The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

Sony 135/1.8 GM

pegelli

Well-known member
I keep trying to love this lens....
That's funny Tre, I actually am trying not to love this lens because I find it too heavy and too expensive and not loving it will avoid my GAS to get it anyway :facesmack:

Btw, I agree with you on the rendering of the A-mount 135/1.8, it gives very pleasing results but I also sold it because of its weight I almost never took it along.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
That's funny Tre, I actually am trying not to love this lens because I find it too heavy and too expensive and not loving it will avoid my GAS to get it anyway :facesmack:

Btw, I agree with you on the rendering of the A-mount 135/1.8, it gives very pleasing results but I also sold it because of its weight I almost never took it along.
Well the 135GM certainly performs well statistically but in the pursuit of optical “perfection” I feel that we are getting to a place where it’s hard to tell a $800 lens from a $8000 one. On the surface this is a great thing but for better or for worse lenses seem to be overly neutral in rendering these days. Lenses like the Mandler Leica’s or the Zeiss Contax Yashica lenses are legendary for being sharp stopped down or loaded with character wide open. I’d like to see more lenses released like that though ironically that’s Leica’s goal with their Cinema Thalia lenses (way outside the price range for most though).

A couple of standout lenses for me recently are the APO-Summicron 35/2 SL and the LUMIX S Pro 50/1.4... and in Sony land the 100 GM STF. These just all seem to be a bit more special for what I do personally but unless I hit the lottery (not that I play it) I don’t see myself adding them all anytime soon. Perhaps the 100 is an option... I still need to sell my 135/1.8 A-mount and perhaps the 85 Batis too would be an option to cover the cost.

I just think I would’ve loved this lens if they took the 135/1.8 A-Mount optical formula and modernized it for E-Mount.
 

JoelM

Active member
Well, unfortunately, I think that we are at a place where lens character isn't important anymore. Character can be added in with software. What you say about the Mandlers and c/y lenses is so true as are some other classics. We are in a generation of bokeh and sharpness. :cry:

Joel
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Well, unfortunately, I think that we are at a place where lens character isn't important anymore. Character can be added in with software. What you say about the Mandlers and c/y lenses is so true as are some other classics. We are in a generation of bokeh and sharpness. :cry:

Joel
Yeah I think we can have all of the above thinking about the Zeiss Otus lenses as well. You are right though and perhaps there’s room for another line of character lenses after the main lineup of lenses are completed. I like sharpness as much as the next person but I cringe a bit when a reviewer just talks about sharpness. There aren’t many unsharp lenses these days in reality but some clearly are sharper than others.
 

Pradeep

Member
Recent reviews indicate that the lens is super sharp. I wonder if a 135mm lens is used for anything other than portraits, in which case you may not want extreme sharpness. Perhaps other characteristics - contrast, color, bokeh may be equally or more important. Frankly I've never been able to appreciate the 'character' of a lens, despite having owned Leica glass.

Interestingly, I was at a museum this weekend, saw some 'great' photos, most were blurry and would be trashed today. However, they are considered 'art'. So it all depends on what makes one happy I suppose. There was one particular exhibit which was basically a blue square, about three inches thick, in laquer. It was nothing but blue paint with a lighter slightly pink border, about 3 feet on each side. No idea what was so great about it, but it is still considered a great piece of art, to be put up in a major New York City museum.

Having said that, too much GAS these days, I may put in an order for one myself :D
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Recent reviews indicate that the lens is super sharp. I wonder if a 135mm lens is used for anything other than portraits, in which case you may not want extreme sharpness. Perhaps other characteristics - contrast, color, bokeh may be equally or more important. Frankly I've never been able to appreciate the 'character' of a lens, despite having owned Leica glass.

Interestingly, I was at a museum this weekend, saw some 'great' photos, most were blurry and would be trashed today. However, they are considered 'art'. So it all depends on what makes one happy I suppose. There was one particular exhibit which was basically a blue square, about three inches thick, in laquer. It was nothing but blue paint with a lighter slightly pink border, about 3 feet on each side. No idea what was so great about it, but it is still considered a great piece of art, to be put up in a major New York City museum.

Having said that, too much GAS these days, I may put in an order for one myself :D
I often comment in my own head that many “great works of art” look like a child did them by accident... maybe I’m just not “cultured” enough to appreciate them though.
 

JoelM

Active member
I often use a 135mm lens for landscape photos. I think this will be a fantastic lens for more than portraits. The price kills me so I'll stick to my old 135L on the a7rii. That way, I can save up for Dante's demands.

Joel
 
Top