The 135mm focal length is one of my favorite portrait ranges due to its compressed rendering of people’s faces, as well as lending itself to stunningly dramatic full-body environmental portraits. Last year saw the release of two new 135mm lenses, one each from Canon and Nikon. Take into account the venerable Sony 135mm G Master and you have all three of the major full-frame mirrorless companies now offering a 135mm f/1.8 lens.
Now, there will rarely be a situation where someone is deciding between a Canon Sony or Nikon lens. And as a reviewer of lenses, I would not normally compare different brands against each other for this very reason. However, once in a while, it’s fun to see how each manufacturer’s offerings compare to one another. So I put each of the 135mm lenses through some tests to see which one is the king of the portrait lenses.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Our Contenders
The Sony G Master 135mm f/1.8 has been out for a few years but at its time of release, it was state-of-the-art (and it’s still great). Its rugged construction and fast linear focusing motors make it a joy to use. It sits in the middle of the pack weight-wise at 950 grams and it has an aperture ring and custom function buttons.
The Canon 135mm f/1.8 L is the lightest of the group at 935 grams and is handsome in its classic red-striped L series finish. The focusing is fast and the Canon has customizable buttons. Like all L series lenses, it is beautifully made and fully weather sealed.
The Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 Plena is noticeably larger than the rest and is the heaviest at 995 grams. Like the other two competitors, the Nikon is fast-focusing, has excellent controls, and is built to a pro standard. It is worth noting that it costs roughly 200 dollars more than the Sony and Canon.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Loca
LoCA, or longitudinal chromatic aberration, is the appearance of color casts in the out-of-focus areas of an image. This particular aberration is very difficult to remove in post and is something most faster telephotos will exhibit. First, the Sony GM did have some noticeable LoCA, with a distinct magenta tone to the background and a cyan tone to the foreground. It wasn’t a strong amount of LoCA, but it is an undesirable trait for sure. Both the Canon and Nikon suffered absolutely no visible LoCA to speak of. A 135mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture will often show much of the image out of focus, so the less LoCA, the better.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Flare
Both the Sony and the Nikon were quite resistant to flare, with minimal loss of contrast when shooting towards bright light sources. Ghosting was also well controlled and both lenses had almost none to speak of wide open, with only a little bit of a green flare when stopped down. Considering that these lenses will most often be shot at the widest aperture anyway, I consider this a nonissue.
The Canon is the standout out here, but not in a good way. It clearly showed the most flare and the image tended to wash out easily towards bright sources of light. So much so, that I double-checked to make sure the front element was clean. When stopped down it also showed multiple ghosts opposite the light source. In some situations, flare isn’t a bad thing visually, especially when shooting backlit portraits. The soft look and sun glow effect can create characterful portraits, but I would still prefer a well-corrected lens.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Sharpness
Because these three lenses will often be shot at f/1.8, sharpness is important right from the beginning. All three lenses deliver excellent detail at f/1.8, however, the Sony showed the least amount of contrast, and the Canon seemed to be the sharpest. It’s important to note that the differences are incredibly minor. Once all three lenses were stopped down to f/2.8 and f/4 they improved and were basically identical. When looking at the corners specifically, the Sony is still decently sharp and wide-open and the quality improves quite a bit when the aperture gets tighter.
It’s the Nikon that is most consistent from center to corner even at f/1.8. Regardless of where you focus, the Plena is a sharp lens. The Canon struggled with corner sharpness though. At f/1.8, the Canon is noticeably softer towards the corners and unfortunately, even at f/4, the corners aren’t as sharp as its competitors.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Bokeh
135mm lenses are shallow depth of field masters, and how they render out-of-focus areas is very important. Ideally, we want soft and smooth-looking transitions between the subject and the background. We also want to avoid any nervous-looking or distracting out-of-focus looks. I’m happy to report that all three lenses give this silky and pleasing look to any out-of-focus areas. I did want to see what specular highlights look like as well, and a string of Christmas lights did the trick.
The Canon and Sony both have a fair amount of cat’s eye effect when shooting at f/1.8. These football-shaped highlights can often be quite nice when framing a person’s face so I don’t mind the look. The Nikon Plena was the only one to provide soft rounded circles, even wide open, and this translates into a natural-looking image with very soft backgrounds. I’d say the Nikon is the most consistent-looking lens again, but bokeh is a highly subjective preference, to say the least.
The Battle of the 135mm Lenses: Most Expensive, Most Consistent
No matter which brand you own, each respective 135mm lens is a worthwhile purchase. All three of these lenses are sharp, well-corrected, and give shallow depth of field. The Nikon 135mm f/1.8 Plena is the most expensive, and bulkiest of the three, but it is the most optically consistent of the three lenses and exhibits no nasty traits. Regardless, if you don’t yet have one of these lenses for your full-frame mirrorless camera, it’s time to seriously consider rectifying the issue.
