Sigma 135 f1.8 EF vs Canon 135 f2.0 FD

[mikepeters]

Hey all,

I tend to really like a 135 focal length on M4/3. I shoot a lot of events, people at podiums and also candid shots of people engaged in what they do. I like to be able to pick people out of a crowd. Since I shoot indoors a lot, a fast aperture is the way I like to go. I've been using a Canon FD 135 f2 for a number of years, and have also tried the FDn 2.8 version along with a Contax/Zeiss AE 135 f2.8. Of the lot, the Canon 2.8 version is the weakest, showing horrible CA wide open. The Zeiss is nice, has a good 3D look, but not really better than the FD f2.

I've been curious about the newer lenses, and my local shop had the Sigma 1.8 on display, so I took one for a spin with my Metabones smart adapter. I like that the camera recognizes the focal length and I don't have to dial it into the stabilizer on my own. That's a plus. Another notch in it's favor is that the AF on single shot works well and is very accurate. The continuous AF is not happening though.

So, I did a little side by side test. The question is this, is the Sigma a thousand bucks better than the 38 year old FD?

The attached photos were identically processed with the same color balance, tonal and sharpening adjustments. What say you?

Top Sigma, bottom, Canon FD...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Top Sigma, bottom, Canon FD...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[tkbslc]

If you don't use AF, probably not.

Also, m4/3 only uses the central 1/4 of the lens, meaning any differences in corner sharpness will not be visible. That's a lot of what seperates old from new glass is consistency across the frame.

 

[mikepeters]

If you don't use AF, probably not.

Also, m4/3 only uses the central 1/4 of the lens, meaning any differences in corner sharpness will not be visible. That's a lot of what seperates old from new glass is consistency across the frame.

The other issue is size, the Sigma at 1130g is a monster and the FD at 670g seems pretty petite by comparison. I can get along fine with MF, so the AF is only a bonus at this point. It's surprising to me just how good the old lens is.

 

[ohaya]

You might've been better off not telling us which was which, but I "feel like" the top shots are smidge sharper.

 

[kurtwist]

The Sigma definitely looks sharper - on my computer screen. The Canon is plenty sharp, though, with it's weight and cost being far better. I don't mind MF. My wife has the Sigma on her Df. She likes AF I have the Canon on my Olympus and Sony 7s. We are both happy.

 

[barry]

Fwiw, there's also the Samyang 135/2, $499 new, in native or adapted mounts, MF only.
Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Canon EF Mount SY135M-C B&H

 

[Reflector]

If you want a strange yet curious alternative to that focal length, you can use a step down ring (Grind down the front to make it thinner) and an Olympus B-300 teleconverter (1.7x), also alternatively known as a TCON-17/17X. If you can find the teleconverter for less than $100 it'd be an inexpensive worthwhile way to transform an Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (if you own one already) into an 127.5mm f/1.9. You get C-AF and all the snappy AF, but you'll be trading off sharpness wide open.

 

[Mike Peters]

Fwiw, there's also the Samyang 135/2, $499 new, in native or adapted mounts, MF only.
Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Canon EF Mount SY135M-C B&H

That lens is on my list. From what I've read, it compares nicely with the Zeiss and the Sigma optically. No one around here has one though. One of these days I'll nip off to B&H and try one out against the FD. When I do, I'll post the results.

 

[Mike Peters]

The Sigma definitely looks sharper - on my computer screen. The Canon is plenty sharp, though, with it's weight and cost being far better. I don't mind MF. My wife has the Sigma on her Df. She likes AF I have the Canon on my Olympus and Sony 7s. We are both happy.

MF is fine by me too. Did a large part of a job today with the FD and it worked, as always, like a charm. Do you have the EF or FD?

 

[Mike Peters]

If you want a strange yet curious alternative to that focal length, you can use a step down ring (Grind down the front to make it thinner) and an Olympus B-300 teleconverter (1.7x), also alternatively known as a TCON-17/17X. If you can find the teleconverter for less than $100 it'd be an inexpensive worthwhile way to transform an Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (if you own one already) into an 127.5mm f/1.9. You get C-AF and all the snappy AF, but you'll be trading off sharpness wide open.

Yeah, that's a bridge too far. If it's not sharp at maximum aperture, I'll skip it. Good idea though. Do you have any shots that show how it looks?

 

[Reflector]

Yeah, that's a bridge too far. If it's not sharp at maximum aperture, I'll skip it. Good idea though. Do you have any shots that show how it looks?

Front Mounted Olympus Teleconverter/Wide Converter Experiments

Bear in mind that my metric of "sharp" is a Sigma 50-100 f/1.8A stopped down 2/3rds of a stop on a Metabones Speedbooster Ultra, or a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 stopped down to f/5.6-8 on the Speedbooster Ultra.

I still need to do more experiments with the thin rings I received recently, they seem to improve my hazy B-300's performance on the Olympus 75mm f/1.8.

Bear in mind you also lose about 1/3-2/3 EV of light on top of the aperture shrinking to f/1.85-ish due to the front element size limitations.

 

[Mike Peters]

Front Mounted Olympus Teleconverter/Wide Converter Experiments

Bear in mind that my metric of "sharp" is a Sigma 50-100 f/1.8A stopped down 2/3rds of a stop on a Metabones Speedbooster Ultra, or a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 stopped down to f/5.6-8 on the Speedbooster Ultra.

I still need to do more experiments with the thin rings I received recently, they seem to improve my hazy B-300's performance on the Olympus 75mm f/1.8.

Bear in mind you also lose about 1/3-2/3 EV of light on top of the aperture shrinking to f/1.85-ish due to the front element size limitations.

That Sigma 50-100 is pretty darn sharp right out of the box, so I can't imagine the Metabones will make it less sharp.

 

[Reflector]

That Sigma 50-100 is pretty darn sharp right out of the box, so I can't imagine the Metabones will make it less sharp.

The Speedbooster Ultra improves it, except in the extreme corners due to the image circle being compressed to 1.4x which closes APS-H coverage requirements from the lens (Nikon APS-C is 1.5x, Canon APS-C is 1.6x). My own testing with the 50 1.2 saw a 50%+ increase in MTFs versus a plain tube. So I can only assume that on the E-M1II I'm looking at a 90+ lpmm lens for most of the focal length at 2/3rds from wide open.

Oh one more thing: The B-300 on the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 will increase the MFD. Can't get around that.

 

[pellicle]

as to the original question I was going to say:

neck and neck, but ...

The other issue is size, the Sigma at 1130g is a monster and the FD at 670g seems pretty petite by comparison.

I'd totally go the lighter one. I had the same issues with the various versions of the FD200mm

• f2.8 old version (focus by extension)
• f2.8 nFD version (internal focus mechanism)
• f4 version

I just didn't like using any of the f2.8 lenses because the weight penalty of the 2.8 (for a single f-stop) didn't work out for me.

in my view ...: comparing 200mm FD lenses

as the older one focusued by extension it became worse when doing anything macro ... at infinity

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

at min focus

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

indeed, I'd probably look at the FD100f2.8 for a lark

 

[Mike Peters]

I've tried the FD 135 f2.8 looking for even lighter weight, but it's just not a good performer. Wide open it has noticeable and hard to fix CA. The Zeiss/Contax 2.8 is almost as heavy as the FD f2, and at 2.8 they are pretty much the same optically.

BTW, that 200 f4 looks like a nice piece of kit.

as to the original question I was going to say:

neck and neck, but ...


I'd totally go the lighter one. I had the same issues with the various versions of the FD200mm

• f2.8 old version (focus by extension)
• f2.8 nFD version (internal focus mechanism)
• f4 version

I just didn't like using any of the f2.8 lenses because the weight penalty of the 2.8 (for a single f-stop) didn't work out for me.

in my view ...: comparing 200mm FD lenses

as the older one focusued by extension it became worse when doing anything macro ... at infinity
View attachment 627805

at min focus
View attachment 627806

indeed, I'd probably look at the FD100f2.8 for a lark

 

[pellicle]

I've tried the FD 135 f2.8 looking for even lighter weight, but it's just not a good performer. .

I understood that the FD 135 was regarded as soft compared to the 100.

Apparently back then they thought portrait lengths should be soft...

The 200 works nicely, I paid $58 for my copy. A good backpacking compromise over my FD300f4

 

[Mike Peters]

I suppose the FD 135 f2 will do...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[kurtwist]

MF is fine by me too. Did a large part of a job today with the FD and it worked, as always, like a charm. Do you have the EF or FD?

FD