# Preorder: Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 17, 2017)

```
<p class="size-16" lang="x-size-16"><span class="font-cabin">Tonight the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art series lens is available for preorder and will begin shipping in early April.</span></p>
<ul>
<li class="size-16" lang="x-size-16"><span class="font-cabin"><strong>Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art: </strong><a href="https://bhpho.to/2n4o9bQ" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/sg13518eos.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></span></li>
</ul>
<p class="size-16" lang="x-size-16"><span class="font-cabin">The three remaining Sigma lenses are still not available for preorder, but we will update you as soon as we know when they will be.</span></p>
<p class="size-14" lang="x-size-14"><span class="font-cabin"><em>*Note: Not all preorder links may be live right away.</em></span></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## AJ (Mar 17, 2017)

1399 USD

Canon 135/2 lists for 999 USD. I suppose the refurbs are even less than that.


----------



## grainier (Mar 17, 2017)

It will have to be very special to be competitive on Canon side.


----------



## CanonGuy (Mar 17, 2017)

I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art


----------



## rstoddard11 (Mar 17, 2017)

I wonder when Canon will release the supposed 135 f2 update. if it is weather "sealed" i.e. gasketed and not much higher in price than the Sigma, it might be preferred if it is in the same price ballpark.


----------



## infared (Mar 17, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art



I am an avid Sigma "ART" Fan, too... Have the 21mm, 50mm (just sold my 35mm and bought the Canon L II, sorry).... I need more info on this new Art lens. It is kind of scarce right now. Pricing is a little high, but I can give it a little time and order from Hong Kong and get $200-300 off the US price! (Like I did with all my other ART lenses ) 
Also, I want to see a comparison with the "dated" Canon 135L to see what all the fuss is about?!


----------



## MaxFoto (Mar 17, 2017)

Sigma got a little greedy with this lens. Yes it will most likely be slightly sharper and faster than the legendary 135L but at a cost of inconsistent AF, huge size and weight, price, and Sigma's not so great color. Oh yeah, it costs quite a bit more. No thanks!
The 135L is a no brainer with superb image quality, AF, Bokeh, Color, small size, and price.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 18, 2017)

MaxFoto said:


> Sigma got a little greedy with this lens. Yes it will most likely be slightly sharper and faster than the legendary 135L but at a cost of inconsistent AF, huge size and weight, price, and Sigma's not so great color. Oh yeah, it costs quite a bit more. No thanks!
> The 135L is a no brainer with superb image quality, AF, Bokeh, Color, small size, and price.



I tend to agree. Kind of funny when the 3rd party is charging the 50% markup, premium over the 1st party. It would be one thing if the 135L had some big weaknesses, but it's an awesome lens. And yes, throw in used, refurbished and the savings are even greater (I think I paid $700 for mine).

I love what Sigma is doing and their 35mm Art is one of my favorite to shoot with. However this is a bit of tougher sell IMO since the Canon is already so good!


----------



## AJ (Mar 18, 2017)

Well, Sigma 85/1.4A is 1199 USD and the 135/1.8A is a bigger lens.
It looks like Sigma with its Art lineup is positioning itself as a premium third-party manufacturer, like Zeiss


----------



## deletemyaccount (Mar 18, 2017)

infared said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > 1399 USD
> ...



I bought a refurbished 135 F2 a little over a month ago at $719 + tax but I have seen them as inexpensive as $679 when Canon has them at 15% off. That would make it 1/2 the price approximately. Difficult decision considering the Canon 135F2 is so highly regarded despite being a 20 year old design.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 18, 2017)

I'd wait to criticize the price/value of the new Sigma 135 Art until people are actually using the lens and indicating whether it's better or worse than the Canon or other competitors. 

Fact is, there is no such thing as a 135mm lens available to consumers in f/1.8 until a few weeks from now. When that happens, different people will have different priorities, and we can differ on the perceived value of the lens. To pre-suppose that it'll be bad at something just reveals an initial likely bias; which is good because it can instruct you on where you might endeavor to be especially careful to be neutral in the event you actually get personal experience with the lens. 

We all may do well also to be mindful that not only is the Art series quite a departure from Sigma's older line-up and build quality, but also that the latter entries in the Art series appear to have largely quashed some of the reported complaints, such as AF inconsistency and lack of weather sealing. This may or may not prove to be a consistent trend, but it needs to be taken into account if you are speculating based on earlier performance. 

And, finally, the introduction of the dock does go a long way to enabling Art glass to exceed at times Canon L glass (speaking as one who uses both). And to prevent the lens from being bricked by new Canon firmware. If you go merely by internet reports of performance, then you are often being guided by people who do not have the dock or the patience to use the dock, or who use the dock incorrectly. You can very well argue that you shouldn't have to use the dock, and for many people that is absolutely right. In that case, using L glass is a great option - or if you don't even need that resolution and quality - kit glass. If it suits desired time spent / image quality ratio, these can be superior options, and no one should judge otherwise. 

But my own hunch - which I was previously trying to suppress prior to the delivery of the 135mm Art - is that this one may have the opportunity to well exceed the quality of the eventual Canon 135 L replacement that is likely to cost $1800+, and quite possibly substantially more. 

I look forward to the mid-April bursting forth of many reviews, positive and negative. It'll be fascinating, and in the very least, it will be pushing the other vendors perhaps not wait a decade or two to update their equivalents.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 18, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art



Had they put IS in the thing, they could command a premium like this, as that would really differentiate their offering from everything else. IS is useful at this focal length and it just cannot be all that expensive if every $150.00 kit lens out there has it. 

A missed opportunity for innovation from Sigma, and they are generally the wild card innovators with their never-before seen lenses. I don't think a little added sharpness and f/1.8 vs. f/2.0 is going to make this a smash hit at this price.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2017)

MaxFoto said:


> Sigma got a little greedy with this lens. Yes it will most likely be slightly sharper and faster than the legendary 135L but at a cost of inconsistent AF, huge size and weight, price, and Sigma's not so great color. Oh yeah, it costs quite a bit more. No thanks!
> The 135L is a no brainer with superb image quality, AF, Bokeh, Color, small size, and price.



No one at this point knows about the AF consistency. The 85 uses a different AF motor and is very exact from initial reports. There is no doubt in my mind that all four of these new lenses will have an updated motor and algorithms for AF. They just keep getting better and better, the days of the hunting 35Art are behind Sigma.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art
> ...



Agree.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 18, 2017)

sanj said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



Well, looking through a fast 85mm or 135mm full frame lens is a beautiful sight, almost nothing but glass. It's not like adding IS to a kit lens with a narrow aperture. I'd suspect there are some challenges, compromises. I'd guess the size of the lens would have to increase a not too insubstantial amount.


----------



## Jopa (Mar 18, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> Fact is, there is no such thing as a 135mm lens available to consumers in f/1.8 until a few weeks from now. When that happens, different people will have different priorities, and we can differ on the perceived value of the lens. To pre-suppose that it'll be bad at something just reveals an initial likely bias; which is good because it can instruct you on where you might endeavor to be especially careful to be neutral in the event you actually get personal experience with the lens.


Sony 135 1.8 ZA? It's quite old, I use to shoot it on my a99. Very sharp, one of the best A-mount lenses.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2017)

Jopa said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, there is no such thing as a 135mm lens available to consumers in f/1.8 until a few weeks from now. When that happens, different people will have different priorities, and we can differ on the perceived value of the lens. To pre-suppose that it'll be bad at something just reveals an initial likely bias; which is good because it can instruct you on where you might endeavor to be especially careful to be neutral in the event you actually get personal experience with the lens.
> ...



Canon mount.

The so called need for IS has reached insane levels. Initially it was considered a necessity for telephoto glass only and now anyone will and can make a case for a need for any focal length. I however am in the camp that 135 and longer is a good starting point. YMMV depending on your styles of shooting and use of available light. I will make no judgments on this lens until I experience it first hand but I will say not having stabilization isn't a non starter issue for me... owning the 135L is.


----------



## hubie (Mar 18, 2017)

slclick said:


> MaxFoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma got a little greedy with this lens. Yes it will most likely be slightly sharper and faster than the legendary 135L but at a cost of inconsistent AF, huge size and weight, price, and Sigma's not so great color. Oh yeah, it costs quite a bit more. No thanks!
> ...



Did they solve the focussing issues or do you just mean they left designs like the 35 art behind them? :-/


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2017)

hubie said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > MaxFoto said:
> ...



So you didn't read what I wrote? Really. Let me ask you about Canon or any other imaging company. Are all of their lenses to the same specifications? Sigma lenses are getting better and better with each new release and people clinging to old paradigms are missing out.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 19, 2017)

Jopa said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is, there is no such thing as a 135mm lens available to consumers in f/1.8 until a few weeks from now. When that happens, different people will have different priorities, and we can differ on the perceived value of the lens. To pre-suppose that it'll be bad at something just reveals an initial likely bias; which is good because it can instruct you on where you might endeavor to be especially careful to be neutral in the event you actually get personal experience with the lens.
> ...



I stand corrected. Thank you.


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 19, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> MaxFoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma got a little greedy with this lens. Yes it will most likely be slightly sharper and faster than the legendary 135L but at a cost of inconsistent AF, huge size and weight, price, and Sigma's not so great color. Oh yeah, it costs quite a bit more. No thanks!
> ...



I think who'll be really happy about this are Nikon shooters. Their 135 offering is the same price as the Sigma, and it's an awful piece of glass.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> The so called need for IS has reached insane levels. Initially it was considered a necessity for telephoto glass only and now anyone will and can make a case for a need for any focal length. I however am in the camp that 135 and longer is a good starting point. YMMV depending on your styles of shooting and use of available light. I will make no judgments on this lens until I experience it first hand but I will say not having stabilization isn't a non starter issue for me... owning the 135L is.



If you are shooting on a a 20-24MP Full Frame body, you will likely not see any need for IS. But like I have stated before. Higher MP cameras like the 5DS need IS to get pixel level sharpness. Even your current APS-C bodies need IS to get sharp images. If not you will have to use much much higher shutter speeds on higher MP cameras. Which may not always be an option. 

I shoot flash both in studio with my strobes and outdoors with my speedlites. I almost never not use flash even during the daylight simply becuase the freezing power of the speedlites give much much sharper images. Even when the model is standing still. Simply because it also helps reduce some of the camera shake. Adding IS only helps to improve the overall image sharpness and clarity. So in my expert opinion. Every new lens released at this point should have a minimum of 4 stops of IS..


----------



## eguzowski (Mar 19, 2017)

I'd buy it if it had image stabilaization (I'd stop using my 70-200 L 2.8 and 85 1.8)....as an event photographer and mainly weddings I need IS...most of the time I'm shooting 3200-6400 Iso in dimly lit ballrooms at 90th sec...I'd need to shoot this lens at a min of 150th sec to handhold it. 

I do love Sigma Art glass though and have sold most of my Canon L glass and replaced it with it. It's better made in several ways...smoother manual focus, better or on par IS, sharper, black (white lenses are obnoxious for suit and tie events), and less expensive...no brainer.


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 19, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The so called need for IS has reached insane levels. (...)
> ...



1) That you need IS to get pixel level sharpness @50MPIX is actually an insane claim...

2) However, I still agree that stabilization is always a useful option, and that's why Canon needs to introduce in-body IS NOW.


----------



## sanj (Mar 19, 2017)

Sigma put IS on their wide angle but not on this. Me no like.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 19, 2017)

Some of you people just throw around the word sharpness but this think is supposed to resolve more than 50mp making it future proof when cameras around 50mp and over become more common.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 19, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The so called need for IS has reached insane levels. Initially it was considered a necessity for telephoto glass only and now anyone will and can make a case for a need for any focal length. I however am in the camp that 135 and longer is a good starting point. YMMV depending on your styles of shooting and use of available light. I will make no judgments on this lens until I experience it first hand but I will say not having stabilization isn't a non starter issue for me... owning the 135L is.
> ...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 19, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...




It's true. I own a 5dsr and a 5d Mark III. unless you are shooting a shutter speed equal or over the lens MM, you get slight motion blur.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> The so called need for IS has reached insane levels. Initially it was considered a necessity for telephoto glass only and now anyone will and can make a case for a need for any focal length. I however am in the camp that 135 and longer is a good starting point. YMMV depending on your styles of shooting and use of available light. I will make no judgments on this lens until I experience it first hand but I will say not having stabilization isn't a non starter issue for me... owning the 135L is.



It's not a _need_ for IS -- it's just that IS is such a nice feature if you're shooting handheld that if option A has it and option B doesn't, I'll pick option A every time, even if the price is more. If you're happy without IS, why by the newest lenses? There are awesome non-IS lenses that are way, way cheaper used.

Thinking forward, too, IS lenses generally do better in resale or trade-in ratios compared to non IS lenses, because they resell easier.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Mar 20, 2017)

Short story: Walked into a brick&mortar camera store this weekend and played with some gear. From across the room I saw a group of Sigma lenses next to a 5D-something and thought, look at the big lens, that must be the new 135! ...it was the HUGE 85 and of course, no 135 yet! (Hah) After playing with it, wow the 85 is nice, but it is also very big. (B&H says 135 is actually smaller than 85..? OK) Looking forward to trying it out but still love the size and punch of the 135 2L.


----------



## Redline (Mar 21, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I'm an avid sigma fan (see my previous posts haha). But I'm seriously disappointed with the 135 art pricing to be honest. No way I'm paying that much for a 135 art



Ya but the manufacturing cost of f/1.8 for this size lens with 13 elements vs 8 elements in the Canon 135 f/2 makes sense as far as the increase in price. 

Honestly I was expecting $1799 or something ridiculous...if the f/1.8 version is hint better than Canon I can see people justifying the overall cost over the Canon's.


----------

