FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

135mm prime v 70-200 Zoom

Page  <123
Author
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 13:33
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something (or several somethings, possibly), but the only significant difference I can see in the two images is the position of the forest floor relative to the lady, and you could have made that the same by going down on one knee with the 85mm.
So I think there are two things.

Firstly (and I'm not trying to patronise, just writing it down so we're all on the same page) the 85mm is obviously 15mm longer than the 70mm we were discussing, but also it's f1.4 not f4, so any similarities in bokeh between the two images will be less similar with 70mm f4 vs 135mm f2.8.

But secondly, the narrower field of view of the 135mm means there is less of the distant background in shot - so fewer distractions. I've tried to demonstrate this below with the red rectangle showing the approximate area of the 85mm background that appears in the 135mm background. This isn't something that can be changed with distance to the subject without changing the size of the subject in the frame.

As a bonus 'thirdly', notice how the small green plant to the left of the frame in the 85mm, being closer to the camera than the farther background, just appears in the 135mm shot to add some 'near background' interest (because of the narrow field of view combined with the camera being farther from the subject).

Does that help?

A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
 



Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 2891
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 14:06
Personally I can notice a difference (I can also notice a difference in 85mm and 100mm). but the difference between 135GM and using my 85mm f1.4 in crop mode wasn't massive from a rendering or field of view perspective. In fact I felt 85mm f1.4 lenses rendered the bokeh slightly nicer (though this is purely subjective).

Where 135GM is wins is with AF and sharpness plus doubled with more res vs. crop mode. I can have two out of the three when using 70-180mm f2.8. I don't get the shallow DoF but I get 180mm f2.8 which is really great! absolutely love it. I really loved my minolta 200mm f2.8 and my 70-200mm GM (less so the weight of the latter). Tamron kinda gives me both in one

But then again you can argue that one can use the 135GM in crop mode to render similar results to tamron 70-180mm at 180mm and that's true too.
I just prefer keeping 85mm/1.4 and 70-180mm/2.8 for my shooting to 85mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8.

More ways than one to skin a cat and all that....
my flickr
A7RIV & LX100ii
Back to Top
dCap View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 August 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 5447
Post Options Post Options   Quote dCap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 14:15
the background trees are also bigger in the 135 shot
... which could be used to effect (for any background items)
(it is only slight here with 85 vs 135)

this is a lot easier to see with 28 vs 50 or with 85 vs 200 though
but I thought the OP was more interested in candid rather than posed portraits?
Sony RX100 IV Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 1,8-2,8/8,8-25,7 [ 24-70mm ]
Back to Top
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 14:18
Originally posted by nandbytes nandbytes wrote:

Personally I can notice a difference (I can also notice a difference in 85mm and 100mm). but the difference between 135GM and using my 85mm f1.4 in crop mode wasn't massive from a rendering or field of view perspective. In fact I felt 85mm f1.4 lenses rendered the bokeh slightly nicer (though this is purely subjective).

Where 135GM is wins is with AF and sharpness plus doubled with more res vs. crop mode. I can have two out of the three when using 70-180mm f2.8. I don't get the shallow DoF but I get 180mm f2.8 which is really great! absolutely love it. I really loved my minolta 200mm f2.8 and my 70-200mm GM (less so the weight of the latter). Tamron kinda gives me both in one

But then again you can argue that one can use the 135GM in crop mode to render similar results to tamron 70-180mm at 180mm and that's true too.
I just prefer keeping 85mm/1.4 and 70-180mm/2.8 for my shooting to 85mm/1.8 and 135mm/1.8.

More ways than one to skin a cat and all that....


Agree with all your saying Anand, but remember we got into this conversation because of being forced to use a focal length of 135 vs the flexibilty to use 70-200 (and my laziness to use 70mm rather than walk further away for a longer shot).

Just to keep it on topic and not drift too much into the strengths of the 135GM. The benefit of a prime is being forced to be creative - and it definitely works for me. I am so close to selling my 24-105 for this very reason.
A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
Back to Top
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 14:20
Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

...but I thought the OP was more interested in candid rather than posed portraits?
Yes, agreed. As per my reply to Anand above, this is all about being forced to move further away for a candid versus being lazy and shooting at the shorter end of a zoom. Sorry, I've dragged this topic through a few different vaguely related topics
A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
Back to Top
dCap View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 August 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 5447
Post Options Post Options   Quote dCap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 15:22
Originally posted by Tricky01 Tricky01 wrote:

Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

...but I thought the OP was more interested in candid rather than posed portraits?
Yes, agreed. As per my reply to Anand above, this is all about being forced to move further away for a candid versus being lazy and shooting at the shorter end of a zoom. Sorry, I've dragged this topic through a few different vaguely related topics


forums are about discussion ... and that often leads to 'related' to this post is 'how about this and that' chatter (I was just wondering if the OP was still following) - your 85 vs 135 image does help the discussion

am a bit of a fan of primes too - and the way they make you creative

back on topic - if I shot candids I'm sure I'd crop more than I do for my style of photography
Sony RX100 IV Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 1,8-2,8/8,8-25,7 [ 24-70mm ]
 



Back to Top
Andy81 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 September 2011
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Yateley
Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Post Options Post Options   Quote Andy81 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2020 at 17:48
Yes, still following. I was pretty set on the 70-200 until Simonís contribution, but some interesting points were raised.

The point regarding primes forcing you to work harder certainly resonates, and Iíve really been enjoying using my current kit over the past 9 months, limiting myself to the 20mm, 35mm and 85mm primes (though the cropping ability of the A7rii does make this easier).

I did spot earlier that the Batis 135 is currently available at Wilkinson Cameras for £869 after the summer cashback, but I think Iíll resist for now and continue to mull over the options; I also need to think about how my needs might change once junior is running around, rather than just buying from the here and now. First on the list (as noted earlier) is to play around with the apsc mode on the camera as a proxy for what the 135mm would be like (Iíd still get the eye-AF which is the real benefit over my 70-300).
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3492
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 16:20
Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something (or several somethings, possibly), but the only significant difference I can see in the two images is the position of the forest floor relative to the lady, and you could have made that the same by going down on one knee with the 85mm.


there are less trees in the 135mm shot
(there is less of the background to see, narrower angle and all)

SO there are. One fewer, I think. Getting a 135mm seems rather an expensive way to do that, though; could have cropped the image a little at much lower cost.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 16:27
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something (or several somethings, possibly), but the only significant difference I can see in the two images is the position of the forest floor relative to the lady, and you could have made that the same by going down on one knee with the 85mm.


there are less trees in the 135mm shot
(there is less of the background to see, narrower angle and all)

SO there are. One fewer, I think. Getting a 135mm seems rather an expensive way to do that, though; could have cropped the image a little at much lower cost.
No, this is the point, you canít get the shot of the 135mm by standing closer to the subject / by cropping / changing aperture.... nothing. Thereís literally no way to replicate the shot of the woman at 135mm (keeping her the same size in the frame) with a shorter - or longer - focal length.

I do agree the differences arenít huge, but I strongly (you might have noticed ) believe that the candid images you get from being forced to shoot at 135mm (or any prime to be honest) make for better images than using a zoom. Again, as mentioned before, this is mainly a criticism of my laziness as a photographer, so not necessarily true of any/all others
A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 2891
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 16:50
Originally posted by Tricky01 Tricky01 wrote:

No, this is the point, you canít get the shot of the 135mm by standing closer to the subject / by cropping / changing aperture.... nothing.


You can by cropping. To get the same as 135GM you'd have to use a 90mm f1.2 lens in crop mode or by using on a APS-C sensor. Such a lens doesn't exist but a 85mm f1.4 provides a close enough approximation.

You can try this yourself. Put your camera on a tripod take a shot with your 135GM. Then without changing the position of the camera or your model mount your FE85, put your camera in APS-C crop mode and take the same shot.
my flickr
A7RIV & LX100ii
Back to Top
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 17:05
Originally posted by nandbytes nandbytes wrote:

Originally posted by Tricky01 Tricky01 wrote:

No, this is the point, you canít get the shot of the 135mm by standing closer to the subject / by cropping / changing aperture.... nothing.


You can by cropping. To get the same as 135GM you'd have to use a 90mm f1.2 lens in crop mode or by using on a APS-C sensor. Such a lens doesn't exist but a 85mm f1.4 provides a close enough approximation.

You can try this yourself. Put your camera on a tripod take a shot with your 135GM. Then without changing the position of the camera or your model mount your FE85, put your camera in APS-C crop mode and take the same shot.
Ok, you've got me on a technicality But my point still stands that you definitely wouldn't make that shot with a zoom, and you'd be unlikely to make it with a prime (because a. you wouldn't have a 90 f1.2 and b. you wouldn't put it in crop mode and walk further away). Remember, lazy photographer here
A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 2891
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 17:06
Originally posted by Tricky01 Tricky01 wrote:

But my point still stands that you definitely wouldn't make that shot with a zoom, and you'd be unlikely to make it with a prime (because a. you wouldn't have a 90 f1.2 and b. you wouldn't put it in crop mode and walk further away). Remember, lazy photographer here


perhaps the fix is to get you a treadmill instead
my flickr
A7RIV & LX100ii
Back to Top
Tricky01 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Woodley, Berks.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2936
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tricky01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2020 at 17:07
Originally posted by nandbytes nandbytes wrote:

Originally posted by Tricky01 Tricky01 wrote:

But my point still stands that you definitely wouldn't make that shot with a zoom, and you'd be unlikely to make it with a prime (because a. you wouldn't have a 90 f1.2 and b. you wouldn't put it in crop mode and walk further away). Remember, lazy photographer here


perhaps the fix is to get you a treadmill instead
A7iii, 15f2, 16-35f4, 24-105G, 35f1.8, 85f1.8, 135f1.8GM, 100-400GM, 1.4xTC // A mount: Sig180 3.5 Macro, Gitzo Traveller, Flashes+PixelKings website
Back to Top
Macca View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 January 2012
Country: Scotland
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Posts: 1732
Post Options Post Options   Quote Macca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2020 at 12:40
Late to the party but would add my tuppence worth about environment.

My daughter dances, has done since she was 2 (she is now 11).I`ve shot her dance shows including rehearsals for her, her school and other parents every year bar this one (all cancelled due to Covid) and found the 135mm 1.8 ZA invaluable, having tried the 80-200 2.8, 135mm 2.8 pocket rocket, 85mm 1.4 cropped and non cropped, the 135mm provided outstanding shots in the fast moving kids, in mainly dark or mixed lighting conditions, without flash that I don`t think I could get with any other lens.
The 80-200 got me some keepers and allowed me to shoot probably a more favoured FL of around 100-120mm for some shots but ultimately all the ones the school and parents were really happy with were from the 135mm.

I`ve moved to E mount completely this past year or so but couldn`t justify the price of the GM for this very specific use, I hoped to hire one for the first shows but as they were cancelled I have now bought a Batis used but as new for just under £700, which is a massive saving on the original price. I`m not sure how it will cope with next years shows (or maybe this years if possible) and maybe I`ll miss that extra stop, time will tell ,what I will say only having had it a week, it`s light enough and portable enough that I actually want to stick it in my bag for a general outing, not something I could always say for the CZ

Now if they bring out that patented 105mm 1.4 eventually....
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > E-mount lenses Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.