Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM sample gallery

Or a 170mm/ 2.3 on the gfx or a 85mm/1.1 on Canons crippled apsc

1 week agopermalink

keepreal

I am not a fan of heavy equipment but at its focal length and aperture this is probably reasonable, if and only if the performance is up to the claims.

Unlike some comments here suggest should be possible, I haven't a clue if this is the case because IMO the sample images are hopeless. DP Review samples usually are. However, those here are worse than usual.

What is always needed is a selection of images in light of good brightness and contrast with small well defined and sharp edged detail over most of the frame, very definitely to the far edges. Not one of the samples here gets even remotely close.

I get the impression that DPR chooses what to capture and present more or less at random. Shame on them.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Vit Adamek

Great gallery.

3 weeks agopermalink

These GM lenses are quality, and infused with minolta magic (3d pop, micro contrast, 135GM joining the 85GM, 24-70 and 70-200 GM, and 24GM)!!!

3 weeks agopermalink

ojos azules

Winning.

3 weeks agopermalink

mick232

The lens is tack sharp even wide open and the focus is spot on.
What more could you want?

3 weeks agopermalink

Canon colors? :) Just kidding, if you come from Canon, shoot Raw. These GM lenses are quality, and infused with minolta magic (3d pop, micro contrast 85GM, 24-70 and 70-200 GM, and 24GM)!!!

3 weeks ago*permalink

Who on earth would want lifeless canon colours 🤔

2 weeks agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

#5 is a great photo.

3 weeks agopermalink

Yes! Dan the man! My favorite shot in the gallery.

3 weeks agopermalink

I don't like it seems very clinical with no soul

Doesn't seem to have the magic of the sal135f18z or even the sel85f18

3 weeks agopermalink

Magnar W

The worse performance, the more soul? I prefer good lenses with fast sutofocus, then I can kill IQ at post processing.

3 weeks agopermalink

Adam007

I agree with barrym, but admittedly I find it hard to describe "pixie dust", let alone discern it in down-res photos. That said, others have made the point that when your workflow is more PP-focused, you probably don't want many distractions from a lens' rendering peculiarities. I guess I'm somewhere in between, and sort of enjoy working around the distinctive "charms" of an "imperfect" lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

Personally I'm not a fan of the way this lens renders the skin, there's just.....too much detail it's actually displeasing to look at.

Regarding 3D pop, I find it to be inconclusive, some photos have nice amount of pop while others feel rather flat.

I don't have a problem with cat eye bokeh so I find the bokeh quite nice thought.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Barry Duggan Photography

Clinical, no soul?. What are you on about?. Its a lens!

3 weeks agopermalink

Barry have you not shot minolta glass or a sal135f18 or a sel85f18 or canon 135 f2 or nikon 200mm f2, they all have something very special.

This lens reminds me very much of the sigma 35 1.4 art lens in rendering

3 weeks agopermalink

The sony 85mm 1.8 does not have magical rendering, the GM kills it! It's just a good value, and super sharp, but not special in rendering. The 135 1.8 ZA yes, that is something special, but all still not in the same league as the beautiful rendering of the Canon 85mm 1.2L II.

3 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

@Canonlight13, ah, the mythical Canon 85mm f1.2L II, I used to fantasize about it and planned to adapt it, until I actually got to use it and found how distracting and ugly the bokehs (which have a tendency to get cut, even on Canon) were and the horrendeous CA, since that I refuse to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

3 weeks agopermalink

Golan Ziv

sony cameras to be honest have no soul. sont creates gadgets and not cameras in my opinion. i tried the a7rm3 and didnt like its colours and exposure. the sky always seems to be over exposed, at the end i choose the Z7 and im truly happy i did it

3 weeks agopermalink

It’s about compromise in lens design.
When sharpness is the priority, bokeh and rendering will be compromised. When bokeh and rendering is priority, sharpness, PF, Ca, etc is compromised.

That said, I think Sony did a great job with this lens, balancing sharpness and rendering.
True, it doesn’t render like the brilliant 135 Sonnar, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “clinical” or “has no soul”.

More and more people & review sites value sharpness above all these days, even in a portrait lens. And they’ve become the most vocal.
So how can we really fault camera companies for giving them what they want?

3 weeks ago*permalink

Canon light tue sel85f18 is actually super sharp and has very creamy dreamy bokeh i have it and love it 👍

3 weeks agopermalink

JPatrick

You guys crack me up. If the lens is too sharp for some of you, add some Gaussian blur in post, or look at your images on your cell phones.

Don't blame the camera and lens for not having soul. It's the photographer's job to add the soul.

1 week agopermalink

Ian from Berks

I used to have a Carl Zeiss 135 1.8 for Sony A series built like a tank and the best lenses I ever had , hope this can match it.

3 weeks agopermalink

Mared

I had that lens too. This lens will easily pass it by. This is 2019 and as good as the A mount lens was, tech moves on...

6 days agopermalink

QINPrinting

I don't know what the price is going to be, but the technology has improved a lot

3 weeks agopermalink

$1898 preorder on B&H. Better priced than Canon's latest lenses, but still very expensive!

3 weeks agopermalink

Seems like an overall great lens, but it should be for this price. Would be nice to see an IQ comparison between this and the Sigma.
But the Image gallery is totally uninteresting for such a lens.... or to judge any lens

3 weeks agopermalink

Fastguitars

What if there was no Adobe Lightroom.
In this case, it would probably be a lot more difficult to sell this Sony.
(and every other camera)
What if we had to actually buy a camera based on its Jpge quality, alone.
Adobe is the "Auto-tune" curse of photography.
It allows for junk cameras to be "highly reviewed", and for bad photographers to have a notable false career.

3 weeks ago*permalink

MediaArchivist

Yeah man, sing it. Nothing gooses my gizzard more than raw files. The only "real" photography is SOOC jpegs, anything else is cheating. I feel the same way about autofocus. Get it perfect, the first time, or go home.

3 weeks agopermalink

Jacques Cornell

You guys need to shoot slide film. You probably think neg film is for poseurs.

3 weeks agopermalink

If people had to buy cameras based on JPEG cameras alone, Leica would never sell a camera. And yet they do.

What does that tell you?

3 weeks agopermalink

jay-A

Sure, snd darkrooms were the autotune of analog photography, right? That does not make sense. The ability to process your photographs is integral to photography and lightroom did not revolutionize this.

3 weeks agopermalink

fatdeeman

"The only "real" photography is SOOC jpegs, anything else is cheating."

Jpegs aka letting the camera do the photoshopping for you. I'm pretty sure doing the processing yourself requires more skill.

3 weeks agopermalink

andrewedin

The "auto tune" curse of Adobe. A good way to put it. Other posters are taking issue with the "Jpeg quality" and SOOC, fair enough but I took what you intended as Adobe fiddling with everything from perspective to LoCal.
When their Adobe subscription is finally terminated they'll no doubt learn the true capabilities or lack of value their lenses possess.
I would be glad if Adobe left RAW shots alone, having done it fine for 50 years before all that nonsense. To get the original (flat, boring) RAW image is nigh impossible

3 weeks agopermalink

@fastguitar

The edit is just as important as the shot, and people have been editing photos since the first photo made

3 weeks agopermalink

@andrewedin

People having a better understanding of their gear is nice, and I guess you have the risk of manufacturers leaning on adobe making mediocre lenses, but at the end of the day a raw file still needs interpretation

3 weeks agopermalink

crinosil

"The only "real" photography is SOOC jpegs, anything else is cheating." ... That has got to be the most misinformed and silly comment I have ever seen on the internet.... Which JPEG? With what settings? Using which camera profiles? ... You let some engineer in Japan or Germany decide what your photo's look like? The ART of Photography is in the mind and skill of the photographer ... the camera is...and has always been just a tool... the final output has never been just what the camera, be it digital or film, renders.... the concepts of exposure correction, Cropping, filtering, fogging, dodging and burning are film development concepts ... and were not invented for digital...

1 week agopermalink

Jacques Cornell

"The only "real" photography is SOOC jpegs, anything else is cheating."
Ansel Adams shot negative film and heavily manipulated his prints in the darkroom. I guess he was "cheating".
Maybe you should read his trilogy of books, "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".

1 week agopermalink

thenoilif

I have multiple GM lenses and I will add this one as well as I have been waiting for them to release a 135. I've shot the best Nikon and Canon glass as well as the Sigma Art series and I've found them to all be more or less the same IQ but what makes the GM's stand out is their AF capabilities. Neither Nikon or Canon have an A9 equivalent, actually, no one does, so the GM lenses are designed to take advantage of that speed.

If you're using an A6400 or A6500, an A7RIII or an A7III its all just icing on the cake. Great job Sony.

3 weeks agopermalink

The old A-mount Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 Sonnar was one of my top 5 favorite lenses, from any brand.

Right off the bat I noticed there’s no mention of ‘Sonnar’ in the description of this one.
I watched a brief review on YouTube (from Manny), and the bokeh is definitely not as good as the older Sonnar, especially wide open.
Given the smaller size of this lens, I’m guessing there were comprises made.

I’m interested to compare the optical designs.

3 weeks ago*permalink

You cannot compare lenses if you don’t have both and shoot them in the same location and setting....

3 weeks agopermalink

New lens design; unrelated to the A-mount Sonnar. Though, I must say, I can't find a single thing to complain about re: the bokeh on this new GM lens. It's virtually perfect.

3 weeks agopermalink

Macadesigner

The GM is more bias to sharpness (Sharpness > Bokeh>Color) and the old A-mount Zeiss are hybrid of Minolta and Zeiss which is Bokeh>Sharpness>Color
The original Minolta is Color>Bokeh>Sharpness
Which is very hard to get Sharpness and Bokeh together without missing something...The SAL135/1.8 is a really special lens, one of my favors lens I ever used.

I think base on all the review and response from the reviewers and users, I can see that Sony will move towards the GM design principle than the E-mount Zeiss or Amount Zeiss/G design.

The tipping point on all this is when Sony hire the Nikon chef designer to handle the design department (Which I remember starting from the FE50/1.4ZA)...and every thing is razor sharp like you know...Nikon lenses...anyway, Im kind of happy they con't the Minolta tradition of good quality bokeh (in a Sony way XD)

3 weeks ago*permalink

Interesting. Are you implying the Sony FE 50/1.4 was designed by a an ex-Nikon engineer?

3 weeks agopermalink

@Rishi The samples I saw produced more contorted football shaped bokeh balls at f1.8 than I’m used to with the 135 Sonnar. It’s not night & day, but it is visable.

In fairness, without comparing them side by side on the same scene it’s hard to accurately quantify, and to what degree.

3 weeks agopermalink

I’ve looked at more samples & tests from a few other reviewers. In one they did a bokeh test, showing the football/cat’s eye bokeh doesn’t round out until f2.8.
In regards to bokeh, after seeing that I have no problem with giving the nod to the 135 Sonnar.

But as @Macadesigner said, sharpness was a priority on this lens design(as are most modern lens designs now), and when sharpness is the priority (especially edge to edge sharpness), as well as controling pf/ca(notice how all the best rendering lenses in the past have quit a bit of Pf?), there’s going to be compromises in bokeh, rendering, color, etc.

That said, this looks like a very nice lens. Sony did a great job of balancing the sharpness & rendering, the lens designers should be commended.

3 weeks agopermalink

Macadesigner

@rashi, if my memory serve me correct 金井真実, the team leader of the optic design team was from Nikon. And I need to correct one thing is, he started working for Sony way early then I mentioned (FE50/1.4ZA). He also worked on the SAL 50/1.4ZA and 16-50/2.8 SSM and maybe more.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Macadesigner

@samhain, it's hard to sell something in volume with out quantifying it. Sony learn it the hard way when they rebrand some of the Minolta A mount greatest like the 35/1.4G, 135/2.8 STF and 24-105/3.5-4.5. All of these lens was highly praised in real life by some artistic reviewer, however, with their faults in the lab and in practical use...It will never get the sell volume Sony wanted...so to address that, Sony introduce the ZA line...a Zeiss lens with Minolta (Japanese) color/contrast theory hybrid...and as we know, the introducing of GM is a extension to that end but shifting the priority more and maintaining the principle. It's a bit more clinical (not to the Sigma level) and pity to some of us but I think It make business sense and a good direction to carry the system forward.

3 weeks ago*permalink

George1958

Is this all pure optics or are there any software corrections in camera. Just asking as it’s harder to evaluate modern lenses. It’s a moot point as the end result is what matters.

3 weeks agopermalink

Thanks guys. Personally, I only care about cat's eye bokeh when it starts leading to LensBaby-like swirly bokeh in regular images. That's not the case here, so it's one of the aberrations I think of as less important.

If many here disagree, then I'm happy to oblige and start testing for it more rigorously in our lens reviews. Let me know.

2 weeks agopermalink

IamJF

Sony says the their Z lenses are about sharpnes/contrast and GM lenses about bokeh/sharpnes.
Which kind of translates, they developed a new manufacturing method for their lens elements to reduce onion bokeh effekt with the GMs. The 85/1.4GM is not the sharpest 85mm wide open on paper - but has the nicest oof area which is kind of important for a portrait lens ;-)
I own the 1635Z, 35/2.8Z and 55Z - very sharp lenses (esp. the 55mm) with loads of contrast. But bokeh of the 55mm can be bussy - it definitely was not their No1 goal. Also the Zeiss Loxias are not famous for Bokeh.

But the SAL135Z seems to be a very special lens. I don't think when someone owns this lens there is a "need" for a change - for probably a quite long time.

1 week agopermalink

IamJF

And I personal NEVER photograph defocused LED lamp test setups for real ... ;-) So the shape of the balls is not that important. But the over all quality of the OOF area is a big point for me - would be cool if you get a standardised test for that?

1 week agopermalink

mxx

Looks like a really wonderful lens!

3 weeks agopermalink

Snapper2013

Looks like when stopped down a couple of stops the lens sharpens up fairly well.

3 weeks agopermalink

thx1138

Then it’s a bad design. If a lens like this is not tack sharp wide open, they have wasted their time. I’d shoot something like this at f/1.8 - f/2.8, is the 80% of the time. Hell even the old Canon 135L f/2 is sharp wide open and the Sigma 135 f/1.8 is tack sharp wide open. I know there are other qualities other than absolute sharpness, but at this price and for it’s intended use, I’d expect only marginal improvements stopped down other than maybe vignetting.

3 weeks agopermalink

Tim O'Connor

Looks pretty damn tack sharp wide open to me.

3 weeks agopermalink

This lens has incredible sharpness wide open, and even manages to be sharp edge to edge wide open, which is quite uncommon for a fast telephoto portrait lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

Edgar_in_Indy

He's a Canon shooter trying to troll to help alleviate his insecurity.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Iloveaircraftnoise

Looking at these gallery photographs the lens looks really sharp with creamy out of focus. But those shots from the A9 look surprisingly washed out and faded at high ISO. For a camera with such big wraps on it, I thought the quality would be better.

3 weeks agopermalink

Jonathan F/2

Looks okay, but I'd rather see this lens shot at an actual Muay Thai fight in a dingy stadium in Bangkok, with sweat and blood flying through the air to really feel the lens out in a working environment. At best these shots give me that mall food court feel.

3 weeks agopermalink

135mm is too tight for muay Thai. All your shots will have ropes unless they're in the opposite corner from you

3 weeks agopermalink

4sofnature

Sony, where's 35 1.8? It's been almost 7 years.

3 weeks agopermalink

thx1138

It’s going to be the kit lens for the A7000, released Aprils 1st.

3 weeks agopermalink

RubberDials

4sofnature

The FE system LAUNCHED with a 35mm lens - please rein-in the drama.

3 weeks agopermalink

4sofnature

@thx1138 You already have 24GM and 24 1.8 ZA that has 35mm equivalent FOV for crop E mount. The kit lens for a7000 should be 16-80 f/4 or 16-50 f/2.8

3 weeks agopermalink

This or any lens longer than 400mm...
Sony seems to slowed down development significantly

3 weeks agopermalink

joger

35 f/2.8 anyone - you can get this lens since the beginning of FF bodies.

The GM 135 was top on my list and I will get it in my country the day it's available in the online shops.

3 weeks agopermalink

ZeBebito

4sofnature is talking about the full frame f1.8. I am waiting for it too. Not even Sigma-Tamron-Tokina seem to care about it. I am not interested in a slowish f2.8 or a monster 1.4. I want something affordable and compact for my A7Rii.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Yake

Some people don't seem to understand the difference between 2.8 and 1.8.

3 weeks agopermalink

RubberDials

@Yake

The difference is around one stop. I think almost everyone understands that. Where we differ is on how much of a deal that is.

As someone who took pictures in the film era where we were limited to 400ASA indoors if we wanted to shoot colour a stop was important. Today where you can shoot at 3200 ISO and get good clean and detailed images on most systems I don't think it's an issue.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Kiril Karaatanasov

@dpreview staff you got the most unique 135/1.8 review gallery to date!

It is not bad just very unorthodox. I guess it goes to highlight Sony did an awesome job with the AF of this lens. This is contrasting it to the 85GM that is not on the fast and furious side of things for sure.

It would not be bad idea to take some creamy bokeh shots the next time you get to testing the lens. It is a 135/1.8 and should be more than capable of vanquishing the most annoying of backgrounds into creamy oblivion.

Some close up portraits would be lovely. Like really close up from 70cm - an eye, an ear, a smile. Perhaps pair of eyes covering the frame would do too....

3 weeks ago*permalink

Kevin DiOssi

135mm is a great focal length for portraits and candid photography. I'm sure this glass will be just as good as the rest of the G-Master lenses. This lens has a VERY good maximum magnification ratio, but it is a bit weighty.

3 weeks agopermalink

Paul_B Midlands UK

I don't enjoy the gallery shots at all. I suppose because it looks to contrived too fake. Having watched the likes of Iron Mike or Fedor E I don't see anything realistic here. So it puts me off bothering to be amazed with the lens or not.

3 weeks agopermalink

108

Dude, this is a gear site , and we're not here to judge the acting

3 weeks agopermalink

Roland Karlsson

A fat guy in pink pajama did put me off. I am not even sure what camera it was.

EDIT: ah! It was a lens.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Roland Karlsson

108: admit it was distracting.

3 weeks agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

The lens I am sure is excellent. But I do agree that the subject matter choice for the photo shoot, which is not the fault of DPR, is both an odd one and unappealing one.

In general I am not a fan of boxing/wrestling, as it only promotes violence and baser instincts.

In general, I wish the photo companies would do a better job of choosing creative and uplifting subject matter for the shoots that they stage for journalists to see new equipment.

3 weeks agopermalink

@thoughts
I can't ask you to like it but watching a real fight is enlightening for the first time. You learn a lot about yourself when you throw a punch; it always has a price

3 weeks agopermalink

108

This an excellent gallery and I'm impressed 1) by the lens itself and 2) by the work of dpreview staffers that really did a pro job here, letting us know what dof to expect at various focus distances and apertures . This is invaluable for me who's been thinking of going FF for almost a year now , with the intention of shooting low light and night photo , and struggling with dof and aperture considerations ( I'm looking hard at Z6 and A3 at the moment ) . Thanks also for displaying high iso jpegs with NR turned off , this A9 sensor is really impressive .

3 weeks agopermalink

Looks pretty decent if it's as fast to focus as suggested. Hard to make a judgment until I see this update live; the colour is nicer but it's probably the same as the sigma I suspect. Though it might look nicer at infinity focus than the sigma. Dunno

3 weeks agopermalink

Sony is advertising as a “good for sports” lens. If it’s anywhere near as fast as their other sports GM lenses it will be very fast. (70-200, 100-400, 400)

3 weeks agopermalink

multisystem

Awesome samples...and fun. Often people in DPR forget the fun aspect of photography.

3 weeks agopermalink

mxx

Fun? What I find the funniest these days are the high prices of lenses! ;-)

3 weeks agopermalink

kevin_r

One aspherical element and virtually no onion rings. The XA does have a very pronounced single "lip" outline just inside the edge of the bokeh balls but then it just fades to nothing. I'd say this is a really outstanding characteristic for such an element. Bu then again what do I know....?
Oh by the way, the bokeh can be better assessed here:
https://alphauniverse.com/135mm-f-1-8-g-master--the-first-photos/

3 weeks ago*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3945628308/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-sample-gallery/6014702304

this sony bokeh is looking like it's going to better than the 135 art bokeh.

3 weeks agopermalink

Androole

I dunno, it looks like it has more onion rings and a pronounced edge around the outside, whereas the Sigma 135/1.8 doesn't seem to show any of that:

Compared with the Sigma:

https://www.lenstip.com/501.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Obviously, more directly comparable real world shots of the Sigma bokeh would be helpful for comparison...

3 weeks agopermalink

given that you are an m4/3 owner, I take it that you don't have any 135 art experience of your own.

I've shot the 135 art, and I didn't find the bokeh all that impressive, at least in daylight... it can look downright ugly in bright reflection spots, with a general nervousness to it that my fe lenses don't have... the fe90 in particular has better looking bokeh.

so while the 135 art is a wonderful lens, the bar it set for bokeh shouldn't be too difficult to top.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Androole

No, not an ART owner. Just looking at the photos I can see, that's all.

Like I said, will be interesting to see what they are like when the two are shot side by side.

3 weeks agopermalink

Have you guys checked out the Manny Ortiz review on YouTube?
I found the bokeh pretty disappointing, especially compared to the older A-mount 135/1.8 Sonnar

3 weeks agopermalink

So many lossy raws (or perhaps 12 bit) make colour judgements hard.

I look forward to trying it.

3 weeks agopermalink

There's no difference between lossy and loss-less raw at 12bit with the a9 other than file size. This colour update with patch 5 puts sony as the leader in colour, my opinion. But it'd be nice to see it come to the a7rmk3 to highlight the difference

3 weeks agopermalink

3grey:

Given an optically good lens the difference is easy to see.

3 weeks agopermalink

Can't say I've pixel peeped it but I doubt it's easy to see if it's possible. And I'm not sure I'd accept the increase in file size unless it was

3 weeks agopermalink

RubberDials

@HowaboutRAW

"Given an optically good lens the difference is easy to see".

And yet only you have seen it.

Even Richard Butler, the technical editor of this site, who has seen more raws than we've all had hot dinners was skeptical: "I'm out. I do not believe that claim can be backed up." https://www.dpreview.com/news/9768716484/sony-announces-a6400-midrange-aps-c-mirrorless-camera?comment=6639534373

I suppose as a last resort you could post an ACTUAL EXAMPLE to back up your claim - it's a long shot, but it might help...

3 weeks ago*permalink

RubberDials:

RB's failure is not mine. I pointed out what to look for and how to get the wrong look.

Another, screenname mgrum, posted an example which wasn't supposed to show the difference; it was quite easy to see on an 8 bit monitor.

That was years ago at DPR. That you and RB weren't paying attention is also not my failure.

I see that you couldn't even bother to quote RB fully from back in January 2019.

More importantly, nor have you bothered to read what I posted then. You can do exactly the test I described.

Now, and this is not thoroughly tested, Sony appears to have improved its lossy raws a bit.

You and MikeRan act as if I've asked for something the A9 body can't readily output--non-lossy 14 bit raws.

3 weeks agopermalink

HowaboutRAW: As we've told you many times before, you need to understand what compressed Raw for Sony actually is. It only affects high contrast edges that have been pushed, has nothing to do with bit-depth or your ability to judge the character of a lens. Please read our many articles on compressed Raw, or Iliah Borg's excellent treatise on it.

3 weeks agopermalink

RS:

Yes, it's always good to be told by others what I can readily+repeatedly see or not see. Sarcasm.

The issue can also include the high contrast edges, but that's not what I'm seeing as the major flaw of lossy Sony fake 14 bit raws.

Howabout sharing some non-lossy raws shot with this lens and say an A9 or A7RIII?

You can also put up 12 bit raws and lossy raws of course.

What you call "Borg's treatise" is incomplete, and it's more like "look at this single issue which is easy to see if one pixel peeps".

Again: It's hardly like I asked for some obscure data that the A9 can only output when the stars and the moons of Saturn align correctly.

3 weeks agopermalink

You expect everyone else to show you.. yet you refuse to show us. You are asking us to show you what we don’t see. Please show us what you DO see...

Or is there really nothing to see?

3 weeks agopermalink

MikeRan:

"You expect everyone else to show you.."

Either you're lying about my posts, or you don't know that DPReview posts samples regularly, including non-lossy raws.

"Please show us what you DO see..."

You didn't chase down the mgrum reference I see.

Did the point about full 14 bit raw (stills) output being a normal thing from APSC and full frame sensored cameras confuse you?

3 weeks agopermalink

You are a waste of time.

3 weeks agopermalink

haw posts are known for setting new standards here on dpr ;-)

being able to put his unsubstantiated claims on ignore will be a welcome feature addition, to these article comments.

3 weeks ago*permalink

MikeRan:

"You are a waste of time."

So you have no full 14 bit raws to link.

3 weeks agopermalink

MILC man:

I see that you too couldn't follow the mgrum reference. Good job. Sarc.

3 weeks agopermalink

Who is mgrum? And why should I waste my time to track down their post about some who knows what comparison.

You failed to provide ANYTHING other than a screen name.

No links. No photos. No scientific analysis. No nothing. You have nothing.

I wish DPR would give us the option to ignore specific users comments. It would really cut down on the garbage.

3 weeks agopermalink

MikeR:

The fact remains that Canon, Pentax, Leica, and Nikon APSC sensored bodies shoot real 14 bit raws. While no Sonys do.

Enjoy your "higher quality ACC" sound.

You can do the tests yourself, they're quite easy provided access to the gear.
The results are easy to see with many cameras from Sony's APSC ILC lines.

Since you didn't read my above posts fully:

Mgrum already made a complete fool of himself on this subject years ago. And proved my point.

3 weeks agopermalink

I can read just fine. You are the one who seems to be imagining or hallucinating things that are not there.. I will not reply again. You can continue to talk now.. to yourself...

3 weeks agopermalink

MikeRan:

Well, you keep missing the mgrum reference.

You've missed me noting that Leica, Pentax, Nikon, and Canon all do 14 bit raws real ones. Samsung's bodies also shoot 14 bit raws, without lossiness.

So reading isn't your thing.

You then missed the RubberDials linked set of comments from back in Jan. 2019.

3 weeks agopermalink

robbinsbox

No 18 really nice. Gallery was good I thought.

3 weeks agopermalink

Jonathan Mac

Excellent gallery.

3 weeks agopermalink

UncoyDP

Not much here which really shows off exact focus on very shallow depth of field. The Nikon Z wrestling galleries were much more exciting visually for me. Don't know if it's the camera (Sony) or the photographer or the event. I expected to be wowed by this lens based on the write-up and its specs. Not yet.

3 weeks agopermalink

IamJF

Lens seems fine!
But this boxing/fighting theme wears off ...

3 weeks agopermalink

SETI

+500 Hate this theme!

3 weeks agopermalink

stevo23

Yea, the boxing thing is just weird. They need something like a bathing suit contest or a dog show.

3 weeks agopermalink

cricnours

Or something with cats , Ha!

3 weeks agopermalink

gameshoes3003

On the Z7 sample gallery, other readers were really pleased with the setting. Not surprised to see it again. Maybe, if the weather allows for it, they should go test gear at a hot air balloon festival.

3 weeks agopermalink

stevo23

@gameshoes - nice one. Would be a great setting.

3 weeks agopermalink

Everlast66

Even cats would of been much better

1 week agopermalink

stevo23

@Everlast - I've seen some really good cat photos. Cats it is.

1 week agopermalink

MirrorLessHater

''That's some serious optical performance combined with autofocus speeds we've never seen from such a fast telephoto prime''

3 weeks ago*permalink

That’s a bold statement, because the Canon 135L was not slow at all...

3 weeks agopermalink

Yes, but this is instantaneous. We'd love to publish some videos, but a number of YouTubers beat us to it. So head over to YouTube and search for Manny's video or Dan and Sally Watson's video (of 'Learning Cameras'). Our apologies for not providing this for you at launch.

3 weeks agopermalink

bokehmon22

Sigma 135 1.8 is around $1000 used. Not sure if it's worth $1900

3 weeks agopermalink

The Lotus Eater

Used third-party lens in cheaper than newly launched OEM lens shocker.

3 weeks agopermalink

bokehmon22

It's $1400 new. Still $500 cheaper

3 weeks agopermalink

The Lotus Eater

And so it should be.

Larger, heavier, slower AF, non-native DSLR optical design...

3 weeks ago*permalink

the 135 art is a wonderful lens, no question about it, I got accurate 13-14fps af-c on the a9/mc-11 with it.

it was a bear to handle tho, and this sony 135 will be better for that, and it'll probably shoot at 15fps af-c... possibly cleaner bokeh as well.

3 weeks ago*permalink

@milc
The sigma isn't fast enough to keep up with the a9 if someone sprints at you from 10 -15 yards away. Something to keep in mind but if the sony keeps up it could be worth swapping if you shoot something like roller derby indoors

3 weeks agopermalink

@3pgrey - i used the a9/135 art to shoot beach soccer, and the af easily kept up with people running at full speed; it was extremely accurate... I've posted sequences of that on dpr several times.

135 art is a great lens.

3 weeks ago*permalink

I would expect the Sony GM to handle 20FPS on the A9

3 weeks agopermalink

@milc
Yeah I use it too. its nice, just not so quick. Every lens has it's strengths and weaknesses to grasp

3 weeks agopermalink

@3pgrey - you clearly don't use it on a decent body, or you'd be seeing the same 13-14fps af-c that i get on the a9.

3 weeks agopermalink

@milc
not when people are coming towards me in a hurry. But i don't fault or expect it too

3 weeks agopermalink

@3pgrey - i used the a9/135 art to shoot beach soccer, and the af easily kept up with people running at full speed; it was extremely accurate... I've posted sequences of that on dpr several times.

3 weeks agopermalink

@milc
100% believe you, but how close were they to you? Anyone would expect a lens like this to struggle closer to you. It's a portrait lens. Mine's e mount btw

3 weeks agopermalink

you aren't going to be doing portrait shooting on subjects that are running towards you.

it's not just a portrait lens, sigma defines it like this:
Typical Photography: Creative, Wedding & Events, Portrait, Sports & Action
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/135mm-f1-8-dg-hsm-a

3 weeks ago*permalink

@milc
No, but you might try for a tight shot on the sidelines, and it'll struggle. It's great for events

3 weeks agopermalink

it'll do 13-14fps regardless of where the target is at, it never "struggled"

3 weeks agopermalink