Up next in 10
Sigma 85mm vs 135mm ART | Part 2: Bokeh and Rendering
15K views
Jul 25, 2023
Sigma 85mm vs 135mm ART | Part 2: Bokeh and Rendering | In this episode photographer Dustin Abbott shares Part 2 of a comparison between the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART - a highly anticipated new lens - vs the highly desirable Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART lens released late last year. Take a look at the bokeh quality, the overall rendering, and a breakdown of which lens might work better for you. Visit the Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/135ARTig | See the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART Review: http://bit.ly/2gIt0sy | Purchase the 135 ART - B&H Photo: https://bhpho.to/2omypKq | Amazon: http://amzn.to/2pfYpLF | Amazon.ca: http://amzn.to/2omoRiu Zhiyun Crane - USA: https://bhpho.to/2gDJhnC - Europe: http://bit.ly/2fWMWbQ Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at: B&H Photo: http://bhpho.to/1TA0Xge Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/dustinabbott Ebay: http://bit.ly/DustineBay Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: http://bit.ly/LuminarDLA Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: http://dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: http://bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: http://bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: http://bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: http://on.fb.me/1nuUUeH | Twitter: http://bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: http://bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: http://bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: https://bhpho.to/2D6ibNO or Amazon: http://amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: https://bhpho.to/2HyWIyt or Amazon: https://amzn.to/2s1vYE0 Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: https://bhpho.to/2FA00la or Amazon https://amzn.to/2G2kaEr Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo https://bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: https://bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: https://bhpho.to/2N3MtZV DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
View Video Transcript
0:00
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott, and I'm here today to give you part two of my comparison
0:19
examination of the 85-millimeter F-1.4 art series lens from Sigma compared to its brand new 135-millimeter F-135 millimeter F-1.8
0:30
art series lenses. If you haven't already seen it, I think that you would enjoy taking a look at
0:34
the first episode in the series. In that episode, we took a look at the physical comparisons and
0:40
differences between the two lenses, along with looking at the overall sharpness and resolution
0:45
and examining the differences between the two lenses when it comes to that. In this second
0:51
episode here today, I'm going to do a couple of things. First of all, we're going to take a look
0:56
together at the overall boca rendering and kind of color and drawing between these two lenses
1:03
particularly from the perspective of looking at them if you're wanting to use it as a portrait
1:07
lens or an event-type lens. And then beyond that, we will draw a few conclusions as to
1:14
how the lenses will play out in the real world and which lens might be best for you. So first
1:20
what we're going to do is we're going to jump in and we'll look at some images together interactively and look at the overall boca quality, the aperture shape, and even the potential
1:29
for creating boca as we examine and compare these two lenses. Let's jump in and take a look
1:35
So we're going to start off by taking a look at the overall boca coming in terms of boca circles from
1:40
the 135 millimeter art. I'll also give you a look at the shape of the aperture as it stops down a bit
1:46
So here at f1.8, we stop down to f2. You can see that there's not a huge difference in the overall
1:53
size of the Boka circles, but a little bit more evenness towards the out towards the edge of the frame
1:58
Stopping on down to F2.8, here we have probably the most consistent Boka circles across the frame
2:05
And so if you're really wanting to avoid the cat eye effect, F2.8 is going to give you probably your
2:10
best look there. At F4, we can see now we're getting a little bit more of the non-agonal shape of the
2:17
nine aperture blades that is showing. And then finally here at F5.6, that's just a little bit more pronounced
2:23
we run through a similar series with the 85 millimeter F1.4, we can see there's a little bit more
2:29
of the cat eye effect at F1.4, stopping down to F1.8, starts to change that shape. And then
2:36
here at F2, I believe, is the optimal aperture for getting the most consistent Boka circles
2:42
across the frame. At F2.8, we see a little bit more of the non-agonal shape compared to the 135
2:48
millimeter lens and that's because this is now stopped down further than the 135 is. Finally
2:55
at F4 you can definitely see the more pronounced nonagonal shape of the aperture blades. So here
3:02
we're just going to do a visual comparison between the wide open Boka circle shape
3:07
and quality between the 135 and then the 85 millimeter lens. So looking at the 135
3:14
millimeter compared to the 85 it's pretty obvious that the 135 produces a much
3:18
smoother Boca highlight circle. By comparison there is a little bit of the onion effect and just
3:24
kind of a general busyness in the 85 F1.4. And so definitely you're going to get a overall
3:31
I would say in similar situations, a smoother result out of the 135 millimeter lens
3:37
Now just to compare to another recent lens, here is the Tamron 70 to 200 G2. And we're not necessarily
3:45
in apples to apples in terms of shape or even the computer. impression here. But I just wanted to give another visual comparison and as you can see
3:53
the Tamron definitely has a busier, a boca highlight circle, maybe not to the degree of the 85 art
3:59
but more similar to that, less of an onion effect, but more just some patterning in there
4:05
Inner line is, I would say, maybe roughly similar overall. And so I would say in a
4:12
all things being equal, you're probably going to get a bit smoother result from the 135
4:16
Now, a much tougher competition comes from the Tamron 85mm F1.8. And while people may or may not be cross-shopping these lenses
4:26
we can see that the Tamron has perhaps even a smoother kind of inner portion here And I would say that maybe even the inner line is a little bit less pronounced
4:39
And so I would say that this Tamron is probably going to give a pretty good competition
4:45
However, of course, the 135 has the ability to compress the background further
4:50
And so it's going to give you more boca, maybe not necessarily any smoother than the tamper
4:56
on 85, but it has more of an ability to produce boca. And we'll see that even more when we compare
5:01
the 135 and the 85 their ability to produce boca. So if we can compare the 135 to the 85 art lenses
5:10
both at their minimum focus distance, while the minimum focus distance is nearly identical. It just
5:16
very, very slightly favors the 85. Because of the longer focal length, you can see that the 135
5:22
has the potential to create much more magnification. And, it's just very, very slightly favors the 85. Because of the longer focal length, you can see that the 135 has the
5:23
potential to create much more magnification. And as you can see, looking at the, you know
5:28
my Christmas lights behind here, it also means that there is a much greater potential for producing
5:33
Boca compared to the 85 millimeter. And so that's something to bear in mind that you are going to
5:39
be able to produce a more defocused background with the 135 millimeter focal length and definitely
5:46
between these two lenses. Now that bears out in the real world, as we can see here that if I stand at
5:52
equal distance from my subject here. Obviously, it's a much tighter angle of view with 135
5:58
millimeter, and as you can see, the background is much more diffused here. Meanwhile, with the 85
6:03
millimeter lens, there's more that's in the frame, obviously, but you are definitely seeing
6:08
more of the details of the background compared to the 135 millimeter result. Now, if I attempt to
6:14
equalize the results and to try to get them occupying about the same portion of the frame
6:20
even so the greater compression from the 135 millimeter lens means that as you can see
6:26
even with the subject roughly equal, if anything, the subject size in the frame favors the 85 millimeter here
6:33
But as you can see, there's more that shows on either side of the image here with the 85 millimeter lens
6:40
And as a result, even if your subject occupies pretty much the same portion of the frame
6:44
or even a little bit more so here, you can see just looking at a global level that the background
6:49
is still softer with a 135 millimeter lens. And again, that's despite the F1.4 versus F1.8
6:58
And so for outdoor portraiture, obviously you're going to get a more compressed result
7:03
from the 135 millimeter lens, and as you can see, just a softer look at the background in general
7:09
with the 135. Now, there's another real-world thing, and that is that while those that did chart test
7:16
didn't find a whole lot of CA on the 85 art. I reported that it had more than what you might think
7:23
And so I kind of contradicted like DXO when it comes to that
7:27
And here's a good example right here. Out in the real world, if we take a look all things equal
7:33
there's been nothing done here to change this, you can see that there is a huge difference in the amount of CA
7:40
On the 135, it's almost perfectly controlled. But here on the 85 art, you can see quite a bit of perfect
7:46
purple fringing and that's evident here on the zipper and then out if we look at this
7:51
kind of arm band and it's shiny here you can see a huge amount more of chromatic
7:56
aberration now you can correct for that in post however it's going to take more than
8:01
just clicking the remove CA I had to use Lightroom's eye dropper to really clear up
8:06
most all of it there's just a little bit of lingering there but one thing that I
8:10
discovered when I did the 85 art review is that you do lose some contrast overall if
8:15
If you compare these two, obviously it looks more detailed in the 135, and it's not necessarily that the 135 is sharper
8:23
I don't really believe that it is in an absolute sense, but once you've corrected for the aberration, it does become the sharper lens overall
8:31
And so that's just a factor to bear in mind as we just compare these
8:36
So here's one more illustration. Once again, our subject occupies pretty much the same portion of the frame
8:42
She's a little bit higher up here and a little lower here, but in terms of the overall distance between the bottom and the top of the frame
8:49
it's pretty close to being the same. You can just see once again overall that the background on the 135 is a little bit more diffused and if we just kind of pop in and we look at you know something like these sticks you just see that they are a little bit smoother overall just a little bit less kind of hard edges when we look at the 135
9:13
And so there's definitely some potential there. And just one other area I wanted you to take a look at is in what I refer to the transition zone
9:20
And that's right after the plane of focus. And so as we can see the plane of focus right here
9:24
But you can see that as we move, before we get to the really
9:28
kind of defocused area, there's this area right here where there is some busyness with the 85
9:33
millimeter that as you can see is a little bit smoother overall with the 135 millimeter. And so as far
9:40
as the Boca quality, I definitely favor the 135. We'll finish off with just a few real-world
9:46
samples. This is probably the ugliest Boca performance that I found out of my 135 millimeter
9:53
test so far. A very, very challenging scene. Just a lot of bare branches at varying
9:58
focus distances. And so my subject obviously was this little fella here. You know, and obviously I got a
10:04
really nice sharp crisp result on him. But over in this area, there is some general busyness
10:10
And I don't know that there are too many lenses that would really have done much of a better job with that
10:15
It's just a challenging scene. Now here, of course, is something that favors the 135 more. There's a little more
10:21
distance to the background. So you've got beautiful sharpness on the plane of focus. That's great. I mean
10:27
just really, really great. But then the background here is completely diffused and blown out
10:33
and that's the power of 135 millimeter lens, even more so one with an F1.8 aperture
10:40
Another example here, and this is a little bit further away, and so you can see, you know
10:45
there's just a little bit of that kind of line doubling that we saw on that other image
10:49
but most of our background here is nice and soft, and then, of course, you know, good sharpness on our plane of focus
10:57
here's another example that I really like and you know a little less challenging
11:02
with some of the bare branches and overall I think that the kind of bleeding away to
11:07
defocus here is nice and so ultimately I think that this 135 lens produces
11:13
some nice boca so as you can see from our visual comparison there are a few
11:19
conclusions to draw from this first of all is that while the 85 millimeter lens
11:24
has the advantage in the ultimate aperture size. So it has the advantage in the light gathering potential
11:31
between F1.4 versus F1.8. And so it would seem to have the upper hand
11:37
in terms of creating a more shallow depth of field. That's not actually the case, however, as we can see
11:43
because in this case, if you take the combination of the focal length and effective aperture
11:50
going to find that the 135 millimeter is going to easily produce a more shallow depth
11:54
depth of field in virtually all situations. Beyond that, of course, because the lens is focused
12:00
down to basically the same distance, it means that the 135 art with its longer focal length has
12:07
the potential to create a much more defocused background towards a minimum, and that advantage
12:12
is going to continue out at basically almost all focal focus distances, at least in a practical
12:19
sense. And so that leads me to the conclusion that it depends on what your priority is going to be
12:26
If you're going to be primarily shooting in a studio setting, head and shoulders, or in more
12:31
confined spaces, to me, the 85 millimeter lens is a more versatile focal length
12:37
It, of course, with today's high resolution bodies and such incredible resolution from either
12:43
one of these lenses, you really won't have a problem cropping down if you want to get closer
12:48
However, in some situations, a studio setting, for example, you may find that with 135 millimeter
12:53
you can't get far back enough. And so that is a basic challenge there
12:59
And so I have found, from my own personal shooting, I value the versatility of an 85 millimeter
13:04
focal length for that reason. That being said, however, we also saw that the ability to create pleasing Boka from the 135
13:12
millimeter lens is actually of greater advantage. For one thing, it has a more smoother, bocus signature or rendering overall that's going to be a bit softer and a little bit more pleasing in that sense
13:27
Beyond that of course that difference in that focal length means that if you stepping outside for example and shooting full body portraits 135 millimeter lens particularly one with a very bright F1 aperture
13:41
it's going to give you the ability to really create beautiful separation from your background
13:46
and to really allow you to shoot a full body, full-length portrait or some similar kind of scene
13:53
while still having a very pleasingly blurred background. And basically, the only way that you can beat 135-millimeter
14:00
F1.8 lens is if you move up to an extremely expensive, extremely big, 200 millimeter F2 lens
14:08
So in terms of creating kind of a beautiful signature type look to your outdoor or environmental
14:14
portraits, I think you're going to find that the 135 millimeter F1.8 art is able to create
14:20
a little bit better image overall. I would say with both of these lenses, if I were to give a negative
14:28
of optical performance, and there are very few of them, really, and that is that I don't find that the color rendition of either of these lenses
14:37
is really all that breathtaking to me. I've reviewed a lot of Zeiss lenses, for example
14:43
and very often when I'm done shooting with a Zeiss lens, I look at images, and they have just a bit of a magical quality to them
14:52
and the Milvis 135 millimeter F2 is one of the prime examples of that
14:57
And the only lens I know of a medium telephoto that I like better for that is really the Zeiss Otis 85mm F1.4
15:06
And so the colors don't have quite the same saturation and pop to them
15:12
If I could use that term as the Zeiss lenses do. But of course, these are four more practical lenses and that they do have autofocus
15:21
And now, of course, Sigma has stepped it up where there is some weather sealing and moisture resistance
15:26
it is included in the formula. And so for many shooters, they're going to find these lenses more appealing
15:32
than the Zice alternatives. Just note that you may need to do a little bit more post-processing
15:37
to really have images with a lot of pop in them compared to shooting with an equivalent Zeiss lens
15:44
One final thing that may come into your deliberations is that the new 135 art comes in at $200 more expensive than the 85 art
15:52
And so in the U.S. market, this is a $1,400. lens compared to a $1,200 lens
15:59
This is a little bit of a challenge for a Sigma in that for the first time that I'm aware
16:05
of, the Sigma lens is actually more expensive than either the Canon or the Nikon alternative
16:12
And both the first party brands have 135 millimeter F2 lens. And so that is going to be a little bit of a challenge in that people are going to have to
16:22
acquaint themselves with, I would say, in real world market prices, considering
16:26
paying an additional $500, $4 to $500 to get the Sigma as opposed to the Canon alternative, for example
16:35
At the same time, however, there's no question that this new Sigma 135 art lens is
16:41
really it's the superior lens when it comes to the overall resolution
16:46
when it comes to the overall optical ability of the lens. And of course, the Canon equivalent doesn't have the weather ceiling
16:54
So there are certainly some intrinsic advantages when it comes to the Sigma lens
16:59
At the same time, however, the Canon 135 F2L is a lens that is really loved by a lot of people
17:06
because it is sharp enough and it has a very beautiful overall rendering and create some unique images
17:14
And so I hope that this helps you in making your kind of final decision when it comes to which of these two lenses you might prefer
17:20
Both of them produce beautiful images and I think will make. make you very happy in shooting with them in real world situations. I'm Dustin Abbott. If you look in the
17:29
description, you can find linkage to my image gallery that I've got going for the 135 art, also my
17:37
full review playlist and information written review of the 85 art. And on top of that, of course
17:44
you can also find ways to follow me on social media or to support my work through the buying
17:49
links that are there for either those lens. Thanks, as always, for watching. Have a great day. day
#Entertainment Industry
#Online Media
#Photographic & Digital Arts