7Artisans AF 135mm F1.8 Review | Can it Compete?

0:10
A few years ago, the number of 135
0:13
millimeter autofocus lenses on either
0:15
Sony or Nikon were pretty few and rare.
0:20
But in the last few years, that has
0:22
radically changed. And I've reviewed, I
0:24
think in the last two years alone, about
0:26
four different 135mm lenses that have
0:30
come from manufacturers like Samyang,
0:33
Viltrox, Sigma, and now Chinese
0:36
manufacturer 7 Artisans. Their new
0:39
autofocusing 135mm f1.8 will be coming
0:42
to both Sony, Nikon, and then also
0:44
L-mount as well. And it comes with the
0:47
lowest MSRP of all of the options. At
0:50
the same time, however, I point that out
0:52
in my intro because it is coming into
0:55
what is now quite a cl crowded platform
0:58
on Sony and Nikon, particularly Sony.
1:02
But maybe on LMount, there's a little
1:03
bit more wiggle room there as many of
1:06
these options have not released on
1:07
LMount to this point. My big question
1:09
going into this review is, is 7 going to
1:13
be able to distinguish itself in any
1:15
area outside of price? And as we're
1:18
going to see in today's review, that is
1:19
where the challenge lies for them. But
1:22
we're going to break down its
1:23
performance when it comes to build
1:24
handling, autofocus, optical
1:27
performance, and I'll double back at the
1:29
end to give you a conclusion and my
1:30
thoughts on that all. Before we jump
1:32
into it, however, I do want to say a big
1:34
thank you to Seven Artisans for sending
1:36
me a review sample for evaluation here.
1:39
As always, however, they have had zero
1:41
input in the review itself. My findings,
1:43
my conclusions are my own. they will not
1:46
see this video before you do. So, all of
1:48
that aside, let's jump in and take a
1:50
look at the build, handling, and design.
1:52
All right, let's take a closer look at
1:53
the build and the handling design here.
1:55
First of all, a closer look at the
1:56
price. $689,
1:59
giving it the lowest MSRP of any of the
2:02
135mm options on Sony or Nikon. However,
2:06
the Samyang 135 F1.8,
2:09
it has an MSRP of 699. However, it often
2:13
retails for less. For example, at the
2:15
moment it's at 599 USD. The Viltrox Lab
2:19
135mm f1.8 has an MSRP of 899 USD.
2:24
However, it is often available for less
2:27
as well. And so, uh, I think that while
2:30
the MSRP stands up as being really good
2:32
here, unfortunately, because some of the
2:34
other lenses have been on the market for
2:36
a while, it does have a little bit more
2:38
headwinds when it comes to the price
2:40
point. Now, when it comes to the weight
2:42
here, this is a hefty lens. It's 1,04 g
2:46
or 35.75
2:48
oz. That is lighter than the Viltrox,
2:51
which is,235 g. But the Samyang, for
2:54
example, is just 772 g. The Sony um is
2:59
about 950 g. The Plenna from Nikon is
3:03
right under a kilogram. And so, this is
3:06
heavier than basically anything but the
3:08
Vtrox lens. And so it is a a big hefty
3:11
lens because it is all metals and uh you
3:14
know heavy grade of of build quality
3:16
here. The lens is 91 mm or 3.58 in in
3:21
diameter and it is 136 mm or 5.35 in
3:26
long. Up front here we have an 82
3:29
millimeter front filter thread which is
3:31
pretty common for 135mm f1.8 lens. At
3:35
the back of the lens, we do have a
3:37
weather sealing gasket along with a USB
3:40
C port. I'm assuming there probably are
3:42
a few other seal points, but I haven't
3:44
seen a diagram, but at the least, we do
3:46
have a ceiling ceiling gasket there.
3:50
Now, we do have a fairly robust feature
3:51
set, but there are a few quirks in that.
3:54
First of all, the aperture ring here, it
3:56
is clicked, but it's what I would call
3:58
lightly clicked. And so, you can very
4:00
faintly feel the detents, but they're
4:03
not strong. What I do find is if you try
4:05
to turn it faster, however, there's
4:06
almost like a little bit of a drag on
4:08
the aperture ring. Another oddity is
4:10
we've got a big space between f1.8 and
4:13
f2, which is almost identical to what we
4:15
have at the other end. The difference
4:17
between f16 and then the automatic. And
4:19
the problem is is there's almost no real
4:22
kind of like barrier there. There's no
4:24
kind of weight to go between f-16 and
4:26
automatic. So, it's not going to be hard
4:29
to make that switch. So, a little bit of
4:31
quirks when it comes to the aperture
4:32
ring there. I will also note that when
4:34
you change aperture, you will hear a
4:36
little bit of a clacking sound uh due to
4:38
the aperture uh blade. So, it's its
4:40
motor for changing that is not quite as
4:42
quiet as what I would like. What I do
4:45
like, however, is there are 12 aperture
4:47
blades and it has a really nice geometry
4:50
here. Both just in the shape of the
4:52
bokeh balls or specular highlights, but
4:54
then also as you stop the lens down, it
4:56
keeps things very nice and circular
4:58
there. Now, other features include two
5:01
different function buttons. There's a
5:03
one and a two. These don't have separate
5:05
functions, but they're designed to where
5:06
you have this one if you're shooting in
5:08
the typical horizontal mode. If you're
5:10
shooting in vertical mode, this one
5:11
should be close to ham. So, always have
5:14
one uh, you know, accessible there.
5:15
There is an AFMF switch here that isn't
5:18
quite as definite as what I would like,
5:20
but I'm glad to have that. Manual focus
5:22
ring is good. The weight's a little bit
5:24
on the light side, but it moves smoothly
5:26
and there isn't really any lag that I
5:28
noticed between input on the ring and
5:30
the actual focus changes. One other
5:33
thing that I don't love is that while
5:34
the lens hood is included here, it
5:37
doesn't really click into place definite
5:39
at all. As you can see, it doesn't lock
5:41
there at all. It feels like you should
5:42
be able to do one more rotation to make
5:43
it actually lock. So, it's not going to
5:45
be hard to, you know, kind of just
5:48
dislodge that accidentally. We do have
5:51
this kind of faux ring here that's a lot
5:53
like the for example the nicor plano
5:55
lens where it's just a grip section for
5:58
grabbing. It's doesn't it's not actually
5:59
a rotating ring. Another quirk that I
6:02
did notice is that on my cameras the
6:04
inbody image stabilization it doesn't
6:06
seem like it's communicating perfectly
6:08
and I noticed that there was
6:10
unfortunately a little bit more motion
6:11
blur than what I expected. I was able to
6:14
improve that by changing from the
6:15
automatic setting in my bodies to
6:17
manually inputting the uh the actual
6:20
focal length of 135 millimeters and that
6:22
seemed to rectify it. But that is a bit
6:24
of a pain but something I wanted to
6:26
bring to your attention. The one feature
6:28
that is missing that most the
6:29
alternatives have is a focus limiter
6:31
switch. So just know you won't have that
6:33
available to you and that connects to
6:35
our final thing that is a positive and
6:37
that is our minimum focus distance. This
6:39
can focus as closely as 68 cm, which is
6:42
closer than the competing lenses. And
6:44
you can see that it has a very high
6:45
magnification. The Vtrox is rated at
6:48
0.25 times. This, I'm going to guess, is
6:51
getting up there close to 0.30 times.
6:54
So, a very useful amount of
6:55
magnification. And the up close
6:57
performance is pretty decent. So,
6:59
overall, there's some pros and cons
7:01
here. Couple areas that could use a
7:03
little bit more polish. But you know we
7:05
a few years ago if we were looking at
7:06
the lens like this we would be pretty
7:08
amazed by how much lens you were getting
7:10
for the money. Unfortunately the market
7:12
has gotten pretty competitive in the
7:14
last few years. So how about autofocus?
7:17
Out of the various brands that are
7:19
making these 135mm lenses I would say
7:21
that 7 Artisans is the most recent to
7:25
develop autofocus and in some ways it
7:27
does show. We have what I think is an
7:30
STDM style focus motor here. And while
7:33
the actual amount of thrust or focus
7:36
speed that's available here is not bad,
7:38
there are a few areas where there's a
7:41
little less confidence than what I see
7:43
in some of the competing lenses. Now,
7:45
you can see here in my kind of formal
7:48
test going back and forth that the speed
7:50
from close to distant focus changes is
7:52
actually quite snappy and I don't have
7:54
any major problem with that. However,
7:56
what I did run into is that there were,
7:59
for example, in a portrait session,
8:00
there were just more misses than what I
8:03
expected. And I what I consistently saw
8:06
was if there was a missed focus, it was
8:07
almost always a front focus to where
8:09
instead of getting right to the eye,
8:11
maybe be to the cheek or, you know, the
8:14
chin, something a little bit forward to
8:15
where the results weren't quite as crisp
8:18
as what I would like. And knowing the
8:20
capabilities of the lens, I knew that it
8:22
came down to just being just very, very
8:25
slightly off when it came to the focus.
8:27
Now, the upside here is that this can be
8:30
corrected via firmware. I did also note
8:33
that if I was trying to force focus in a
8:36
certain place, so I maybe touched to
8:38
focus on an area and so I'd switch from
8:39
just all points active to focusing in a
8:42
specific area, if it was too far off
8:44
center, I did get a bit of pulsing back
8:45
and forth. Again, something that
8:47
probably could be fixed via firmware,
8:49
but definitely needs fixing at this
8:51
point. Now, in terms of the actual uh
8:54
the sound from the focus motor, it's
8:57
nice and quiet. I could hear a faint
8:59
like worring sound if I put my ear close
9:01
to the lens barrel, but in normal
9:03
operation, I didn't really notice any
9:04
kind of focus sound. If anything, the
9:06
sound that I'll hear is if I'm changing
9:08
aperture. That's the more likely sound
9:10
that I'm going to hear in the process.
9:12
And so, overall focus there was fine.
9:15
Now, what I find with these seven
9:16
artisan lens lenses generally that if
9:19
you're shooting still or slowmoving
9:20
subjects, not too bad, but if there's
9:22
any kind of persistent movement towards
9:24
the camera, again, in that case, it's
9:26
more likely to be a bit of a back focus
9:27
situation. And so, focus just not quite
9:30
keeping up. And so, if you need to
9:31
capture fast action, there's probably
9:33
better options for you at this point.
9:35
Now, on the video side of things, I
9:37
actually expected worse and got a little
9:40
bit better when it came to my actual
9:42
touch to focus results. results were
9:44
really not that bad. And as you can see
9:46
here, uh, if as far as the actual focus
9:49
pools, they're a little bit, you know,
9:50
fast maybe, but they don't have any kind
9:53
of visible steps, no, you know, settling
9:55
or pulsing things like that. What I did
9:58
notice, however, is that sometimes there
9:59
was some lag between when I touched a
10:02
point to focus on the screen and when it
10:04
actually focused. And so, if you're
10:06
actually utilizing that for video work,
10:07
you might find it a little bit
10:08
frustrating because it may not focus
10:10
when you want it to focus. And obviously
10:12
that could cause you to miss a shot. And
10:14
so again, at the least we need a
10:16
firmware update to improve the
10:18
responsiveness of something like that.
10:21
In terms of my hand test, I felt like it
10:23
did pretty good there with good
10:25
transitions back and forth. Again, those
10:27
focus transitions are a little bit
10:28
abrupt, which is kind of interesting
10:31
considering that really focus breathing
10:32
is not too bad for 135mm lens, and
10:36
definitely in some ways it's better than
10:37
some of the alternatives on that front.
10:39
However, it just needs it to be damp
10:41
just a little bit more for a little bit
10:43
smoother results in that kind of
10:44
situation. When I approached the camera,
10:46
it had no problem keeping up with me. It
10:49
went to the background when I stepped
10:50
out of the frame. When I came back in
10:51
the frame, it picked me up quickly. And
10:53
so, again, I like the performance there
10:55
as well. And in other shots, you know,
10:57
for example, this shot of Nala, focus is
10:59
stable, so no concerns on that front.
11:02
You've probably noticed in all these
11:03
outdoor segments which I am filming on
11:05
the lens that it's done a perfectly good
11:08
job of focusing on me and keeping me in
11:10
focus throughout. And so in general, uh,
11:12
other than the kind of the the lag issue
11:15
when doing touch to focus, actually felt
11:17
like autofocus for video was really
11:19
pretty good. All right, let's start by
11:21
taking a look at the optical design.
11:22
We've got 16 elements in 13 groups. Here
11:25
you can see that the highest number of
11:28
elements are actually extra low
11:30
dispersion followed by equal amount of
11:32
high refractive uh index elements and
11:35
then also five normal elements. So a lot
11:39
of exotics as a part of the design.
11:41
Taking a look at the MTF chart and we're
11:43
focusing on the red line which is the
11:44
third is the 30 lines pair. You can see
11:47
that we start right under 90% here in
11:50
the center of the frame. Mid-frame is
11:52
still looking quite good. uh contrast is
11:54
holding up pretty well and we're still
11:56
well above the 80% threshold with a mild
11:59
fade into the corners and we're kind of
12:01
averaging out in around the 75% range um
12:05
where those two come together. Now, as
12:07
far as other metrics here, we can see
12:09
when it comes to vignette and
12:11
distortion, a very very mild amount of
12:13
pin cushion distortion. I just used a
12:15
minus one to correct over here a bit of
12:16
vignette in the corners. I used a plus
12:19
42 to correct for it. probably in many
12:21
situations you won't need to worry about
12:23
correcting it. Now the control of
12:25
longitudinal style chromatic aberrations
12:28
is very good here. You can see next to
12:30
no fringing before and after the plane
12:31
of focus. If we zoom in here on my dad's
12:34
old SLR, we can see almost no fringing
12:37
in this area. And if we look at those
12:39
shiny bits, it's basically next to
12:41
nothing there around the specular
12:42
highlights. Nice and clean in that
12:45
regard. Taking a look at those specular
12:46
highlights, we can see a pretty good
12:49
geometry. wide open. Stop down to f2.8.
12:52
Then at f4, we can see it's continuing
12:55
to largely keep a circular shape due to
12:57
having that high 12 aperture blade iris
13:00
there. We also don't have any
13:02
significant issue with lateral style
13:04
chromatic aberration. It's just hinted
13:06
at there, but not going to be a factor
13:08
for anyone. So, let's talk resolution
13:10
and sharpness here. Here is the chart
13:12
test that we're going to be looking at.
13:14
And this test is done on a 61 megapixel
13:16
A7R Mark II. results will be shown at
13:18
200%. Now, in full disclosure, this is a
13:21
second copy of the lens that I'm going
13:23
to be showing you here. My first copy
13:25
that I tested, it was definitely
13:27
desentered. And as you can see here, the
13:30
results were radically different between
13:31
the first and second copies. The second
13:34
copies being far more representative of
13:36
what you should expect out of this lens.
13:39
And that is quite good. Here in the
13:41
center of the frame, we see very high
13:42
resolution, very good contrast.
13:45
mid-frame looks very strong, very
13:47
excellent. And as we pan down all the
13:49
way into the corners, we see that up
13:51
here it's looking great and just
13:53
slightly falling off in the extreme
13:55
corner. So, how does that compare to one
13:57
of the very best in the Viltrox 135mm
14:00
f1.8,
14:01
uh, we can see that in the center of the
14:03
frame, the two lenses are actually very,
14:06
very close and there's not really a big
14:08
margin between them at all. here in the
14:11
mid-frame. Also close. The Viltrox is a
14:14
little bit stronger, but it's not by a
14:16
terrible margin, but actually the seven
14:18
artisans is the better lens in the
14:21
absolute corners and delivers a little
14:24
bit sharper a performance than what we
14:26
see out of the Viltrox. For a few real
14:28
world examples here, we can see that
14:30
detail and contrast look really great
14:32
and of course the rendering is lovely.
14:33
More on that in just a moment. Jumping
14:35
ahead another season and you can see
14:38
that the detail and the contrast looks
14:41
very good here. And then the background
14:42
is nice and soft. Uh here's one that I
14:45
took just this morning and you can see
14:46
really really crisp line of delineation
14:49
and then really nice, you know, bokeh
14:51
ball specular highlights all throughout
14:53
the image. So do we see greater
14:55
improvement as we stop down? Well, the
14:56
answer is yes. By f2.8 you can see that
14:59
there is even more contrast and detail
15:01
showing up there in the center of the
15:02
frame. mid-frame is looking really
15:05
fantastic and off into the corners.
15:07
Corners are getting a little bit more
15:09
consistent a little further out. We'll
15:11
take a look in the upper left corner as
15:13
well. And it's not a big margin, but you
15:16
can just see like at this text right
15:18
here. And then over here, very, very
15:20
slightly crisper. Checking back in with
15:22
the Viltrox. The Viltrox is basically
15:24
caught up in the corners here. If we
15:26
look in the mid-frame, we can or the
15:28
center of the frame, we can see that the
15:30
Viltrox is a little bit sharper, better
15:32
contrast, and definitely in this
15:34
mid-frame, it just has more pop to it.
15:36
And so the Viltrox has greater capacity
15:38
to sharpen up, but the 7 Artisans is
15:40
still very good. By f.6 and f8, we've
15:43
got very consistent results across the
15:45
frame, but I wouldn't say a whole lot
15:47
sharper. It's mostly just the
15:49
consistency from corner to corner. Now
15:52
you see defractions start to set in at
15:54
f11 and then at f-16. Though frankly
15:58
it's really not all that terrible. This
16:01
lens is sharp enough that it's able to
16:02
offset the effects of defraction I would
16:05
say to a pretty strong degree. Now we
16:07
can see that 7 artisan does deliver a
16:09
higher level of um magnification
16:12
compared to the Viltrox as we saw
16:14
earlier. Though the Viltrox is
16:16
definitely sharper up close. It's just a
16:18
little bit more consistent. It has those
16:20
floating elements that allows it to
16:21
perform better up close. Going to a
16:24
three-dimensional object, we can see
16:25
that the uplose performance again is is
16:28
good, but contrast is not like amazing
16:30
here. And so, it's not as good at the
16:33
close focus distance, but you can see it
16:35
will obliterate the background. And that
16:37
really is a strength for this lens. The
16:39
general rendering is really beautiful
16:41
from it. It just in whatever situation I
16:44
shot in, I felt like the bokeh was just
16:46
consistently really really nice from
16:48
this lens. Not a lot of hard edges, a
16:51
lot of artful looking images with really
16:53
softly defocused backgrounds. Even here,
16:55
there's a lot of, you know, degrees of
16:57
complexity in this shot. But I think
16:59
that it's handled quite nicely. And you
17:02
know, here for example, you know, you
17:04
can see good, you know, detail and
17:05
contrast. Not Viltrox level out in the
17:07
real world, but it's good. But the
17:09
background is really softly defocused.
17:12
Looks really beautiful. Here's another
17:14
shot here. And you again, you can just
17:16
see that, you know, detail and contrast
17:18
are good here. And the background is
17:21
nicely blurred. There's a lot of
17:22
potential in this shot for just hard
17:25
edges and things like that. But to me,
17:26
it kind of renders it fairly artfully.
17:28
And you can see it it's handled with
17:30
enough contrast to not fall apart on
17:32
this daisy, which daisies can be murder,
17:35
particularly in sunlight. As far as
17:37
rendering for portraits, I shot these
17:39
several months ago and so it wasn't
17:41
obviously the season was different. You
17:43
can see that the background is nicely
17:45
blurred even with all of those hard
17:46
edges. Here's another one here a little
17:48
bit closer and you can see again
17:50
handling those backgrounds nicely. Now,
17:53
when it comes to flare resistance, it's
17:55
very much a mixed bag. Uh in this kind
17:57
of shot, not too terrible. A little bit
17:58
of veiling, a little bit of ghosting. Um
18:02
up here in the corner, it's handling
18:03
that fairly well. Where the weakness is
18:06
is if the sun or the light source is
18:09
right up above the frame and you see you
18:11
get quite a flashing effect. You can see
18:13
it kind of bursting through here. That
18:15
can be used to artful effect, but it's
18:17
going to be strong and pronounced. Just
18:19
be aware of that. And here in this shot
18:21
with that sun in that position, you can
18:22
see that the veiling is covering a lot
18:24
of the frame. Stopping on down and
18:27
you're going to see a little bit more of
18:28
the ghosting type artifacts regardless
18:30
of the position of the sun. and so I
18:32
don't like it as well in those settings.
18:34
Overall, it's a a pretty good pretty
18:37
strong optical performance. The
18:39
rendering is beautiful from the lens. In
18:41
terms of the detail and contrast, it's
18:43
not quite at the level of a lens like
18:45
the Viltrox, but not far off either. So,
18:48
what's my conclusion? In many ways, the
18:50
7 Artisans 135mm f1.8 leaves me a little
18:54
bit conflicted. On one hand, it is I
18:57
think the finest optical instrument that
18:59
I've ever seen from seven artisans. It
19:01
delivers really beautiful optical
19:04
qualities in many ways with good control
19:06
of aberrations with beautiful rendering
19:10
and excellent sharpness throughout and
19:12
so it is a very strong lens optically.
19:15
At the same time, however, it is held
19:18
back by the fact those optics are held
19:20
back by the fact that Seven Artisans is
19:22
still in a maturation process as a
19:25
company. And so, the finished product is
19:27
frankly still a little bit glitchy. As I
19:29
pointed out during the optical qualities
19:31
portion, uh I am finishing this review
19:34
filming in a completely different season
19:35
several months later because we had to
19:37
replace the initial review lens that I
19:40
was using and obviously Seven Artisans
19:42
had to delay what was their intended
19:44
early release date for it. So, I'm
19:46
filming right now on a second copy of
19:48
the lens months later and yet it's still
19:50
a little bit glitchy. For example, on my
19:53
cameras, if I try to use the uh aperture
19:56
ring and to control aperture, it's as I
19:59
begin to move throughout the aperture
20:00
ring, it's still delivering some quirky
20:02
results. I go to f2, it shows f6.3,
20:04
though it's actually exposing for f2.
20:07
And beyond that, it's not really
20:09
stopping the aperture further down. I've
20:10
got to switch over into the automatic
20:12
mode and control the aperture from
20:13
within the camera to get accurate
20:15
results. And it's things like that, just
20:17
little quirks, quirks of the autofocus
20:19
that show that there's still some
20:20
firmware updating that is necessary and
20:23
that the lens is not yet as mature as
20:26
what I would like to see, even though
20:28
the release date has been pushed back a
20:30
little bit. I very sincerely hope that
20:32
seven artisans can solve the final
20:35
quirks that remain on this lens because
20:37
optically it is well worth investing in.
20:39
At the moment, however, uh unless those
20:42
firmware updates happen, I would have a
20:43
hard time recommending this over
20:45
something like the Viltrox or the
20:46
Samyang lens on at least on E-mount and
20:51
then um over the hard to recommended
20:53
over the Viltrox on Zmount. Lmount,
20:56
however, you know, there's nothing else
20:58
yet there on that platform. And so that
21:00
might be a compelling option to look for
21:03
there. But I do think that Seven
21:04
Artisans is coming to a field that
21:07
already has a lot of really excellent
21:08
challengers, but also some challenges
21:11
that are maybe a little bit more mature
21:13
in their development and their
21:15
presentation at this point. So again,
21:17
this is a nice lens. It's a beautiful
21:19
lens optically, but it just needs a
21:21
little bit more fine-tuning in the
21:22
details, and I certainly hope the 7R is
21:25
able to achieve that. If you want more
21:27
more information, feel free to check out
21:29
my full text review, which is linked in
21:30
the description down below. As always,
21:32
thanks for watching. Have a great day
21:34
and let the light in.

7Artisans AF 135mm F1.8 Review | Can it Compete?

Dustin Abbott

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Peak Design Roller Pro | A Perfect Bag at an Imperfect Price

Sigma 20-60mm F2.8-4 C Review | Your New Favorite Tiny Zoom Has Arrived

Sigma 85mm F1.2 ART Review | My New Favorite 85mm F1.2

7Artisans AF 10mm F25 MAX Fisheye Review - A Better Fisheye?

Phenyx Pro PTU-7000 Wireless Microphone System Review

Samsung 990 M.2 SSD Review | A "Budget" Alternative

Neewer Q4 Pro 400Ws Flash Review | Overpowering the Sun

Thypoch Eureka 28mm F2.8 X-Mount Review | Reviving an Analog Past

Up next in 10

7Artisans AF 135mm F1.8 Review | Can it Compete?

Dustin Abbott