Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 15, 2006, 10:44 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Can someone care to do a direct comparison? I bought a 135mm f/2.8 from KEH and am still waiting for it!
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:18 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

I would think that the extra zoom on the 135 might outweigh the faster aperture of the 100, and the 100 may be soft at 2.0. I have neither lens, just an ignorant opinion.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:26 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I've got both lenses.

I haven't done any direct side by side comparisons. But, my gut feeling is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially when shooting at wide open apertures. I think the 100mm is probably a bit better with flare resistance and CA, too -- again, just gut feeling versus controlled conditions tests.

Stopped down a bit, the 135mm f/2.8 is pretty good though. Here's one at f/5.6 from the 135mm.





JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Whoa Jim I see a dead pixel! or is it not?

JimC wrote:
Quote:
I've got both lenses.

I haven't done any direct side by side comparisons. But, my gut feeling is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially when shooting at wide open apertures. I think the 100mm is probably a bit better with flare resistance and CA, too -- again, just gut feeling versus controlled conditions tests.

Stopped down a bit, the 135mm f/2.8 is pretty good though. Here's one at f/5.6 from the 135mm.




maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:30 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Can someone care to do a direct comparison? I bought a 135mm f/2.8 from KEH and am still waiting for it!
Go to Dyxum.com... I have seen some reviews where the reviewers had both the 100 and the 135, but there are two different135 lenses.

I don't have either lens, but I don't think it's fair to compare the two because of the vast differnce in focal length especially when you factor the digital crop factor. As you know, you're comparing 150mm vs. 202mm effectively. I guess you can compare brightness, sharpness, color, distortion, weight and whatever else "blows your hair back", but in terms of function I don't see them in the same ballpark. It depends on why and what you want tocompare.

[align=center]:|[/align]



meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:33 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Whoa Jim I see a dead pixel! or is it not?

Based on the date of the photo, I would guess it is not a dead pixel since we would have seen it on other photos Jim has displayed.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:36 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Can someone care to do a direct comparison? I bought a 135mm f/2.8 from KEH and am still waiting for it!
EDIT: Oops, was thinking of Adorama.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:42 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Whoa Jim I see a dead pixel! or is it not?
Probably. That was an ISO 800 shot, and I haven't noticed it lately (it probably went away when the camera changed months).

As for the 135mm f/2.8, the other version of it is specilized (STF).

I've seen comments from other users that have both the standard 135mm f/2.8 and the 100 f/2 before also, and the general consensus is that the 100mm f/2 is the better lens (which is my feeling, but I haven't tried them side by side). I remember one person saying they prefer their 135mm (but, I think that was mostly because of focal length for how they're using it).

You can see the two versions here (standard versus STF):

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results....&offset=40

The 100mm f/2 also tests better on MTF Charts at http://www.photodo.com (the 100mm f/2 grades a 4.4 versus 3.6 for the 135mm f/2.8 )

135mm f/2.8
Effective focal length: 133
Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f2.8 0.72. f4 0.76. f8 0.79
Average Weighted MTF: 0.78 Grade: 3.6
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0.88
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0.74
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0.47

100mm f/2
Effective focal length: 97
Weighted MTF for 100 mm: f2 0.75. f2.8 0.77. f4 0.84. f8 0.85
Average Weighted MTF: 0.85 Grade: 4.4
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0.91
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0.82
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0.62

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Since both these lenses are in the zoom range, how do you think they compare to the beercan? I remember you saying that 135mm is sharper than beercan. Since the 135 scores a 3.6, the beercan maybe a 3.0 or 3.3? Lets say we are comparing all three at f/4.0.

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Whoa Jim I see a dead pixel! or is it not?
Probably. That was an ISO 800 shot, and I haven't noticed it lately (it probably went away when the camera changed months).

As for the 135mm f/2.8, the other version of it is specilized (STF).

I've seen comments from other users that have both the standard 135mm f/2.8 and the 100 f/2 before also, and the general consensus is that the 100mm f/2 is the better lens (which is my feeling, but I haven't tried them side by side). I remember one person saying they prefer their 135mm (but, I think that was mostly because of focal length for how they're using it).

You can see the two versions here (standard versus STF):

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results....&offset=40

The 100mm f/2 also tests better on MTF Charts at http://www.photodo.com (the 100mm f/2 grades a 4.4 versus 3.6 for the 135mm f/2.8 )

135mm f/2.8
Effective focal length: 133
Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f2.8 0.72. f4 0.76. f8 0.79
Average Weighted MTF: 0.78 Grade: 3.6
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0.88
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0.74
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0.47

100mm f/2
Effective focal length: 97
Weighted MTF for 100 mm: f2 0.75. f2.8 0.77. f4 0.84. f8 0.85
Average Weighted MTF: 0.85 Grade: 4.4
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0.91
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0.82
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0.62
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:28 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default


MTF charts never tell the whole story, and I don't even own the beercan. But, as a general rule, a prime is going to be sharper compared to a zoom at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. There are always exceptions, though.

Also, MTF charts for a lens like this also look at the edges of a lens that are outside of an APS-C sensor's area (since they are designed for 35mm size film), although the portions in the middle get a higher weighting. So, you really need to look at the charts that show the portion that the sensor lives in when comparing them instead of just the ratings they get.

You also have some variation between lens samples. So, the best way to tell is to actually try them out. ;-)

My gut feeling is that my 135mm f/2.8 is a softer lens, since I noticed some shots that looked a bit soft from it at f/2.8, with it sharpening up some around f/4 when testing it a while back (taking shots at multiple apertures of the same subject). But, I have not compared it side by side with a 100mm f/2.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.