sigma 135mm 1.4 vs sony 135mm 1.8
two systems, one sensor
sony a7r5, LEICA SL3
a real-world comparison from palma
why this comparison?
i shoot portraits in palma – on the street, in the studio, everywhere in between. this comparison grew out of that practice.
sony a7r v with the 135mm f/1.8 gm versus leica sl3 with the sigma 135mm f/1.4. two systems that are often compared – but rarely under real working conditions. there are enough lab tests out there. what i want to know: how do these systems feel in actual work?
both cameras share the same 61-megapixel sensor. in theory, the results should be similar. but anyone who's been shooting for a while knows: a camera is more than its sensor.
the sigma 135mm f/1.4 dg hsm art is brand new – released in the second half of 2025. this is one of the first real-world tests of this lens in a direct comparison with the established sony gm.
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4
sony a7r v + 135mm gm | f/1.8
transparency
both cameras and both lenses are mine. no sponsored content, no loaners, no lab test. just an honest comparison from my daily work.
all photos are available as unedited jpgs at full resolution for download. no presets, no profiles, no retouching. what you see, you can verify yourself.
i'm not crowning a winner. i'm showing how these systems differ.
the systems at a glance
sony a7r v + sony fe 135mm f/1.8 gm
61 mp, 693 phase-af points, ai subject recognition
minimum focus distance: 70 cm
system weight: ~1,673 g
lens price: ~$1,899
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4 dg hsm art
61 mp (identical sensor), contrast af + dfd
minimum focus distance: 87.5 cm
system weight: ~1,980 g
lens price: ~$1,899
almost 300 grams difference. sounds like nothing. it's not.
minimum focus distance: the underrated factor
most people look at aperture. f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 – the sigma wins, right?
not so fast.
why minimum focus distance matters
depth of field doesn't just depend on aperture. it also depends on how close you can get to your subject. the simplified formula:
depth of field ≈ (focus distance² × f-number) / (focal length² × circle of confusion)
this means: the closer you focus, the shallower your depth of field – regardless of aperture.
the numbers
lensminimum focus distancemax aperturesony 135mm gm70 cmf/1.8sigma 135mm f/1.487.5 cmf/1.4
the sony can focus 17.5 cm closer. that's a massive difference.
what this means in practice
example: tight headshot
for a headshot at minimum distance:
sony at 70cm, f/1.8: extremely shallow depth of field, only the focused eye is sharp
sigma at 87.5cm, f/1.4: has to stand further back, resulting in more depth of field despite f/1.4
the paradox: the sony at f/1.8 can achieve shallower depth of field than the sigma at f/1.4 for close-ups – because it can get closer.
example: half-body portrait at 2 meters
here the sigma plays to its strength. at greater distances, aperture dominates, and f/1.4 wins.
my takeaway on minimum focus distance
for tight portraits, facial details, intimate shots: the sony has a real advantage here. for classic portrait distances from 1.5m: the sigma delivers more subject separation.
test 1: portrait with continuous light
why no flash?
i often work with a single light source in relatively dark rooms. exactly the situations where autofocus struggles. using flash would have been unfair to the leica – the sl3's af gets noticeably weaker in low light. so: continuous light.
my setup
nanlite forza 150 as the only artificial light source
open window for side light and as a backlight source
tripod, same position, same exposure
both cameras with eye-af
both at their specific maximum aperture (f/1.4 and f/1.8)
sony a7r v + 135mm gm | f/1.8
sony 135mm gm:
the autofocus nails it. every time. the eye recognition on the a7r v is eerily precise – even at f/1.8 with paper-thin depth of field.
the rendering is contrasty but not overly clean. the bokeh is beautiful, the fall-off pleasant.
i captured both cameras with auto white balance.
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4
sigma 135mm f/1.4:
the bokeh is fantastic. organic, with a fall-off that's almost imperceptible. i can see why some call it the "bokeh master."
the microcontrast feels more skin-friendly to me. the sigma has something dreamy, almost analog. it also has a hint more "micro pop" – depth without harshness.
obviously both cameras have their own color tint. easily to fix in post, but for such great devices it´s a bit disappointing, isn´t it?
on sharpness and character
both lenses are very sharp. but in different ways.
my impression: the sigma seems slightly sharper at f/1.4 than the sony at f/1.8. but without test charts, that's hard to verify.
compared to other lenses
the sony 85mm gm ii and leica apo-summicrons render a bit "crispier" in the focus plane – snappier, with more bite. those are fantastic lenses, no question. but for portraits, i find the character of both 135s more pleasing.
both 135mm lenses remind me of the fuji gf 110mm f/2 on the gfx 100 ii – my other favorite setup for studio portraits. interestingly, the weight is almost identical: the gfx 100 ii (1,030g) with the gf 110mm f/2 (1,010g) comes to ~2,040g. the leica + sigma setup: ~1,980g. both in the same league – optically and physically.
the half stop difference
f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 – sounds like nothing. but for close-up portraits, i notice the difference clearly. the focus plane on the sigma is noticeably thinner. skin areas that are still sharp on the sony are already in blur on the sigma.
if you want maximum subject separation and have the distance: sigma.
backlight
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4
sony a7r v + 135mm gm
harsh backlight from window. barely any flares, good contrast – the sigma handles it confidently.
same backlight situation. also clean contrasts, controlled flares.
both lenses handled backlight very well. barely any flares, good contrast. no clear winner here.
test 2: street photography in palma
here, nothing from the studio matters anymore. here, it's about how much i trust the system.
street with 135mm doesn't forgive mistakes. focus has to be spot on.
the situation
palma in winter light. harsh shadows, bright surfaces, people in motion. camera on shoulder, reacting to what comes. both with eye-af, both wide open.
sony a7r v + 135mm gm
the hard numbers
not a small difference. with the leica, 3-5 out of 10 shots are out of focus. in street photography, where the moment doesn't come back, that matters.
the sl3's af – despite firmware 4.0 – is significantly weaker than the sony's. surprised me, that the difference is so strong!
sony
the sony plays to its strengths here. the af tracks faces through the crowd, reacts in split seconds, almost never loses the subject. i focus on the moment. the technology disappears.
leica + sigma
a different experience. the sl3 is slower – not subtly, but noticeably. i anticipate more, work more proactively. it forces a different way of shooting.
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4
the sigma at f/1.4 in harsh light is impressive. the images feel more distinctive – dreamier. but i get fewer chances per moment.
the weight
after a full day of street in palma: the sigma's weight bothers me 7-8 out of 10. it's manageable, but it makes itself known.
the funny thing: afterwards, the sony suddenly feels "light." which it really isn't with the gm attached.
street details
hotel cappuccino, palma. street photography is waiting for the right moment – with the leica i had less room for attempts.
leica sl3 + sigma 135mm f/1.4
sony a7r v + 135mm gm
the old man steps from shadow into light. with the sony's fast af, i could capture multiple variations.
my conclusion
if i could only keep one: sony.
the sony is more versatile, more reliable across more situations, and significantly more portable. the af is in another league. and the shorter minimum focus distance gives me even more subject separation for tight portraits than the faster sigma.
but i would miss the sigma on the leica. the dreamy look. the organic bokeh. the character.
the sigma is a specialist. a beautiful specialist. but a specialist for controlled situations – studio, planned portraits, moments where i have time.
for street, for events, for anything that needs to be fast: sony. no question.
you want to see more images i captured with both lenses? check out my flickr albums
a note on leica looks
the sl3 has beautiful built-in looks – "greg williams" is my favorite for portraits. but leica doesn't save these profiles in raw files. the looks only "bake" jpgs.
i find that absurd. if you want the flexibility of raw, you have to recreate the look in lightroom. that's exactly what i did. download it here for free:
DOWNLOAD PRESET FOR FREE
wANT TO CHECK OUT THE RAW?
want to compare the raw files yourself? register for my newsletter, stay tuned and i will mail you a link to the raw files!
what others write
for comparison, a few voices from other reviews:
on the sony 135mm gm:
"the sony fe 135mm f1.8 g master lens is one of the best lenses i have used. full stop. the combination of great autofocus, amazing sharpness (even at f1.8), and lovely bokeh makes this a tremendous tool."
— dustin abbott
on the sigma 135mm f/1.4:
"i honestly cannot find any flaw with the bokeh rendering of this sigma 135mm 1.4 dg art."
— phillip reeve
"the sigma 135mm f/1.4's only limitation is size and weight. if you can live with that, it's the undisputed king of the 135mm prime hill."
— petapixel
on the leica sl3 af:
"the sl3's autofocus hunts a bit – not too much but definitely more than i'd like."
— dpreview
on sharpness comparison:
"the sigma delivers equally sharp and more contrasty images at f/1.4 than the sony can at f/1.8."
— the digital picture
