# 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 21, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13364"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13364">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>More from Sigma in 2013</strong>

We’re told Sigma will announce a 135mm f/1.8 DG OS Art lens sometime in 2013. There could be up to 3 more Art lenses announced this year. We’ve previously heard they would be releasing a 24mm f/1.4 DG Art sometime in 2013.</p>
<p>There has been no mention of an f/2 or faster zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
<p>An update to the 50mm f/1.4 could also be on the horizon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## niklasR (Apr 21, 2013)

Any hint of HSM? Could be something for indoor sports, too. Unless the Art-range keeps converging to L-prices… (for me, at least)


----------



## candyman (Apr 21, 2013)

I would appreciate the update on the 50mm if it will be valued as good as the 35mm f/1.4


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 21, 2013)

Oh my... If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.


----------



## rs (Apr 21, 2013)

niklasR said:


> Any hint of HSM? Could be something for indoor sports, too. Unless the Art-range keeps converging to L-prices… (for me, at least)


I'd have thought so. All of the high end Sigma glass has HSM.

f1.8 and OS, coupled with Sigma's recent proven performance of the 35/1.4 - if it is real, this could turn out to be an astonishing lens.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 21, 2013)

Oh Happy Days. The 135 would lessen my burning desire for a new 85 in the Art line. The 24 is just gravy. Do da, do da...



_Hey Canon, is anybody home?_


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

Pass the popcorn -- this is really getting exciting!

b&


----------



## Etienne (Apr 21, 2013)

Go Sigma!

24 1.4, improved 50 1.4, and if the 135 1.8 has IS, I'm looking at 3 new lenses if they are up to the quality of their 35 1.4 (price dependent of course)


----------



## mememe (Apr 21, 2013)

Bad Rumor.

1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!


----------



## infared (Apr 21, 2013)

I just want to see the looks on the faces in the Canon boardroom, (could be a photo-op for a Sigma 35mmf/1.4!).
This just makes me GLEEFUL!!!! :


----------



## Zv (Apr 21, 2013)

Wow Sigma are on a farkin mission eh? I hope we see the updated 50 sometime soon, I could use it. I'll stick with my 135L, that thing is sharp enough and fast enough though I will be watching the reviews closely! 

Are canon gonna release any lenses this year or what?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 21, 2013)

great news. the more options the better.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 21, 2013)

Count me in for 50mm f1.4 if is similar to their 35mm


----------



## kubelik (Apr 21, 2013)

If these perform at the level of the 35 f1.4 I will be looking forward to buying both


----------



## pierceography (Apr 21, 2013)

I just bought my Canon 135mm, so unless the Sigma blows it away, I probably wouldn't immediately upgrade.

I like where Sima is going, but the limited sample size concerns me. I love my Siggy 35mm, and I really hope they can keep it up. If Sigma can deliver on another couple lenses, the could really give Canon a run or their money.

Looking forward to seeing what Sima can deliver next.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

mememe said:


> Bad Rumor.
> 
> 1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!



Why not?

A fast lens with stabilization is the best of both worlds. For one, just because you _can_ shoot wide open doesn't at all mean you _want_ to. A 135 f/1.8 is going to have a razor-thin depth of field. There'd be plenty of times you'd want to stop down to at least f/8 to have all of your subject in focus. If you're in Sunny f/16 light, you can easily get hand-holdable f/8 exposures at 135mm. But with stabilization you could step indoors, keep your aperture at f/8, boost the ISO to 3200, and still have a fast enough shutter for portraiture even if not action. That opens up an awful lot of doors.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## mememe (Apr 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Bad Rumor.
> ...



Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the _need_ of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

But seems like its more easy to add IS/OS to a telephoto-lens. So there is a little chance to get that but i am not really confident.

BTW: The canon 135 is even a bit faster than f/2. Could be that the Sigma will be only 1.9 and they are cheating a bit...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

mememe said:


> Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the _need_ of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)



A 135mm f/1.8 lens has the same size physical aperture as a 200mm f/2.8 lens. I'm pretty sure this lens would be cheaper than Sigma's $1,300 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, seeing how it's a much simpler design. I'd also guess that it'd be cheaper than Canon's $1,000 135mm f/2 L, because that tends to be how Sigma rolls. I'd personally guess somewhere in the $800 range.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 21, 2013)

My oh my. If it takes 2x TC well you end up with a stabilized 270mm f/3.5.....


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 21, 2013)

mememe said:


> Bad Rumor.
> 
> 1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!



IKR!!! It's almost as ridiculous as having an f1/.8 zoom, hahaha. Oh, wait.... They did come out with an f/1.8 zoom just recently.


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the _need_ of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)
> ...



Sigma's 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro is faster than Canon's equivalent, and has OS, and is more expensive. It might be a precedent for this lens's pricing. My guess is about $1,300.


----------



## cdang (Apr 21, 2013)

Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception. With the 135L, you would be shooting at 1/125 to avoid camera shake. With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter). If it's as sharp as the 135, this could be very interesting indeed !


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 21, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



I also wouldn't be surprised. It would be faster than the Canikon equivalent, and with OS. I guess something around 1100$ at launch.

For me, as a FF + crop shooter, this lens could replace the purchase of a 300mm f/4 - if it takes TC well. Overall a lot of value if one lens is both a fast portrait prime and a sharp stabilized tele.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 21, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Oh my... If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.



HAHA Ramon, your wish came true... chances are, this won't even cost $2700.


----------



## pierceography (Apr 21, 2013)

K-amps said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my... If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.
> ...



Ha, yeah... First thing I thought of when I saw 135mm f/1.8 OS was Ramon.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 21, 2013)

Awesome ... Looks like Sigma is on steroids these days.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 21, 2013)

Go Sigma! This will have to a pretty fabulous lens, though, as the 135L is easily my favorite current lens from an IQ perspective. Still, the thought of having a good stabilizer in a lens like that would be huge.

I'd love to see a great 50mm f/1.4 from them, too. I'm not even using a modern 50mm right now, as it isn't a huge need for me. I use either a 55mm f/1.8 SMC Takumar M42 lens or a Helios 58mm f/2 lens when I am shooting portraits/narrow DOF shots in that range and just use my Tamron 24-70 VC for most times. Every current 50mm lens for a Canon mount has one quirk or another.

Exciting times. I really, really love that Sigma and Tamron are actually producing some lenses that are pushing Canon and Nikon right now. That will help all of us.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Go Sigma!
> 
> Exciting times. I really, really love that Sigma and Tamron are actually producing some lenses that are pushing Canon and Nikon right now. That will help all of us.


Absolutely ... my thoughts exactly.


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 21, 2013)

Oh sigma, cmon bay bay!!

I wouldn't create a lens in a segment that has a very popular, successful option- - canons 135/2- but do what you gotta do. if they come out with a 24 1.4, ill scream hallelujah. Canon prices are just too...ouch.

updating the 50 1.4 would be killer!


----------



## risc32 (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm going to be watching for news on this one. i feel like RLphoto. could be a surprising turn of events. 

honestly, i'm concerned about updating my 5dmk3 firmware. perhaps canon will try and throw a monkey wrench into the works to disrupt all this third party stuff....


----------



## RGF (Apr 21, 2013)

Not familar with the Sigma products.

What does

DG
OS
ART

mean?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

cdang said:


> I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter).



Actually, it'd be a mini 200mm f/2.8.

135 / 1.8 = 75
200 / 2.8 = 71
200 / 2.0 = 100

A mini 200mm f/2 would be a 135 f/1.4. And that would not at all be small, lightweight, cheap, or discreet. Imagine the bastard love child of an 85 L and a 200 f/2.

But this rumored lens, if it becomes real, would still quite impressive nonetheless.

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2013)

RGF said:


> Not familar with the Sigma products.
> 
> What does
> 
> ...



DG = optimized for digital (don't confuse with DC, which is their EF-S)

OS = optical stabilization (IS)

Art is part of their new convention: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-corporation-announces-reorganization-of-lens-lineup-new-products-and-quality-control


----------



## lopicma (Apr 21, 2013)

How (or where) do the new ART lens series compare to their EX series?

I like the Sigma lens I own, but the naming nomenclature is getting more and more confusing.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 21, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13364\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13364\">Tweet</a></div>
> <strong>More from Sigma in 2013</strong>
> 
> 
> ...



I've been waiting for this lens for literally years. Sigma is my new favorite company if this is real. Make a 16-35mm f/2.8 OS, and a 24-70mm F/2.8 OS (better than tamron) and a 55mm f/1.4 on par with zeiss and all my lenses will be sigmas!!

Great news!


----------



## tbrand (Apr 21, 2013)

I've been looking into an 85 or 135 for portraits. If Sigma can deliver a 135 with performance as solid as the new 35mm is proving to be then count me in. I think I mirror a lot of folk here who would never have thought they would be carrying Sigma glass over pro level Canon L's, but its starting to look like my bag may be going that way.

Competition and innovation is always good for the industry. Go Sigma! They even have me considering a crop sensor body if that 1.8 zoom turns out.


----------



## cdang (Apr 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> cdang said:
> 
> 
> > I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter).
> ...



What I meant by 'mini' is the 200mm f2 smaller brother. Going to weddings and shooting a 135mm at 1/50 SS could save you a couple stops of noise. From your example, the 85 / 1.2 = 70 could be the smaller brother to the 200mm f2.8 ?


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 21, 2013)

lopicma said:


> How (or where) do the new ART lens series compare to their EX series?
> 
> I like the Sigma lens I own, but the naming nomenclature is getting more and more confusing.



The EX designation has been set aside.

Now all lenses are (supposedly) in the same quality league. They divide them based on the intended use: the ART segment includes fast lenses for creative use, CONTEMPORARY includes popular zooms, while SPORT includes fast teles for action/wildlife.



cdang said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > cdang said:
> ...



Sorry, how are this calculations done? To me, I agree, it's a little brother to a 200 f/2 - if it's sharp enough for the cropping.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 21, 2013)

Dare I say new Sigma 300 mm f/4 and 400 mm f/5.6 in ART line, compatible with the excellent Canon 2x III and 1.4x III, with f/8 AF firmware update coming for 5D III


----------



## crasher8 (Apr 21, 2013)

If they can do it with a 35 why not with a 135 that's faster? It will be my next lens if it comes out in the next 6-9 months.


----------



## cdang (Apr 21, 2013)

Sorry, how are this calculations done? To me, I agree, it's a little brother to a 200 f/2 - if it's sharp enough for the cropping.
[/quote]

Sorry it's late and I just assume everyone knows what I'm thinking..

For example, if you were to use the Canon 135 F2 at a low light reception/wedding, and following the rule of 1/shutter speed, 1/125 to avoid camera shake. So say its dark enough for it to be F2, 1/125, ISO 6400 but with OS (stabilization) and assuming we get a few stops of it, you could be shooting at F2, 1/30 ISO 1600 instead provided the subject is quite stationary. So you could get shots the Canon cannot get. 

I said a 'mini' 200mm F2 because if you had the 200mm F2.8 at a dark reception, at 1/200, F2.8, ISO 12800.. but with the F2 having IS and an extra stop of light, you could be shooting at 1/50, F2, ISO 1600 instead.


----------



## dolina (Apr 21, 2013)

I am unfamiliar with Sigma marketing terms so this is a 135mm with an aperture of f/1.8 with Optical Stabilization for a full frame camera?


----------



## schmidtfilme (Apr 21, 2013)

If those are as good as the 35 I get both, looking forward to the release


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 21, 2013)

This is pretty amazing... Sigma is really coming out with some great products. I hope it pushes the seemingly gradual, and not so gradual, pricing that Canon has been doing lately.

I'm a Zeiss lover and it would be pretty hard for me to change. And their current 85mm is actually cheaper than Sigma's similar lens. No autofocus on the Zeiss but there it's made of all metal....

Good and EXCITING times!


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 21, 2013)

I just bought the 135L and love it. What I really need is a 50mm that is as good as Sigma 35 1.4.


----------



## Jesse (Apr 21, 2013)

And where the hell are the new Canon tilt-shifts already?

Sigma FTW


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 21, 2013)

Suddenly, are we entering a time when the non-mfg lenses become serious tools for (at least some of) the amateurs (advanced or otherwise) and (starting) professionals instead of being the consolation prizes for some amateurs? Will all these take the competition to Canon and Nikon, or will we still secretly desire "I hope this makes cannon drop its prices" instead of buying these non-mfg lenses? 

I have not used any L lenses other than the 100mm 2.8 IS macro and 24-105mm (which most probably do not consider to be a "fantastic" L, let alone "great"). So the most I am hoping is all these newer breeds of lenses
from the third party manufacturers will fill the gap between the standard canon offerings and their L counterparts. Or can we expect something more - actual competition to some of the Ls.


----------



## zim (Apr 21, 2013)

If these new lenses actually happen and are all as good as the 35, wonder what Sigma's roadmap is for their bodies?


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 21, 2013)

Shane1.4 said:


> I just bought the 135L and love it. What I really need is a 50mm that is as good as Sigma 35 1.4.



+ 1

While I really like the Siggy Art 35, I would be hard pressed to give up my favorite Canon lens - 135. That is even if Canon was to release a new "improved" version of it, be it with IS, aperture of 1.8 or whatever. IMHO it is perfect just as it is.


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 21, 2013)

Just sold my 50mm L and might need to sell my 135L. I'd definitely consider a Sigma 50mm Art lens and a 135mm f/1.8.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 21, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Dare I say new Sigma 300 mm f/4 and 400 mm f/5.6 in ART line, compatible with the excellent Canon 2x III and 1.4x III, with f/8 AF firmware update coming for 5D III



Just guessing, but a 300mm or a 400mm lens would probably be "S" for "sport" in their new Art, Sport and Contemporary groupings.

Whatever they'd call it, if they could make a really great 400mm at f/4 priced less than Canon's, or even a 400 f/5.6 priced the same as the old Canon version, that would be big news.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 22, 2013)

pierceography said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1. Lol. It looks like Ramon will keep his kidney!

For me, stabilization is always welcome in a lens beyond 50mm. That said, this would need to be priced competitively with the 135mm L for me to switch over anytime soon. But WOW... f/1.8 would be like having an "affordable" 200mm f/2 L!


----------



## skitron (Apr 22, 2013)

LOL, so when can I pre-order???

As for the 50, I've been pleased with the existing one after I sent it in to service the "front focus up close, back focus at distance" syndrome. They totally fixed it with a firmware update. That said, I'd definitely want to see if the ART version 50 is better than the current version 50 after being dialed in.


----------



## Ricku (Apr 22, 2013)

Sigma is pumping out awesome lenses lately.

What is Canon doing? I mean except the cinematic crap?


----------



## pwp (Apr 22, 2013)

Exciting times indeed. Sigma has definitely shaken off it's previous perception. Remember Stigma...?

I doubt Canon & Nikon are shaking in their boots, but if Sigma keeps this up, we may see downward pressure on Canon & Nikon lens pricing. 

-PW


----------



## anthony11 (Apr 22, 2013)

cdang said:


> Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception.


Get lots of blurry and/or OOF shots?


> With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long


When are humans ever stationary enough to shoot at 1/30, especially at a wedding reception????


----------



## eml58 (Apr 22, 2013)

dolina said:


> I am unfamiliar with Sigma marketing terms so this is a 135mm with an aperture of f/1.8 with Optical Stabilization for a full frame camera?



Hi Dolina, No, I understand this particular 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC.

I've tried to figure out how Sigma name their Gear to differentiate between APSC/FF, but haven't come up with the answer, seems a little confusing to me, perhaps someone else has worked it out & can Post.

I do have the new 35f/1.4 Art & I find it an excellent Lens, this particular Lens was designed for FF, I own only 2 Non Canon Lenses, both Sigma, the 70 Macro (For Underwater) & the 35f/1.4, the new Art Lenses by Sigma would seem to be putting the Fox in the Hen Hatch, great to see if they can continue to develop Lenses of the quality/Price of the 35f/1.4.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 22, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Sigma is pumping out awesome lenses lately.
> 
> What is Canon doing? I mean except the cinematic crap?


Pumping? As far as I understand they've only launched one good lens that everybody is talking about, although that is great for all of us I think that you should modify your statement .


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 22, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> pierceography said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



I rather like the idea of this 135mm AND keeping both kidneys.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 22, 2013)

eml58 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I am unfamiliar with Sigma marketing terms so this is a 135mm with an aperture of f/1.8 with Optical Stabilization for a full frame camera?
> ...



Sigma explains their naming structure here: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/faqs


----------



## cdang (Apr 22, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> cdang said:
> 
> 
> > Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception.
> ...


----------



## eml58 (Apr 22, 2013)

9VIII said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Thanks, got it now, if it's designated "DC" it's APSC, no "DC" I would assume FF


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 22, 2013)

cdang said:


> Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception. With the 135L, you would be shooting at 1/125 to avoid camera shake. With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter). If it's as sharp as the 135, this could be very interesting indeed !



with flash and second curtain sync 1/10 to 1/5 will be pretty easy i already shoot at 1/50 with the 135L

its gonna be interesting to see how the IQ stacks up against the 135L, OS will be a killer addition but so far the 135L is damn sharp so its gonna take a fair bit to beat it

but I'm loving the direction sigma is heading lately


----------



## filo64 (Apr 22, 2013)

DG seems to be full frame, DC APS-C


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 22, 2013)

cdang said:


> Sorry, how are this calculations done? To me, I agree, it's a little brother to a 200 f/2 - if it's sharp enough for the cropping.







> For example, if you were to use the Canon 135 F2 at a low light reception/wedding, and following the rule of 1/shutter speed, 1/125 to avoid camera shake. So say its dark enough for it to be F2, 1/125, ISO 6400 but with OS (stabilization) and assuming we get a few stops of it, you could be shooting at F2, 1/30 ISO 1600 instead provided the subject is quite stationary. So you could get shots the Canon cannot get.
> 
> I said a 'mini' 200mm F2 because if you had the 200mm F2.8 at a dark reception, at 1/200, F2.8, ISO 12800.. but with the F2 having IS and an extra stop of light, you could be shooting at 1/50, F2, ISO 1600 instead.


[/quote]


;D _you_ might be able to do that with the 135: I need to be at least 1/250 !


----------



## funkboy (Apr 22, 2013)

Maybe this means that a Sigma spy within Canon has gleaned that they won't be adding IS to the 135L anytime soon.

If it's as good as their Art 35 and the AF is close to the 135L then I'd certainly consider it.

Canon's probably already scrambling to get a 35L II out the door to catch up with Sigma... An Art 135 OS and 50mm would really hit Canon where it hurts.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 22, 2013)

funkboy said:


> Maybe this means that a Sigma spy within Canon has gleaned that they won't be adding IS to the 135L anytime soon.
> 
> If it's as good as their Art 35 and the AF is close to the 135L then I'd certainly consider it.
> 
> Canon's probably already scrambling to get a 35L II out the door to catch up with Sigma... An Art 135 OS and 50mm would really hit Canon where it hurts.



The Canon ef primes have been a nice earner for Canon. Many wedding photographers have stayed in the Canon fold (when Nikon had better DSLR specs) becuase of the 35L, 85L and 135L. No other band (other than Sony) had a simular array of bright primes. But as usual Canon were unaware of the need to develop the next gen of fast primes. The 35L is a fantastic lens, but flare control isn't great, it's AF in low light is erratic and it's not weather sealed and it's number of aperture blades is an even number. The 135L is an awsome lens, but it's an old design, flare could be better, MFD could be better. It could do with newer coatings, it's aperture blades are not circular (stop down and look at the out of focus blobs). It's not weather sealed and Sony has an f1.8 variant, which means that it's not the best of the breed. Popping IS on it would really make my wedding work easier too. It's AF is good but not as good as the newer 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. It#s a great lens but there's quite a lot of room for improvement. 
The 85L is a quirky lens and I'm quite happy with it as it is. It's not easy to use, and it's dof is so slim it requires a well honed AF technique to get consistent results. I use this lens a lot and I love it.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Apr 22, 2013)

Did Sigma resurrect steve jobs or something? They're like a whole new company now, good for them. Although I was gutted when I found out the 18-35 1.8 was for crop, would have been awesome for ff.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 22, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> Did Sigma resurrect steve jobs or something? They're like a whole new company now, good for them. Although I was gutted when I found out the 18-35 1.8 was for crop, would have been awesome for ff.



The son took over the family business


----------



## distant.star (Apr 22, 2013)

.
Much as I love the Canon 135, GMC is probably spot on about a next generation version. However, with the stellar performance of the newest 70-200, would they sell any at the $2K price they'd tack on?



GMCPhotographics said:


> The Canon ef primes have been a nice earner for Canon. Many wedding photographers have stayed in the Canon fold (when Nikon had better DSLR specs) becuase of the 35L, 85L and 135L. No other band (other than Sony) had a simular array of bright primes. But as usual Canon were unaware of the need to develop the next gen of fast primes. The 35L is a fantastic lens, but flare control isn't great, it's AF in low light is erratic and it's not weather sealed and it's number of aperture blades is an even number. The 135L is an awsome lens, but it's an old design, flare could be better, MFD could be better. It could do with newer coatings, it's aperture blades are not circular (stop down and look at the out of focus blobs). It's not weather sealed and Sony has an f1.8 variant, which means that it's not the best of the breed. Popping IS on it would really make my wedding work easier too. It's AF is good but not as good as the newer 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. It#s a great lens but there's quite a lot of room for improvement.
> The 85L is a quirky lens and I'm quite happy with it as it is. It's not easy to use, and it's dof is so slim it requires a well honed AF technique to get consistent results. I use this lens a lot and I love it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 22, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Much as I love the Canon 135, GMC is probably spot on about a next generation version. However, with the stellar performance of the newest 70-200, would they sell any at the $2K price they'd tack on?
> 
> 
> ...



I own the current 135L, and, at a 2K price tag I would have no desire to move to a newer lens. And, yes, I would definitely choose the 70-200L II if price were equal.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 22, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Much as I love the Canon 135, GMC is probably spot on about a next generation version. However, with the stellar performance of the newest 70-200, would they sell any at the $2K price they'd tack on?
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on what you do... if you use it for portraits the 70-200 is going to disappoint in many ways. The 135 L is the almost perfect portrait lens. Sigma is going in the right direction here: how can you make such a lens even more attractive? Make it faster and add IS.


----------



## MRLinVA (Apr 22, 2013)

While I have been extremely reluctant to use anything other than Canon glass having had a few bad experiences when I tried others, I broke down and bought the Sigma 35 and it is AWESOME!!


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 22, 2013)

It's about time Tamron and Sigma started cranking out really competitive glass. They have the larger audience, while the body vendors are gimped to only one platform. There's no reason Tamron and Sigma shouldn't beat Canikon. They have the entire interchangeable lens body owner market to target- far more customers than a single platform. Spend the R&D to make the best 35mm F1.4 and you can sell it to _every_ owner, not just Canikon, or Pentax, or Sony, etc. 

Tamron with their 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC, Sigma with the 35mm and F1.8 zoom, both of them have now caught on. I've got a new 6D with a 24-105mm IS. My next two purchases will be the two Tamrons. Why? A six year warranty- 5 more years than Canon, way less $$$, equivalent (or better) optics, and VC with F2.8 on the 24-70. 

Canon is totally detached from the market, delivering late and under-performing on critical core lenses. The management that approved the redundant 24-70 IS F4 should be fired.


----------



## jcollett (Apr 22, 2013)

zim said:


> If these new lenses actually happen and are all as good as the 35, wonder what Sigma's roadmap is for their bodies?



Well Sigma only makes bodies around the Foveon sensor with their current flagship being the SD1 Merrill. It is "only" an APS-C sized sensor and I think was originally sold for like $9000 though it is currently about $1800. Unless Sigma has a huge secret they have kept under wraps about making a full 24 x 36 mm sensor, they do not make a single camera that can fully utilize DG series lenses. They would be happy with all DC series if making lenses solely for their own line.

So it appears Sigma is still quite committed to being a third party lens line for the other major manufacturer bodies.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 22, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> Canon is totally detached from the market, delivering late and under-performing on critical core lenses. The management that approved the redundant 24-70 IS F4 should be fired.




the f4 is not redundant.

it´s half the price of the f2.8 and many user don´t need a wide aperture.

the f4 would make a great landscape lens for me, if only the performance would be more consistent.


----------



## aznable (Apr 22, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is totally detached from the market, delivering late and under-performing on critical core lenses. The management that approved the redundant 24-70 IS F4 should be fired.
> ...



agree

and it's half the weight too.

btw i went with sigma 70-200


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2013)

i think he was saying redundant in regards to the 24-105 F4l, not the 24-70 F2.8, and i would agree with him. with all the old (most of them still very good) lenses in the lineup i didn't think this lens was needed. esp before these others. 

btw- my esp with the 35mm is that it focuses very well. i use servo mode nearly 100% of the time. 

- i also had a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and a couple versions of their 70-200mm. compared to canon's offerrings they where crap. much less expensive, but they still sucked.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 22, 2013)

As for the rumored 135 f/1.8 lens...it sounds intriguing. But I'm not sure I would sell my Canon 135 f/2, and replace it with the Sigma, even if the Sigma is a better lens overall. That's how attached I am to the Canon.

But I certainly do like Sigma lenses...

Apparently no one is listening to my requests for a really fast 95mm lens...an f/0.9, or faster. Now _that_ would be something nobody else makes, especially for modern DSLR's. Yet it would cut into the 85mm fast prime-lens market...

Have any of you ever thought about designing lenses? Just curious...not implying it's simple or a necessarily realistic endeavor. I googled this, and it found a lot of sites...

http://www.google.com/search?q=lens+design+software&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADFA_enUS384


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 23, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > Did Sigma resurrect steve jobs or something? They're like a whole new company now, good for them. Although I was gutted when I found out the 18-35 1.8 was for crop, would have been awesome for ff.
> ...


Is it true? If so that is really interesting, he must have been waiting for the moment having all those plans on how to change the company's strategy. When they suddenly start making so much better optics, would they have needed to hire better engineers also? Investment in new tooling also probably?


----------



## Radiating (Apr 23, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is totally detached from the market, delivering late and under-performing on critical core lenses. The management that approved the redundant 24-70 IS F4 should be fired.
> ...



Several tests have put the 24-70mm at worse or equal to the 24-105 averaging overlapping focal lengths. The lens was a bad joke in price and image quality. I have tested both its nowhere near the 24-70mm f/2.8 ii, not even on the same planet. It's not even better than the old 24-70mm ii, it's just mediocre. In fact several people that bought it thought it was better than their 24-105mm then did backto back tests with the 24-105mm and found them to be equal then returned the lens.


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 23, 2013)

mememe said:


> Bad Rumor.
> 
> 1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!



You might be surprised....


----------



## ddashti (Apr 23, 2013)

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?


----------



## Radiating (Apr 23, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
> Who knows, though?



The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 23, 2013)

Radiating said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
> ...



Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison. :


----------



## florianbieler.de (Apr 23, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens.











 

 

 

 

5D Mark III / 135mm 2.0L. Shove that down your "not a top of the line" opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2013)

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 23, 2013)

nice competitor to the sony 135 f1.8, which to date, it is my favorite 135mm lens over both the canon/Nikon variants. hopefully sigma will hit another home run after their 35 1.4 which just about writes the book on 35mm lens design.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 23, 2013)

Radiating said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
> ...



Just out of curiosity - have you actually used the 135L? I use it continually for event, wedding, and portrait work, and it is exceptional. In fact, I have never heard anyone bash the 135L who has used it. It produces some of the finest color, bokeh, and sharpness of any lens, period. Your comments make it sound like garbage. The 135L is the tool I turn to for portraiture every time. It is fabulous!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 23, 2013)

Yep, one of the ten commandments on CR. 

Never _ever_ dish the 135L ;D

Actually out of the two I prefer my 200L f2.8 :


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 23, 2013)

All my lenses are from Canon, so I've never owned any Sigma ones. Usually when I read posts about canon vs. third-party manufacturer lenses, many people say Canon ones (especially L lenses) will serve for a longer period of time and have a better resale value. Besides these points, can anyone here comment on Sigma's warranty and how good their repair centers are?


----------



## helpful (Apr 23, 2013)

If Sigma makes a 135mm f/1.8 lens that is twice as sharp and twice as aberration free compared to the Canon 135mm f/2L, and if it costs up to $1,000 or less, it will be the most popular lens in the world. If it costs up to $1,500 then it will be the most popular lens in its category.

That's my prediction, even if it has no image stabilization.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 23, 2013)

Radiating said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
> ...



Erm...you _do_ know, don't you, that Canon makes two 135 mm lenses? And that we're discussing the f/2 L version of the lens, not the f/2.8 soft focus version?

And, besides which. The 135 SF is an ancient design, yes, and it's intentionally designed with aberrations to be pleasingly dreamingly blurry. But you can dial in the amount of soft focus you want, including none at all. And, when you turn it all off, it's really a charming little lens, even if its image quality isn't in the same league as the L. I hardly think it's worth criticizing the lens the way you are, and comparing it with a $6,000 Great White is just plain silly.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Radiating (Apr 24, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > ddashti said:
> ...



*Wow* really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



privatebydesign said:


> All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!
> 
> Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.
> 
> ...



So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm


----------



## funkboy (Apr 24, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:



I can't see the difference at f/2.8. I should hope that the 200 f/2L should be better wide open!

This is all really picking nits anyway. Compare thine Sigma 105 macro @f/4 with the 135L @f/2.8 & the Canon looks a bit sharper.

I'm really not concerned about the minor differences of these test charts. They're all plenty high resolution lenses to get the job done.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2013)

> Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.



What a stupid comparison, a lens that is 30%, longer and twice as fast, that is equivalent to comparing a 300 f4 and a 400 f2.8 and moaning about the price difference!

Why not compare like with like, say the $769 Sigma 105 Macro with the $869 Canon 100 Macro IS L (I actually got mine new from B&H for $785 on one of their silly sales ages ago)? A far more relevant comparison. Would I pay $100 for guaranteed future function and resale value, oh yes.




> So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm



No that is not what I said, but if you want to run with that, I'd be using a 70-200 f2.8 with IS in that situation as it would give me vastly more flexibility, secondhand MkI's are superb value, I'd lose a stop in dof (which I'd want anyway, see below) but get back that and a lot more with the IS. Having said that, in your scenario how slow the shutter speed goes normally becomes the issue and not because of camera shake, people move, having f2 and f1.8 is all very well in theory, in actual real life event shooting it isn't so good, groups of people don't stand in a plane either, the fast lens might help with AF, but shooting wide open at events doesn't normally work. So at poorly illuminated functions we shoot with flash to keep our dof deep enough and freeze our subjects, any variation and skill level, from straight on camera deer in the headlights incompetence to Neil Van Niekerk "black foamy thing" mastery; from a single AB800 in a corner to four ProFoto heads everywhere. If you are shooting as a pro, act like one.

So you say, what is the point of a 1.8? Well in my book nothing, we are talking 1/3 stop here, way too small to notice in dof terms, way too small to make a difference in exposure terms. Sigma have grabbed the headlines, and the attention of some impressionable folk. I am sure many will buy it and think it is the greatest lens ever, in physiological terms we are programmed to think whatever we purchase is the greatest thing ever or a piece of shit, and people want to love their purchase as it validates their decision making process and choice.

I doubt it will affect the resale value of the Canon 135 f2 though, and that, in my mind, is the way a product is valued.

My bottom line, even if it comfortably outperforms the Canon lens, as the Sigma 35 f1.4 seems to, I wouldn't buy one. Sure I'd like the Canon to be "better" but the IQ from it has never ruined a shot of mine, *which was my original point about incessant IQ "conversations"*, but the real killer for me, from Sigma as a company, is they left thousands of owners with a worthless lens door stop, that, to me, is unforgivable.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/



Not sure where this website came from...do you know this photographer? I congratulate her on her appreciation of the female form...but the site is a bit slow.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/
> ...



It came from the fact that I appreciate and spend more time looking for good photography than worrying about virtually irrelevant sharpness figures, I am not a gear head, measurbator or collector, maybe that is why I seem a poor fit for this place 

No I don't know her. It just struck me that if you consider the near religious fanaticism so often displayed in Canon vs Sigma 50 f1.4 threads it comes as a wake up call when there is somebody out there shooting images we could all shoot, and she uses a $109 lens that most here would deride. But she does know light, and that, after all, is what so often makes a great picture.

I am not saying for one second there is never a need for the biggest or best, I was just trying to add a sense of reality and common sense. Most of us won't take better pictures because our lens has an extra 1/3 stop, or a few extra lpmm!


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Agreed! And please don't let anyone here, tell you that you are not a good fit for this place! So far only one person has attempted to tell me that, but he is quite wrong...and it's kind of amusing to watch him keep on trying.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Apr 24, 2013)

I'm very much interested in this new lens from Sigma. If it is anywhere close to what I see with the new Art 35mm and the previous 85mm, put my name on the list of proud owners.

As much as I love my L's, Sigma and Zeiss and are making me think twice.

Has anyone heard of a release date?


----------



## pierceography (Apr 24, 2013)

Radiating said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



I have to agree with the others about the poor comparison. At f/2.8, the Canon is sharper in the center, and the corners are much improved. Bump it up to f/4 and the Canon is vastly superior, while also having the flexibility of an additional stop of light by going down to f/2. So I'd much rather have the Canon (and as it turns out, I do).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## zim (Apr 24, 2013)

jcollett said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > If these new lenses actually happen and are all as good as the 35, wonder what Sigma's roadmap is for their bodies?
> ...




I agree that’s the case at the moment but just speculating for fun once they complete (whatever that might be) their Contemporary, Art and Sports lines what’s the next logical step I reckon a couple of new bodies. FWIW I really don’t care for the current design egon. so for me they have a lot of catch up but looking at the innovation going on with their lenses maybe they just have the taste for that?


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2013)

I didn't realize anyone was criticizing the Canon 135 f/2. Mine is quite sharp everywhere, except the extreme corners wide open on a full frame. Even the extreme corners wide open on a crop camera are sharp. Again, the advantage a Sigma 135 f/1.8 would have, would be a fraction of a stop...and perhaps stabilization. I doubt it would be any sharper than the Canon...and instead likely perhaps a tad less resolution. The color might be better (i.e. warmer).

(Sorry to belabor the point over...but...) I do feel, that what is called for, are new focal length primes (and even zooms) that no one seems to be making...but maybe they won't ever get built?

Something like a 95mm f/0.9, and a 160mm f/1.4 or 1.6...would be nice. If Sigma, Tamron, or whoever...ever build anything close to these, their prices need not be much over $2.5k for the 95, and $3.5k for the 160. If they're high IQ, plenty of people would line up to buy them...even if there is no stabilization.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 25, 2013)

Radiating said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



If your way of thinking is that skewed, consider the 60mm macro is as sharp as the 135L but you missing the whole reason someone buys the 135L, razor-sharpness @ f/2. 

So yes, comparing a 900$ 135L to a 7000$ 200 f/2L is ludicrous, just as comparing the 135L to a macro, two whole different worlds.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 29, 2013)

Radiating said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
> ...



My old 200mm f2.8 II L was the sharpest prime I have ever used. It was a sublime lens. But I sold it because my 70-200 f2.8 II L IS was nearly as sharp but a lot more versatile. My 135L is sharp and yes it gets a bit of purple fringing....but Lightroom deals with this so well that it's a non issue. My 85mm f1.2 II L is a tad sharper. No one ever believes me when i say this, which I think is an opinion which goes against common forum mantra. But my copy is. My 135L is a stellar performer and I get great result out of it and I use it wide open often. 
But it's a an old design and things have moved on. There's a possible 1/3 stop of brightness which can be extracted from the front filter size. IS could easily be added. AF could be tweeked. Newer coatings to help cleaning and flare control. More aperture blades and rounded ones would help the bokeh a bit. It's not weather sealed and mine's been back to Canon a few times for a loose front collar. The Hood is huge and it's flare control isn't as good as other lenses. 
It's a bit like the 35mm f1.4, a brilliant lens. But just needs a little update to bring it up to epic status.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 29, 2013)

Just in time to throw some more fat on this fire:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 29, 2013)

funkboy said:


> Just in time to throw some more fat on this fire:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l



Pretty much agree, Razors to Razors but I wouldn't spend 1000$ more for the Zeiss. Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.


----------



## Pi (Apr 29, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Anybody who complains about the sharpness of the 135L is using that lens (assuming he has ever used it at all) for something lenses are not designed for.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.



Agree. The Zeiss is certainly better wide open, but not $1200 better. It's more than double the price and almost double the weight.

I love MF wide-angles (especially lenses with good markings so it's easy to set hyperfocal), but for me anything longer than about 50mm *really* needs AF, preferably _fast_ AF.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2013)

funkboy said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these lenses need IS and/or f/1.8 for me to drop my current 135L.
> ...



also if the new sigma controls flare anything like the 35mm It will make it significantly better than the 135L as i feel it loses contrast quite easily when shooting into the sun however it will be mind blowing if they do make it sharper than the 135L and this will be quite a feat too


----------



## switters (Apr 30, 2013)

Has there been any indication whatsoever that Sigma is going to produce an updated 50/1.4 anytime soon? I've seen these rumors of a 24mm and 135mm, but other than the fact that we might expect a 50, have any rumors about it surfaced?


----------



## Jappe (Jul 20, 2013)

Has there been any news about this new Sigma 135 f1,8 lens? I haven't seen any additional information since this rumor appeared.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 20, 2013)

What do we think the chances are that:

a) there might be a sigma 24mm Art coming soon
b) it will be better IQ than the canon L II?

I'm not asking about price because it would obviously be cheaper...


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 20, 2013)

mememe said:


> Bad Rumor.
> 
> 1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!



That's what a lot of them said regarding the price of the 18-35 F1.8 APS-C. There are lots of doubters. Sigma seems to have a habit of in-your-facing most doubters. Pass the popcorn please. This will be interesting.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 20, 2013)

wow the zeiss is NEARLY as good in the corners ....as the center....
but I need autofocus...please

I love my 135 f2 Canon...
but then 
I loved my 35L and sold it 
and now use a much better performing lens ...the Sigma 35 1.4

my sigma 35 is sharp wideopen.... corners are pretty good.. 
but nuttin like LensRental's Zeiss test .........yikes!

Siggy made a nice f1.8 zoom that is well thought of...

so 
I am ready for Sigma's f1.8 OS 85mm lens.....
(by the way I agree with comments that is will cost around $1300...a fair price IMO)
and if they even come close to zeiss corners....
Canon will need to call an emergency board meeting...to discuss Sigma versus Canon
(they should have done this yrs ago)


Canon STILL owes us their 35L II ...that THEY PULLED..... JUST as the Sigma 35 was released
this is ....waiting....waiting.....waiting.....hello?.........anyone home there?

just my observations

TOM


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 20, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > ddashti said:
> ...



I don't notice any purple fringing on my 135, perhaps there is some sample deviation.

I would prefer a faster than f/1.8 lens, regardless whether the focal length is anywhere from 85mm to 200mm. Apparently nobody else wants that, but I do.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 23, 2013)

Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more. 

I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one, or if you did it was a bad copy.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.
> 
> I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one.



+1, but again it's possible there is some sample variation...even with a Canon L lens.


----------



## Zv (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.
> ...



Hmmm could be. I've not noticed all that much purple fringing, perhaps wide open in a brightly backlit situation you can and even then in the corners. Nothing like my 85 1.8 did! That thing drove me nuts!

I absolutely love love love my 135L. I mostly use it between f/2.2-2.8 which gives amazing results. I do wish it had IS but it's not a big deal. You can get sharp shots at around 1/125s. Does take away some of the low light advantage. Then again people don't stay very still and IS can't really help with that! 

I recently used it on my 7D and the IQ was just outstanding. So good in fact I mislabeled my images as from "5D2" on import!


----------



## AJ (Jul 23, 2013)

mememe said:


> Bad Rumor.
> 
> 1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!


That's my first reaction too.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

Zv said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod said:
> ...



+1


----------

