Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Ma Baker, Jan 14, 2007.
Holy crap that's unbelievably sharp
/me searches for more 5D 135mm shots on flickr
2 trains of thought on that subject, if it's too sharp then use photoshop, but what if your subject has really good skin-tone and very few imperfections... you want all the sharpness you can get.... better to have than to have not IMHO.
Crazy isnt it? Thats what sold me on the 135
Theres LOADS on the Flikr site, even a 135mm sub forum.
Yeah I'm taking a look around on there now, heaps of good stuff. The other thing I like about this 135mm is that it's not HUGE like the 70-200's etc.
I'm so jealous right now
5D + 24-70/2.8 + 125/2 = awesome combo
Check out how sharp this is @ 100%
That's one amazing lens right there
You can get that kind of sharpening in post easily. Look at some photos from a 70-200 or practically any prime.
The difference is marginal, damn pixel peepers
Cheers mate! I'm very lucky to own it! Can't wait to take it to Camera Craft II this Saturday and start to really learn how to use it!
Yes, looks like a nice sharp lens, but I can get similar results with my 70-200, some well thought focusing, and a touch of USM in Photoshop. Horses for Courses though.
Speaking of 135mm lenses - found this on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecaine/148736301/
the 70-200 f2.8 is nearly as sharp, but the main thing here is the extra stop for low light action. trust me, the extra stop makes a huge difference.
touch footie at night - all ISO1600 @ f2, even 1/250s isn't really enough to freeze the action. the other touch footie album was shot with a 70-200 f2.8.
I really have nothing new to add about the 135, but I must agree that for most work where you are carrying a 70-200 F2.8, the 135 is really redundent. But at F2.0, it can almost replicate the dreamy 3D effect that the 85 F1.2 can at 1.2 (almost). But having said all that, I would not give mine up, cause when you need that extra stop.....
Hey s8n any chance of some ISO100 shots some time today?
unforunately not as yet. I will go outside and see if I can take any....im at work (camera with me) but theres no people outside...
Hey s8n - I can't believe you haven't mentioned the BOKEH this lens produces! It's smoooooth as. Here's some pics I took at f2.8:
Doesn't look that sharp? Looks over-compressed and over-sharpened.
Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate some of your sharp images?
Bokeh above is stunning
If you want to see some pics of the 135 at F2 at a veriety of ISO settings, then have a look at an old thread of mine where all the telephoto stuff is shot with the 135 here.
Well, if we're going to compare my photos to the above - then naturally to make it a fair fight, I'd have to use a 5D eh? More resolution and a weaker AA filter = sharper photo. Bokeh is wonderful - but I can live with slightly different bokeh - can be interesting at times (mirror lenses anyone?)
http://danielgphoto.com/misc/_MG_3725.jpg <- Sigma 105 f/2.8 @ f/2.8. Close to no sharpening added. Sharp enough? $400.
http://www.danielgphoto.com/misc/crop3.jpg <- Sigma 100-300 f/4 @ f/4. No sharpening added. $1129. Sure, it's 2 stops slower, but I don't shoot low-light, so it's irrelevant. I'll admit openly that it's bokeh is ugly at times - but it looks interesting.
Sharpness is a over-rated anyway. It should only become a consideration if you're planning to print large (16x24"+). At any sizes smaller it just becomes completely pointless.
We can leave it there - or continue pointlessly.
Just a end note - I nearly bought a 135 f/2.0L last year - for $860, but alas - I realised that I didn't need it and buying it just because it was L wasn't going to make my pics any better.
I wouldnt waste my time with Sigma again, there lenses have the WORST quality control ever. 10-22, 24-70 f2.8, all were terrible, slow focusing, hunted, soft in corners yada yada..
Sucks to be you eh? I must be lucky.
Not at all I love my L glass and was lucky to sell the Sigma stuff at the price I paid! On a 5D, you'd be nuts to run anything other than L glass.
Not saying the Sigma is junk, but they have quite a few issues (24-70 notorious for having a yellow cast and noisy as one example, 70-200 f2.8 only really sharp from F4 onwards unlike the L)