06-02-2017, 05:23 PM
Same here, those cateye lights don't bother me much.
I actually find the bokeh kind of special, but I don't know how to put it in words. "3D" is such a worn term. I also don't need to have everything not in focus super-soft and hyper-creamy, to me the Sigma renders a special kind of bokeh. When I was watching the files, I never felt annoyed or noticed something less pleasant. On the contrary, I found it remarkably interesting.
![[Image: _DSC4707-XL.jpg]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Testshots/Sigma-13518/i-5pF9xmc/0/7d9e4de5/XL/_DSC4707-XL.jpg)
f/1.8
On the Canon side of things, there's a cheaper 135/2.0, but lensrentals' Zach Sutton favors the Sigma:
On the Nikon side of things, I have the option to go supercheap Rokinon or opposite of that and pay 1000$ more for a Zeiss. With which I never could have get a sharp picture of the bee.
I actually find the bokeh kind of special, but I don't know how to put it in words. "3D" is such a worn term. I also don't need to have everything not in focus super-soft and hyper-creamy, to me the Sigma renders a special kind of bokeh. When I was watching the files, I never felt annoyed or noticed something less pleasant. On the contrary, I found it remarkably interesting.
f/1.8
On the Canon side of things, there's a cheaper 135/2.0, but lensrentals' Zach Sutton favors the Sigma:
Quote:So is the Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art Series lens good? Yes, absolutely. The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art Series surpassed my expectations, corrected my doubt, and overshot my love for the Canon 135L. The autofocus is fast and incredibly accurate, the images are exceptionally sharp, and the bokeh is incredible. The Sigma 135mm f.1,8 Art Series takes everything I always loved about the Canon 135mm f/2L and surpasses it in every way.
On the Nikon side of things, I have the option to go supercheap Rokinon or opposite of that and pay 1000$ more for a Zeiss. With which I never could have get a sharp picture of the bee.