What do you think?

If you have this lens please post a shot as well. I think people are over looking this lens a bit.




Nice Ass
 
I am vacillating between 135mm and new 105mm and a Sherpa now.
 
I'd take the 85/1.4 over both for the practicality in real life, and save money.

Mind you if you have an idea for a photoshoot that uses the capability of 105mm at f1.4, be our guest.
 
CRiddell said:

Nice Ass
Click to expand...
Perhaps a bit overstated ;-) but I think we will both agree that the 135/1.8 is badass!

Have it. Love it.





0114f9a4e7e74ad0a2b7f1e09f5c599e.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 3801858.jpg
    3801858.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
fishy wishy said:
I'd take the 85/1.4 over both for the practicality in real life, and save money.

Mind you if you have an idea for a photoshoot that uses the capability of 105mm at f1.4, be our guest.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the Nikon 85 f1.4G is less expensive than the Sigma 135 f1.8. They are somewhat comparably priced. I personally prefer the 135mm for portraiture. Opinions may vary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yxa
fishy wishy said:
I'd take the 85/1.4 over both for the practicality in real life, and save money.

Mind you if you have an idea for a photoshoot that uses the capability of 105mm at f1.4, be our guest.
Click to expand...
This one was taken at 135mm on D500 at F3.5 because that is what camera was setup for. I like the look but I don't like the background and I don't like the way background looks with the flash. I was thinking 135mm F1.8 would give a different image. I have also noticed that some of the roaming photogs use a bright prime to do the same. I don't work for Getty so I can't roam but I think with 135mm F1.8 I can achieve the image I want.

ba612291226240808f9dd744d42e595e.jpg


Then, there are interviews at the table and I can't use flash at all because interviewer scream at me so 135mm F1.8 would be perfect for that too.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
Last edited:
That almost looks 3D. I too was looking at the Sigma 105mm f1.4. Hmm
 
How much of the subject are you intending to get in the frame with at f1.4 or f1.8, Sushi? The closer you get, the shallower the depth of field making the shot more risky. Are you choosing a single focus point, how will you be taking it?

What is your attitude to something like a Tamron 85/1.8 VC, can you use it at slow enough shutter speeds to really make use of the VC, what speeds do you dare go down to in order to feel secure in getting the shot in a red carpet situation?
 
Last edited:
fishy wishy said:
How much of the subject are you intending to get in the frame with at f1.4 or f1.8, Sushi? The closer you get, the shallower the depth of field making the shot more risky. Are you choosing a single focus point, how will you be taking it?

What is your attitude to something like a Tamron 85/1.8 VC, can you use it at slow enough shutter speeds to really make use of the VC, what speeds do you dare go down to in order to feel secure in getting the shot in a red carpet situation?
Click to expand...
I will wait for the subject to move away from me to about 10-15 feet or more. When I will ask for "Look back"

Roaming photogs do it with 50mm from the shorter distance but that is why they are roaming. I am not, so I have to shoot from the fixed position thus longer lens is required. At F1.8 I will shoot at at least 1/200 or faster. I don't use slower speeds because even a smile can make face blurry. Plus a look back means movement.

And of course I will focus on the eye. If I need to I will crop a little later. And I will use the lens on D500 or D810 depending on the location.
 
It is one of my favorite lenses. I picked up a used D4 recently and the 135 sigma really nails everything every time. Same on my D810 and D500.
 
Not sure what was the lens used here but it was very small. Maybe 35-50mm range.

d4dc5968c2514830acac544a8149589c.jpg






--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
It sounds like stabilisation is hardly any use to you at all in that situation, at least if you are not moving without realising when you take the shot.

I realised this when I took an impressive series of stabilised test shots at home but when I got out into the big wide world I found I wasn't getting nearly as good results. Even just roaming cathedrals. And I was an experienced shooter.

Would you go so far as to say that stabilisation on a normal 24-70 zoom is not much of a benefit? It rather makes me wonder. For instance at parties I didn't find under 1/30s very useful, as hands in particular become blurred.
 
Nice bokeh indeed.........ideal for outdoor portraiture too!
 
fishy wishy said:
It sounds like stabilisation is hardly any use to you at all in that situation, at least if you are not moving without realising when you take the shot.

I realised this when I took an impressive series of stabilised test shots at home but when I got out into the big wide world I found I wasn't getting nearly as good results. Even just roaming cathedrals. And I was an experienced shooter.

Would you go so far as to say that stabilisation on a normal 24-70 zoom is not much of a benefit? It rather makes me wonder. For instance at parties I didn't find under 1/30s very useful, as hands in particular become blurred.
Click to expand...
VR for parties is basically useless. VR doesn't help at all with most moving subjects, you have to have the shutter speed so faces in action of smiling and moving are not blurred. The only time VR helps with a moving subject is when doing a pan shot with the subject as it will help reduce or eliminate up-down motion blur maximizing a sharp subject with a blurred background. It does help to eliminate Camera shake, but that is also an issue with the shooters technique which can be improved.

I've owned lots of VR & IS lenes, but unless I needed to drop the shutter speed below the rule of thumb, I leave the VR/IS/OS completely off as it can actually cause blur. Currently I only own 2 lenses with VR, a Nikon 105 Macro.. (very helpful in macro) and my Nikon 300mm F.4 PF VR (VR great for shooting without tripod below 1/500sec) See my concert image below. Taken with my D850, 300mm PF @ F6.3 , 1/320sec, ISO 3200. No cropping or touching up, strait RAW to JPG High Quality standard conversion.

:)

--
S.C.U.F.I.
Shoot Close Up For Impact!

4c248e50d4824b82b279040a1443e991.jpg
 
Last edited:
fishy wishy said:
It sounds like stabilisation is hardly any use to you at all in that situation, at least if you are not moving without realising when you take the shot.
Click to expand...
That is correct. I actually turned it off on both Tamrons 24-70mm and 70-200mm.
fishy wishy said:
I realised this when I took an impressive series of stabilised test shots at home but when I got out into the big wide world I found I wasn't getting nearly as good results. Even just roaming cathedrals. And I was an experienced shooter.

Would you go so far as to say that stabilisation on a normal 24-70 zoom is not much of a benefit? It rather makes me wonder. For instance at parties I didn't find under 1/30s very useful, as hands in particular become blurred.
Click to expand...
Minimum shutter speed even with the flash I use is 1/160 because even a smile can get blurry not to mention some people would not stand still. But I prefer 1/250 max sync speed and on D800/D810 1/320.
 
I have this lens as well. I already have 85mm and also an older 105mm. The 135 rounds out the portrait focal length nicely. There's very little not to like about this lens. Incredibly sharp and well corrected. It feels very close to Zeiss 135mm APO, but has auto focus. This Sigma is the first one with an AF that I feel confident about. It's not super fast, but it's fast enough and also doesn't hunt around. The color straight out of camera is also very pleasant-almost Zeiss-ish. There is the occasional pinkish tint, but that's easy to correct. I think this is a great alternative to the 105mm f1.4 from Nikon.
 
It is one of Sigmas best lenses but my copy had need of a Sigma dock to fine tune focus at or near infinity that was different then at 15 feet or less. Also, when doing burst shooting their was a lot of exposure variations so I would not recommend this for sports but mine may have been unique. Great bokeh though. Color was a bit saturated on green as well but nothing that could not be tweaked.
 
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