# Sigma 135mm f/1.8 HSM ART Review | Dustin



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 19, 2017)

Hello again. I've finished up an extensive round of coverage of the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART, including direct comparisons with the 85mm f/1.4 ART, the Zeiss Milvus 2/135mm, the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2.

Here are the bits and pieces:

Video Review: http://bit.ly/135ARTyt
Text Review: http://bit.ly/ART135DA
Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/135ARTgal
Full YouTube Playlist: http://bit.ly/135ARTplaylist

This may be Sigma's most complete ART series lens yet, with a better rendering than others. Microcontrast and color rendition isn't at the Milvus level, but, well, the Sigma has autofocus.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 19, 2017)

Some Samples - these are social media shares, and so have received post processing.



Marks of Passage (Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART Review) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



The Story of Spring by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART - Bokehlicious? by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



A Walk through Wonderland by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



How Much is that Cat in the Window? by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Loon in Flight by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## BeenThere (May 19, 2017)

Interesting that lenstip finds the MTF sharpness of the Sigma 135 f1.8 a bit better than that of the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Could be different test procedure (MTF vs real photos)? 

Great review and appears to be a great lens.


----------



## Larsskv (May 19, 2017)

You do a great job Dustin. I respect and appreciate your thorough reviews highly.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 19, 2017)

this one is very easy to explain:
Lens Rentals tests lenses at infinity where 135 Art comes at it's peak sharpness, whether 85 Art is at its' peak sharpness at 4-7m to the target. I own both lenses and can confirm that depending on the distance to target 135 Art can be slightly , just slightly sharper than 85 Art. Not sure about Lenstip but more likely they tested at infinity as well.

now.. there some other discoveries in the review that I found to be very hard to believe in:

1."... I compared the 70-200 G2 lens (read my review here) at f/2.8 to the 135 ART. I found them roughly similar, with perhaps a bit more microcontrast for the zoom lens and roughly equal levels of sharpness..."

well, where do we start..  70-200 2.8 zoom lens equal at F2.8 to one of the sharpest primes.
this is just not happening. not a single chance. unless someone is really really pushing the Tamron brand here or... let's see how Tamron zoom stacks up agains Sigma 135 Art prime:

__www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1122&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

the difference is quite obvious. I am sorry.. no, Tamron zoom is not as sharp. no mater how we look at it.

"... *This is the Sigma 135mm Art at f/1.8 against the best zoom that exists at 135mm, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8E FL ED*. Even at a dramatically wider aperture, the Sigma is better away from center. If you scroll back up the f/2.8 MTF chart I posted above, *at f/2.8 the Sigma is just completely better. Zooms are convenient, very good, and very useful lenses. But they aren’t primes, and they never will be* ... - Roger Cicala

__www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/


2. "...There’s only two minor things to criticize. The first is that I found that when using the lens with other lenses and having an Auto White Balance set in my Canon 5D Mark IV, the 135 ART would often deliver a very different white balance than other lenses (much cooler)..."

interesting that the Sigma example posted there for comparison was taken with Polariser on and the other one taken with the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 was taken without Polariser filter on. so likely the colour shift is due to the polarise filter used.

I can assure the audience that there is no AWB shift with Sigma 135 Art lens. none. nore other reviewers found the white balance shift issue. they would if it was the case, it is that obvious. happy to point to some professionaly taken images with the lens to prove my point.

I used the lens extensively over the past weekend and there is no difference between how my camera registered colour temperature of the scene. I compared 85 Art vs 135 Art. no difference.

3. "...The second issue (taste issue?) is that I found that colors were a little less saturated coming out of the camera before post. Part of that had to do with the white balance issue (warm rendering favors richer color), but I also found myself boosting saturation in post a little more than usual..."

firstly, if you shoot RAW, once you set the white balance back to where it should be in post, the camera bourne white balance shift should not affect the saturation levels. saturation is the property of the lens in question..

secondly, again, some other reviewers found the Sigma 135 Art to produce oversaturated colours - complete oposite. Personally, I believe that sigma 135 Art deliveres very similar image saturation levels to Sigma 85 Art.

In overal, I agree that the Milvus lens is a tiny bit sharper, delivers a slightly better micro contrast and slightly more saturation out of the box. I would also argue that Milvus lens delivers somewhat creamier bokeh.

Sigma AF performance is much better though. price difference between the two is also massive in Australia:

Sigma 135 Art : A$1495.00
Zeiss Milvus 135: A$3,836.00

One can literary buy 1 x Sigma 135 Art plus 2 x Sigma 85 Art lenses for the price of a single Zeiss Milvus 135 lens in Australia. 



BeenThere said:


> Interesting that lenstip finds the MTF sharpness of the Sigma 135 f1.8 a bit better than that of the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Could be different test procedure (MTF vs real photos)?
> 
> Great review and appears to be a great lens.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 19, 2017)

Wonderful review and beautiful pictures as always, Dustin. Do you think the Sigma is worth it as an upgrade for people who already own the Canon 135 f/2?


----------



## Click (May 19, 2017)

Excellent review as usual, Dustin.

Thank you.


----------



## Jopa (May 20, 2017)

Dustin, thank you for the review. The images look awesome.

The lens is superb. I think comparing sharpness of the new Sigma to the Milvus / 135 APO is like splitting hairs. The Sigma has 2 clear benefits though - AF and price. Too bad no IS otherwise I would have in on pre-order from the day one


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> Wonderful review and beautiful pictures as always, Dustin. Do you think the Sigma is worth it as an upgrade for people who already own the Canon 135 f/2?



That really depends on if you are discontent with the 135L. The Sigma is definitely sharper in an absolute sense and also provides a flatter plane of focus (meaning that sharpness is more consistent across the frame). It has much less chromatic aberrations, and far better flare resistance (these are areas of great advances in many modern lenses and areas where the 135L betrays its age). 

The 135L benefits from first party autofocus (and all that comes with that) and has equally good (if not better) overall rendering and transition to defocus). It's also a LOT smaller and lighter.

It really comes down to your shooting priorities and whether you are looking for better optical performance than what the 135L already provides.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> this one is very easy to explain:
> Lens Rentals tests lenses at infinity where 135 Art comes at it's peak sharpness, whether 85 Art is at its' peak sharpness at 4-7m to the target. I own both lenses and can confirm that depending on the distance to target 135 Art can be slightly , just slightly sharper than 85 Art. Not sure about Lenstip but more likely they tested at infinity as well.
> 
> now.. there some other discoveries in the review that I found to be very hard to believe in:
> ...



With all due respect, this post comes across as a bit of brand loyalty. I don't know how thoroughly you actually went through my coverage of the lens (which is, to my knowledge, more extensive in whole than any other coverage of the lens out there), but it seems like you cherry-picked some points to argue without acknowledging the actual documentation into those points.

To suggest that a zoom lens cannot compete with a prime lens optically is not at all the point that the article from Roger that you allude to; his point is about copy to copy sample variation. That was not about brand loyalty. I expected the 135 ART to easily exceed the Tamron in that comparison; it did not. I made similar points about the Batis 135 last month when I compared it, the Tamron, and the Canon 70-200L on an a7R II.

Yes, the particular example compared to the Voigtländer had a circular polarizer, but the comment was referring to hundreds of shots taken (most of which without a polarizer). I was actually putting on the polarizer in an attempt to saturate the colors more on that day, and, if anything, the polarizer would typically ADD warmth and saturation, not diminish it. I did note the review on FStoppers that you allude to, and was surprised to see the comment about oversaturated colors as that was not at all my experience. "Some other reviewers..." are there others that have stated this, or just the FStoppers review - which seems to have been general observations from one photo shoot on one day...

"If you shoot RAW"...which most of us do, but not always. When you have to deliver photos immediately to clients (as I'm doing this weekend), they want to grab a memory card and have images immediately ready for social media sharing. Many photographers value have very consistent color/WB results across their camera bodies, and so I made that observation as it stood out to me as NOT being the case in this situation. Unusually so, in fact, considering that I typically shoot 20+ new lenses every year and have now used hundreds of them.

No axe to grind, but all I can say is that the people at Sigma said "thanks for the review" and asked if they could send me their next lens to review. They are apparently less offended than you.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2017)

P.S. Sigma has asked if they can send me a second copy of the 135 ART to see if it tests as being sharper for me, and I have agreed. I will be following up in a few weeks with those conclusions.

P.S. Tamron is doing the same with the 70-200 G2, as I criticized the performance at 200mm as falling behind the Canon 70-200L II, while some others found the opposite to be true (including Roger at LensRentals).

I guess my point is that sample variation does exist in the real world, but that we are also doing a lot of hairsplitting at this point. These lenses are very, very sharp, and when you compare them to other very, very sharp lenses not everyone gets the same results.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2017)

Dustin,

firstly, good review in overal. I consentrated on what has been in my opinion way of mark though.
Please do not take an offence. You have made an extraordinary claims that pompted me to respond and defend the product and for one simple reason: I advocate for the ultimate truth. And the truth is : your results are likely subjective. Let's find out the reason behind.
secondly, I do believe that Zeiss Milvus is a somewhat beter lens optically. (so much for my brand loyalty). Slightly better sharpness, colur saturation, micro contrast, bokeh ( subjective), worse vignetting (in my opinion), substantially more expensive Down Under.

The truth is: 

1. white balance shift - nope, does not exist. there is something not right with how your camera processed the colour information.
May I suggest the following: can you please take a couple of shots with your Canon 6D + Sigma 135 Art and then compare Colour Temp in Kelvin, Magenta Value with images taken with your 5D Mark IV? then compare the same to shots taken with Canon 6D + Sigma 85 Art ( if available)?
my theory: the issue is camera specific. I have no access to Mark IV, but can confirm no colour shift effect with Canon 6D ( 2 bodies, RAW, all in camera image processing switched off)

2. less saturated colours: please do take couple of shots on Canon 6D - again, in my experience there is no tangible difference between Sigma 85 Art and 135 Art saturation levels.
I claim that on Canon 6D Sigma 135 Art lens produce no less saturated images than Sigma 85 Art.
if Canon 5D MArk IV is in anyway different (Sigma lens produces tangible colour shift or reduced saturation levels), this need to be brought to Sigma's attention as there is likely a compatibility / camera settings issue that Sigma has to take care of as soon as practical. Unlikely though as there are no reports of this issue to date. please see images on the following pages. they are absolutely " normal" in regards to what has been discussed:

__www.dpreview.com/samples/1528396156/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-sample-gallery
many our of them OOC JPEGs. some processed but no drama detected.

*Image 9/59: I downloaded the RAW file and it appears that camera detected and set the temperature of the RAW white balance at 3,582K, substantially warmer than it should be at around 2,750K. quite opposite to the "cooling" effect reported.*

some here, I do not detect any problematic colour shift either though images were taken with 5D Mark III, not IV and no information as to how images were processed.

__dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review_2/1057432.html ( Google translation did the trick for me).

Dustin, I absolutelly agree that Sigma colour rendering out of the camera is somewhat more neutral. I have a theory as to what takes really place but since I have no solid proof, I prefer not to make any unsubstantiated statements.
yes, Sigma colour rendering is different to the one of Canon or Tamron, but that has not changed beween 85 Art and 135 Art lens.

D.A.: "...Tamron is doing the same with the 70-200 G2, as I criticized the performance at 200mm as falling behind the Canon 70-200L II, while some others found the opposite to be true (including Roger at LensRentals)...."

SecureGSM: Are you testing your Tamron 70-200 G2 lens at infinity? this is mission critical as otherwise you are not comparing apples to apples. i would strongly suggest using a flat target that covers more than at least 3% of the lens FOV in size.
I found that some lenses are best at infinity whether other lenses are best at x40-x50 it's focal length.
Roger of LensRentals O.L.A.F. tests are always conducted at infinity. I would imaging 25m (75 feet) to target distance and in doors, would be adequate.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 23, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Dustin,
> 
> firstly, good review in overal. I consentrated on what has been in my opinion way of mark though.
> Please do not take an offence. You have made an extraordinary claims that pompted me to respond and defend the product and for one simple reason: I advocate for the ultimate truth. And the truth is : your results are likely subjective. Let's find out the reason behind.
> ...



I test all lenses at various focus distances, though practically I don't have 75 feet of indoor space to do chart tests, so I do those tests with real world, outdoor comparisons. There are challenges there, of course, as you can't control the lighting or environmental conditions that might impact the results. Outdoor tests also reveal certain truths that controlled tests do not, however, and few people will actually use the lenses in a lab.

What I report is the culmination of tests over the process of weeks along with my observations of using the lenses as a photographer would. You have discounted some of my findings as being impossible, but I assure you that with the lens and bodies that I have I made those observations in good faith. I report what I find, despite the fact that I have good friends among every lens maker out there. They trust me to be fair, which is what I have done here. You'll note that I concluded that this lens (135 ART) is, IMO, the most complete ART series lens that Sigma has produced. It isn't perfect, but no lens is.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 23, 2017)

Dustin, I will say this again: good review. 
the distance you have tested the Sigma 135 Art, if less than at 10 meters to target, would not give the absolute best result for the lens. at 4m to target the lens is much softer than at 10 meters to subject. I would say no less than 10% diference in sharpness. Hence LensRentals reported the Sigma 135 Art sharpness being better than the one of the Sigma 85 Art. Interesting. but my Sigma 85 Art is at its best at 4-6m distance approx. and then softer at infinity. So, fair enough if tested at 4-6m Sigma 85 Art is the sharpest but moving to 10+ Sigma 135 Art is the sharpeset out of two. 
I took the issue with your AWB shift and lower than usual saturation level conclusion.
I belive both are subjective and valid for your copy of the lens. As evidently looking at other OOC RAW images produced by DPReview and some other reviewers.
yes, both Sigmas (if not all Art lenses) produce the lesser saturated OOC images than Zeiss glass. not sure what is the reason, but could be the property of the optical glass they use, front element coating or else ?? Sigma engineers would klnow better.
AWB shift - nope, not with Canon 6D ( x2 bodies tested ). therefore issue, if there is any, is camera model specific not optical properties of the glass. likely your Canon camera performing some lens profile related witchery and throws AWB point based on the lens detected and image profile set in camera. just a theory.
I am sure that Sigma will be able to address this question easily.

you list both AWB shift and low level saturation as Cons for the lens and I am arguing that AWB shift you have detected is likely specific to either your copy of the lens only or in conjunction with the 5D Mark IV only which I found hard to be the case with the lens as DPReview tested the lens on their own 5D Mark IV and no AWB shift issue was apparent looking the the provided RAW and OOC JPEGs. Sigma, no doubt, do test their lenses on Canon 5D bodies.




TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I test all lenses at various focus distances, though practically I don't have 75 feet of indoor space to do chart tests, so I do those tests with real world, outdoor comparisons. There are challenges there, of course, as you can't control the lighting or environmental conditions that might impact the results. Outdoor tests also reveal certain truths that controlled tests do not, however, and few people will actually use the lenses in a lab.
> 
> What I report is the culmination of tests over the process of weeks along with my observations of using the lenses as a photographer would. You have discounted some of my findings as being impossible, but I assure you that with the lens and bodies that I have I made those observations in good faith. I report what I find, despite the fact that I have good friends among every lens maker out there. They trust me to be fair, which is what I have done here. You'll note that I concluded that this lens (135 ART) is, IMO, the most complete ART series lens that Sigma has produced. It isn't perfect, but no lens is.


----------



## jd7 (May 27, 2017)

As usual Dustin I really enjoyed the review - and the photos. I wasn't too interested in this lens until I read your review and the TDP review but now ... well, it's got me thinking!

On a side note, how did you get Lightroom to display the Sigma's name rather than just stating the focal length (which is what Lightroom does for all my third party lenses)? Are you using LensTagger or ...? I've been thinking about giving LensTagger a go but haven't gotten around to it yet.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 29, 2017)

jd7 said:


> As usual Dustin I really enjoyed the review - and the photos. I wasn't too interested in this lens until I read your review and the TDP review but now ... well, it's got me thinking!
> 
> On a side note, how did you get Lightroom to display the Sigma's name rather than just stating the focal length (which is what Lightroom does for all my third party lenses)? Are you using LensTagger or ...? I've been thinking about giving LensTagger a go but haven't gotten around to it yet.



Just click "i" when you have the photo up. Lightroom cycles through three different "information" display modes.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 29, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Just click "i" when you have the photo up. Lightroom cycles through three different "information" display modes.



Cool, thanks Dustin, was wondering about that too. 

-Sebastian


----------



## jd7 (May 30, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual Dustin I really enjoyed the review - and the photos. I wasn't too interested in this lens until I read your review and the TDP review but now ... well, it's got me thinking!
> ...



Thanks Dustin. I've given that a go and at least for me it doesn't work - Lightroom will show info like aperture and shutter time, but it still reports my third party lenses just by focal length, eg my Sigma 35 Art just shows as "35mm". Anyway, I'm sure I'll sort it out one of these days.

Really looking forward to your reviews of the upcoming Tamron and Sigma 24-70s! Am hoping there isn't too long to wait


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 30, 2017)

jd7 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



ahh, that's a different problem. For a while there Sigma and Tamron weren't providing proper info, and camera bodies and software would just show something like that. That's not a Lightroom fix, unfortunately. The Tamron 24-70 VC, for example, just shows up as 24-70mm. That changed for Tamron with the 70-200 VC, and somewhere around the 24-35 ART for Sigma (even 50mm ART shows up just as "50mm")


----------



## jd7 (May 30, 2017)

Thanks again Dustin. Sounds like the only fix will be for me to buy newer lenses!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 31, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Thanks again Dustin. Sounds like the only fix will be for me to buy newer lenses!



Either that or don't stress over it!


----------



## timmy_650 (May 31, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> P.S. Sigma has asked if they can send me a second copy of the 135 ART to see if it tests as being sharper for me, and I have agreed. I will be following up in a few weeks with those conclusions.
> 
> P.S. Tamron is doing the same with the 70-200 G2, as I criticized the performance at 200mm as falling behind the Canon 70-200L II, while some others found the opposite to be true (including Roger at LensRentals).
> 
> I guess my point is that sample variation does exist in the real world, but that we are also doing a lot of hairsplitting at this point. These lenses are very, very sharp, and when you compare them to other very, very sharp lenses not everyone gets the same results.



I was a photo Demo at a zoo last week with most of the major brands. I was borrowing the Tarmon 150-600 g2 and loving it. When I got back and returned it to the Rep and started talking to him. I found out it was his copy of the lens which made me like it less bc I assume if you are a Rep for a company you find the best copy of a lens you can...I know I would for sure. 
I don't think it will change if I get the lens or not but just another small thing to thinking about when you are comparing great lens of today.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 1, 2017)

timmy_650 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. Sigma has asked if they can send me a second copy of the 135 ART to see if it tests as being sharper for me, and I have agreed. I will be following up in a few weeks with those conclusions.
> ...



I've just cited two recent examples that show that companies are not "cherry-picking" lenses for me to test.


----------

