Pre-orders and pricing are now available for Sigma's 135mm f/1.8 Art lens, the company's newest portrait beast and the fastest lens of its type and price point. At $1,399, you can preorder today for delivery in the middle or end of April for Canon, Nikon, and Sigma mounts.
Announced earlier this year along with three other lenses that round out Sigma's newest series of lenses (save for the anticipated 70-200mm f/2.8 professional zoom we're all waiting on), the 135mm f/1.8 Art is poised to grab top spots in portrait lens rankings as it gets compared and benchmarked around the world.
Meanwhile, the 135mm focal length has seemingly been long abandoned by Nikon, which released a flagship 105mm f/1.4 lens that is excellent in its own right. Meanwhile, Canon has a 135mm f/2L lens that is also excellent, but that will also likely be "out-labbed" by Sigma's similar offering.
Interested in preordering the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens? Grab it here.
The SRTP will most likely be undercut by retailers, which will mean this will be a popular lens with portrait photogs....looking forward to it.
Knew it would eventually happen. Sigma's ART Line (Sigma 24mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART, etc...) has always been around 35% cheaper than the Canon's "L" versions..... But the Sigma 135mm is actually 35% MORE expensive than the Canon "L" 135mm. I suspect we'll start seeing this trend from Sigma with the 14mm f/1.8, the 24-70mm and any others that follow, including the much anticipated 70-200mm.
I have a feeling you have to compare the optics/quality of this a little more to the Nikon 105mm than to the Canon 135mm, even if the latter seems to be the better comparison on paper. I think the quality and price-comparison will make more sense there (given the abnormally large maximum aperture, I think this is what Sigma was aiming for).
How do you figure comparing a 135mm lens to a 100mm lens, especially when both companies (Nikon and Canon) have 135mm lenses.....
Because the optics in the 105 are closer to this than either company's 135. Canon's is now 12 years old. With all the advances in the past 10 years, you can't really compare a top of the line lens from 2005 to a top of the line lens in 2017 when it comes to price.
Well, I must say that the Sigma 135 must be one hell of a lens b/c the Canon 135 is just tact sharp, even at 12 years old. This is still my go to lens for portraits and it's just pure magic. Not to say that the Sigma lens won't be as good or even better, just saying that "for me", the Canon 135 is just that good.
There wasn't an issue in comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.2L Lens (which was made back in 2006) to Sigma's NEW 85mm f/1.4 ART Lens (2016), but now there's an problem comparing "like" lenses to "like" lenses regardless of the age? If that is Canon's latest offering and it's still on the shelves..... At what point does a lens become old to compare to a 2017 lens? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? How long? It shouldn't matter. But since Canon doesn't have a "latest" offering lens in the 135mm range (all seem to be 10 years or older), then there should not be a comparison with Sigma Lenses to Canon Lenses..... according to your logic.
Regardless, any comparisons are a bit of an apples to oranges scenario. But my point is that yes, lens and glass technology progresses quite a bit over time (especially over a decade or more). Moreover, there wasn't the push to create lenses that could resolve as highly as they need to resolve these days for our 50+ MP sensors, etc. So comparing a modern, top-of-the-line (optics-wise) lens such as the 105mm f/1.4G to Sigma's latest 135mm f/1.8 Art would make a lot more sense to me than comparing Canon's older 135mm f/2 or Nikon's much older specialty lens with a soft focus/defocusing feature. The focal length is a bit different, but these more recent lenses are likely to be a LOT more similar in overall performance (and usefulness for similar situations) than any of them will be to the past 135mm of yesteryear.
Canon's 135mm is old. If they redesign it. It would significantly jump up in price.
Old, but still very very good.
Very old, but that's one lens I'm never letting go. Well, maybe if Canon adds a IS to the MK II, maybe.
All lenses have their look, and they can be useful. I sill have my MF 135mm f/2 Nikkor I bought 40 years ago, as it renders in a certain way, as do my old MF 85 and 105 lenses.
However new lenses are significantly sharper. The MF Samyang 135 blows the Canon and Nikon 135s out of the water. Samyang was also smart to leave aspheric elements out of the lens design, giving it great bokeh. This forthcoming Sigma I suspect will be killer, and until Canon and Nikon update their 135s (if they ever do) I suspect the Sigma will simply rule.
I've noticed their prices keep creeping up with each new release. Maybe their going after Zeiss and not Canon or Nikon? Tamron seems poised to take Sigma's place in the best bang for the buck category - their new lenses are fantastic with great pricing.
I may get this to use as a medium prime for show jumping photography , especially in covered arenas with no lights and dirty while light pouring in from the sides
A horse photog! Good to meet another one. :)
yeah part timer when I'm not an environmental scientist . In Western Australia .
My fiancee competes. Good thing to keep you occupied as well and it pays for the weekend !
I was thinking 2k$+, but I am pleased with this. Was thinking about some zoom in that range for weddings, but I might just wait a bit. It doesn't have VR/OS though right? Kinda bummer, but at this speed [1.8] I guess it would be hard to add VR without adding another kilo, haha.
Owning a 135mm f/2.0 from Canon and was amazed by the sharpness on my 5D mk II. Bought a 5Ds and was blown away by the results of the 135mm.
I'm curios what the Sigma can do. I don't expect a big difference with the Canon. It's in my eyes the comparission between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini; both cars drive fast.
I wonder if price on Nikkor 135mm f2 DC will grow? Great lens but not the sharpest and AF could be better.
New 135mm Art will be waaay shaper I believe, but bokeh? I own 35,50,85mm Art lenses, and they all struggle with AF accuracy.
Pre-ordered the Nikon mount, need something just a little longer than my 85 for ceremonies sometimes. They're going to sell a ton of Nikon mount versions as long as the AF hits consistently
This thing is a beast compared to the 135L
1130g vs 750g
82mm vs 72mm filter thread
3.6in vs 3.2in diameter
4.52in vs 4.4in length
And I bet most of that added weight is up front in the big front elements, making it quite front heavy. Canon shooters who value a lightweight bag will definitely stick with the L, but the Nikon shooters will be torn (and the Nikon 105/1.4 is shorter, fatter, and lighter than this new Sigma).
I'm sure it's great glass, but no, not interested. My trusty old 100mm macro will do fine portraits if I lose my 85. It'a great for people shopping to have options though.
I want want soooo badly, but so long as the CAD is so weak it is pretty hard to justify that price tag. At that price I would have expected OS, personally. I thought they would come in at a competitive price to the Canon and Nikon 135s
As an owner of a Canon 135/2 L, I've always felt that the only thing that lens really needed was IS. It's too bad that Sigma missed the opportunity to differentiate itself from the pack by not providing OS on their version. A max aperture of f/1.8 looks sexy to marketing people but it's technically just 1/3 of a stop faster than f/2. There may be other benefits to getting the newer lens but, if they were going to add close to a pound in weight and charge $400 more for that, then I don't see any reason to "upgrade."