expro wrote:Sigma is 200g heavier then add adapter = 300g.Is Lena Lens?

expro wrote:Sigma is 200g heavier then add adapter = 300g.Exactly. Fully neglible.

Canon_Guy wrote:expro wrote:Sigma is 200g heavier then add adapter = 300g.Exactly. Fully neglible.Over 30% heavier, nearly eleven ounces. I wouldn't call that negligible. Not unmanageable, certainly, but also clearly noticeable.

Canon_Guy wrote:noggin2k1 wrote:Canon_Guy wrote:Thank you for your experience and thorough description.It seems you woul be an ideal candidate for a Sigma 135/1.8. Great IQ as well, focus speed way faster than you will ever need for those subjects, built quality even better and WAY cheaper.Haven't you consider it?I'd definitely argue against the build quality statement.Sure you can since this is rather subjective to quite a big extent. I prefer metal barrels and Sigmas feel better put together to my taste. What I really hate abou especially RF zooms is that their plastic barrel flexes when grabbed a bit firmly at certain places. For me this is ridiculous at their price points.I've dropped enough lenses to know that a decent plastic lens will stand up much, much better than a metal one. That's the whole point of plastic lenses.Sigma aren't bad lenses, but they're not up to the standard of the RF L lenses.For such statements following is valid: the more generalization the less relevancy.Truth is that many RF lenses brought so far unprecedented amounts of vignetting and distortion. Sigma really is not up to this standard, luckily.On the other hand, on both sides there are extraordinary lenses which have no match in the other brand.Luckily Lightroom has this lovely little button called "lens corrections".I also can't get anything like a 2-3 day turnaround like I can with Canon CPS.CPS is great if one needs it. In my 15+ years of photo life nothing broke down.Sure for pros who abuse their gear badly it is highly benefitial.I definitely don't abuse my gear, but truth is - they are tools for a job and they'll be used as such. I'm a lot more comfortable relying on a lens that has a 2-3 day repair turnaround, than one that's weeks.Cost isn't really a huge factor either if I'm honest.For many people it is not which is good for them. Yet I think this does not represent the majority of photographers. Many look for a good value. And Sigma's Arts excell in that category.And value is where I'm finding Canon to excel. I'm getting double (or more) the life expectancy out of Canon bodies versus Sony, and a similar story with lenses when comparing to some of my previous Sigma ones.If the RF135 has double the usage of the Sigma 135, along with a high resale value - then it's a better value lens.It's more about uniformity across all lenses (handling, control ringsWell, especially control rings are the least uniform across lenses due to its different location on different lenses.All control rings on all the RF lenses I own (other than the 70-200) are within a few mm of each other. They're perfectly uniform.not messing about with adaptersNo need for. They are very cheap so having an adapter on each lens is just easy.It's also an added point of potential failure, and just something I'd rather not deal with.and rendering - the Sigma 105/1.4 renders noticeably different to my other glass, which just lengthens the post workflow.Yes, for well light-controlled environment where consistent and repetitive output is a must this might be a complication.Not an issue at all for natural or generally uncontrolled light conditions since the differences in such light are WAY bigger than differences in lens rendering.I'd rather not have to deal with that for a lens that will be consistently used.).

How can anyone truly know how anything is built unless they take that thing apart?I know "it feels like" it is well built. It's plastic instead of metal? That means nothing. I just squeezed all of my RF lenses and I feel no flex at all.I would wager if you disassembled both lenses that you would see more quality components in the Canon lens than you would see in the Sigma. I have owned many Sigma, Canon and Tamron lenses in my 60 years of photography and have never had to have a Canon lens serviced.  The others yes.If given the choice between an aftermarket and manufactures lenses with the same features, I would pay more for the latter.

Gwand wrote:How can anyone truly know how anything is built unless they take that thing apart?I know "it feels like" it is well built. It's plastic instead of metal? That means nothing. I just squeezed all of my RF lenses and I feel no flex at all.I would wager if you disassembled both lenses that you would see more quality components in the Canon lens than you would see in the Sigma. I have owned many Sigma, Canon and Tamron lenses in my 60 years of photography and have never had to have a Canon lens serviced. The others yes.If given the choice between an aftermarket and manufactures lenses with the same features, I would pay more for the latter.Well we would look to meet requirements by verification and validation on the right hand side of the V.So this could be by analysis and by some tests. Information from production also.So this means you don't have to take it apart. It does mean you need to clearly state the requirements of 'better built'

Alastair Norcross wrote:Canon_Guy wrote:expro wrote:Sigma is 200g heavier then add adapter = 300g.Exactly. Fully neglible.Over 30% heavier, nearly eleven ounces. I wouldn't call that negligible. Not unmanageable, certainly, but also clearly noticeable.And during shooting you hold lens only? Or also a camera, perhaps baterry grip or a flash light... So really 30%?300 grams might be a deal breaker may be for a small child. Not for a grown man. Or?

I'm not a pro like you but do a fair amount of friendly pro bono work when called upon. And I share your enthusiasm for this new lens. I haven't had mine as long but shot a stage event over a 2 day period this week and am very happy with the results so far.For me the IS is a significant help as the R3's IBIS has less benefit at this focal length. Even at 1/200s there is benefit but especially below that shutter speed.The two candid people shots you shared are quintessential examples of where this lens shines. Easy to get the face in focus while also getting some subject separation in an event where the background may be an interesting hint about the setting but blurred enough not to be a distraction.And of course the IQ is excellent while the AF speed is world class for the category.

noggin2k1 wrote:José B wrote:Images looked incredibly sharp indeed! I assume they are all shot wide open? Do you find it as sharp as the Sony GM?Thanks for sharing.Yep, shot wide open.Taking a look at images from both in 'real world' scenarios, they're both as bitingly sharp as each other.I never got to test the Sony at slower shutter speeds - but I'd imagine I'll trust the Canon more for my use case thanks to the IS.I love 135mm lenses. I have the EF L and the GM for my Sony A6600 (great for outdoor tennis and indoor volleyball). But the Canon RF might be the new 135mm GOATas it has IS and newer technology.

thanks for the review!I'd like to add my personal findings. After using the lens for a few weeks I notice that I use it in cases where otherwise I would have taken my 85 f/1.2. The 135 is so much nicer to hold, it's only a few centimeters thinner than the 85 but that makes quite a difference.Second finding, I own the EF135L as well. A wonderful lens but it has a lot of purple and green colours in the bokeh. Far too much when the pictures get used for advertisements where I want a neutral character. The RF version is clean, it renders the background smooth as butter but without the aberrations. I have spend a thousand hours in Photoshop cleaning up purple lines in pictures from the EF85L and EF135L and these new lenses are a complete game changer.

hunk wrote:Second finding, I own the EF135L as well. A wonderful lens but it has a lot of purple and green colours in the bokeh. Far too much when the pictures get used for advertisements where I want a neutral character. The RF version is clean, it renders the background smooth as butter but without the aberrations. I have spend a thousand hours in Photoshop cleaning up purple lines in pictures from the EF85L and EF135L and these new lenses are a complete game changer.I have never seen this with my EF135, 15 years or so in use and counting.

I borrowed a friend's Sigma for two weeks, and I thought it was a fantastic lens, and it was the best 135mm ever, maybe 2nd to the Sony.  But this is no longer the case with the advent of the RF.Now that I have the RF 135L f1.8, I find that the RFrenders betterthan the Sigma, and I consider the Sigma a very good lens.The RF has betterbuild qualitytoo because if you drop both, the RF is more likely to bounce and the plastic flexes more than metal causing the plastic RF to better absorb shocks, and being lighter, dropping the RF will hit less hard than the Sigma.The RFfocuses fastertoo, although to be fair, the Sigma will never be accused of focusing too slowly.The RF is smaller than the Sigma when mounted, and feels less heavy at the end of the lens.  And of course, no need to adapt the RF.Both lenses provide wonderful bokeh.The RFhas IS, which the Sigma lacks.  The RF is moisture/dustproof and I think the Sigma is too?It comes down to this:If you have the $ and are willing to spend it, then the RF is the better lens and is the way to go, otherwise the Sigma would be a fantastic choice too, but it is the lesser of the two.These lenses are often the kind one buys a few times in their lifetime, so if you compare the cost over a lifetime, paying $1,000+ more for the RF is insignificant, at least to me.  I replaced my EF 135L f2 which I bought decades ago, so I expect to keep my RF 135L for decades more, for sure until I pass away, so $1,000 over the rest of my life is not worth worrying about if it means you get the better lens.So buyer, get either and you will be happy.

hunk wrote:thanks for the review!I'd like to add my personal findings. After using the lens for a few weeks I notice that I use it in caseswhere otherwise I would have taken my 85 f/1.2.The 135 is so much nicer to hold, it's only a few centimeters thinner than the 85 but that makes quite a difference.Nooooo.  Sadness.I wonder how full body portraits and backgrounds would look the same or different for 200  at f2.8, 135 at f1.8, and 85 at f1.2.  I would like to own the RF 135 but fear the results would be too similar to my current lenses.

Here a new quick corner and vignetting comparison on the night sky with the sigma art:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66948722

noggin2k1 wrote:The backstory for you all - I'm a UK based wedding photographer, who has been keeping an eye on the RF135's arrival, as I felt it'd fill a very specific (yet boring) need for me.The only really purpose I have for this lens is for guest candids during the speeches - seems a bit of a waste I know. Here's the reasoning:I've managed to wheel it out for one wedding now, and here are my very unscientific thoughts:So there we have it. The only thing I can really fault it for is price - especially in the UK (but dare I say, I can see why it costs what it costs). No particularly exciting results to show from it, that's more to do with my boring use case, rather than the lens.I was genuinely shocked when I saw the UK price, a full £1000 more than the equivalent Sony GM. Don’t see how Canon can charge that price here when there’s only a $1 difference in price between the 2 lenses in the USA.

The differences boil down to how particular you are….to me there is a significant difference between the three, enough to have to have all three available.though for portraits I find 200 has too much compression. But that’s just my preference.

I was genuinely shocked when I saw the UK price, a full £1000 more than the equivalent Sony GM. Don’t see how Canon can charge that price here when there’s only a $1 difference in price between the 2 lenses in the USA.Wow, that's a huge difference. Here in Canada the RF is C$ 250 more expensive than the GM. Maybe it's justifiable since the RF has IS but a lot of people use 135mm for portraits and maybe sports. So IS is not that essential, just hike up the shutter speed to stop the action. Besides most Sony cameras have IBIS anyway.

José B wrote:I was genuinely shocked when I saw the UK price, a full £1000 more than the equivalent Sony GM. Don’t see how Canon can charge that price here when there’s only a $1 difference in price between the 2 lenses in the USA.Wow, that's a huge difference. Here in Canada the RF is C$ 250 more expensive than the GM. Maybe it's justifiable since the RF has IS but a lot of people use 135mm for portraits and maybe sports. So IS is not that essential, just hike up the shutter speed to stop the action. Besides most Sony lenses have IBIS anyway.$250 Canadian is roughly £150 extra which is reasonable. And yes 135mm is usually for portraits and fast action so IS won’t be relied upon in many cases but its a nice to have. Certainly not worth an extra £1000. Other European markets have a similar prices for the 135mm RF as well.

SNJops wrote:José B wrote:I was genuinely shocked when I saw the UK price, a full £1000 more than the equivalent Sony GM. Don’t see how Canon can charge that price here when there’s only a $1 difference in price between the 2 lenses in the USA.Wow, that's a huge difference. Here in Canada the RF is C$ 250 more expensive than the GM. Maybe it's justifiable since the RF has IS but a lot of people use 135mm for portraits and maybe sports. So IS is not that essential, just hike up the shutter speed to stop the action. Besides most Sony lenses have IBIS anyway.$250 Canadian is roughly £150 extra which is reasonable. And yes 135mm is usually for portraits and fast action so IS won’t be relied upon in many cases but its a nice to have. Certainly not worth an extra £1000. Other European markets have a similar prices for the 135mm RF as well.I'm fortunate to have both EF 135/2 L (for 5Ds and now the R6MKII) and the Sony 135/1.8 GM that I mostly use with my A6600 for sports (outdoor tennis and indoor volleyball). I've used it too for model shoots on the street and the beach. Head shots are good too but it acts more like a 200mm. On a 1.6x camera I prefer using an 85mm for head shots.