The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens from Samyang is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and most telephoto applications. Photography is full of fuzzy concepts. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. I do know, however, that I can take an equally framed photo I've shot with my Canon kit lens, both zoomed to 100% I run circles around this guy. Zeiss Jena or Oberkochen? You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! And yet this review is on front page of DPReview prompting me to go and buy this lens -- so surely it must be a professional , well grounded review, right? There have been a lot of Tele-Tessars over the years. I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? IS would also help outside with wind. The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. The lenses I selected are all affordable prime lenses, easily available on the second-hand market, and adaptable to the EOS system. As you'd expect from a premium prime lens, both maximum and average chromatic aberration is very low across the aperture range, with the maximum CA on the order of 0.02% of frame height regardless of aperture. lol, nice images, and i nearly bought this lens myself a few years ago. Still, all things considered, I prize this lens very highly and can not imagine giving it up. http://www.idyll.com/135. When stopped down to 37mm, at F5.4, it also produces perfect, small and round star images across the entire field. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. Large focus ring. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. I rarely shoot static landscapes or posed, composed images. If you buy a nifty fifty or a 100mm macro lens you simply cannot go wrongyou will get a great and handy lens for your money, with great image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. (purchased for $700), reviewed June 13th, 2009 Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. Most of the available 135mm F2 lenses have a very short minimum focusing distance in relation to the focal length, creating a magnification ratio of around 0.2 - 0.25. Which Canon EOS M Would be Best for Astrophotography? We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! When I got home and loaded the photo into Lightroom I was blown away by two things. Although this lens feels solid, it is rather light when compared to a telescope. Pocketable. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. I already did some trials with the Samyang 12mm lens. What is it like shooting with one today? My copy has very stiff manual focus though and is quite heavy. Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Review - Imaging Resource My only complaint about this lens is that the depth of the lens shade forces me to remove the shade in order to remove or replace the lens cap (my hands are fairly large). Image quality, weight and value for money. Asahi Optical's Pentax KX was one of the first cameras with this lens mount, acting as a midrange model in the lineup. Let's the games begin! Thomas, I do have no experience with the Canon lens you mentioned but zoom lenses have limitations concerning aberrations while providing more flexibility.The Nikkor 70-200/4 that I like as a travel lens is a very good performer but the Zeiss 135/2 APO is in a different league. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. Very sharp even at f2, build quality, price, weight, autofocus is fast, bokeh, No IS, flare, autofocus isn't quite as consistent as some newer lenses, focus speed, image quality, predictability, Image quality, build like a tank, focus ring, weight. The Japanese word "bokeh" can be translated into English as "blur". If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! Now i have the f2.8 version, and while the resolution is better it s under no circumstance as good as the f/4 one. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). You may need to refocus your subject as the temperature changes throughout the night. MCovington, my Zeiss 300/4 is the full thickness barrel version, made in West Germany, serial number 5990836. - in my subjects' skin. USM works so quickly and accurately, it puts my 24-70/f2.8L to shame. When I was on my way home after purchasing my first 135mm lens (the Samyang/Rokinon one) I took a few quick snapshots just to try out the lens. With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. Im so new to all of this so thank you for your insightful and educational posts. At around $900 US very good price for quality no IS. Then you should have tried the 180mm nikkor ED, the old one, which is the favorite tool of a lot of astrophotographers. This is perhaps because I'm more of a zoom guy (I have the trio of Canon f2.8 L zoom lenses, with coverage from 16mm to 200mm), and I didn't see that big a difference between my 70-200 f2.8 and my 135 f2except I could cover a lot more with my zoom than I could with a prime. The image below highlights the creative freedom this lens provides. This lens is simply lighter, cheaper & faster (f/2.0 vs f/2.8). Geometric distortion is lower than one would expect, at 0.15% pincushion maximum, with an average of 0.07%. Besides, adding IS would mean adding extra elements and that would very likely reduce the image quality. It can isolate subject while being tack sharp with beautiful creamy bokeh when used at f2. The foolproof image seems to be more a case of how a bright fuzzy cluttered moving background can completely detach from the offset dark subject matter and overwhelm it. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Read on to find out which you should be using and why! I had of course heard that this lens is supposed to be very sharp, but I had never before had such a full blown "wow" experience when reviewing the sharpness of a lens. Most of these APOs have F ratios around 6.5, and are unable to comprehend in their field of view large celestial objects such as the Andromeda galaxy, the North America nebula, and comets. Yeah I agree that the sentiment that they were designed to be used stopped down is wrong as they were designed to be used wide open because they had to be for speed (my point above). Check out some of the photos he took. What's it got and what's it like to use? Do you have a link to Yuri's photo stream? This makes me feel I shall take the Zeiss 85F1.8 off my A6000 or maybe NOT, it's just another hype article about "A" lens. Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. In an effort to save money, Id like to start using a Canon 80D that we already own to start picking targets and imaging. So, for Joe User or especially for Jane Client, one really has to look closely to see much of a difference. Bond, I expect you to buy! Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. Don't know what the young man uses as his camera, and if he has tried to keep the noise under control, or even tried to focus on the eyes of the mallard, or the cat (their eyes are not truly in focus). This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. f1.4 was a necessisty rather than a creative luxury. Now I have only the Nikon but I can try to take a photo of the same subject fully open It's Film Friday, so let's take a look back at the film format that gave APS-C sensors their name! Several functions may not work. The combination of a wide aperture and very little light lost in transmission makes very high shutter speeds possible. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. Most small refracting telescopes start in the 300 to 400 mm focal length range, and even these are classed as widefield telescopes. The shallow depth of field present at its maximum aperture does indeed create a pleasing bokeh. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! I just purchased a very lightly used Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM for $620 from a great online dealer and can't wait for an opportunity to try it out with my Astronomik CLS clip on a T4i at a dark site. 21P Giacobini Zinner NGC1499 California Barnard 8 Cr399 Coathanger North America and Pelican Veil nebula HORGB M11 cluster area Here's what I see from the photographs:#1: Woman in traffic. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. What you need to know is the author is a hobbyist and hands his images over to px500, the bottom of the barrel so of course he is impressed, he doesnt use top flight gear day in, day out to earn his pay. Especially for beginning astrophotographers, who should first invest most of their finances into a good telescope mount, telephoto lenses are an excellent and affordable solution. The focuser adjustment ring on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 is excellent, but fine-tuning your critical focus on a bright star at F/2 will take some trial and error to get right. My first shot was a section of the constellation Sagittarius that included the Lagoon Nebula, and Trifid Nebula. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. I've tested some of the old Pentax 6x7 lenses with a friend. I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". its useful to keep in mind these bokeh circles are the result of light sources bright lamps from autos Christmas lights streetlamps etc and are seriously overused in articles on lenses with strong subject\ backround seperations, they approach parody in the way they characterise subject separation, for most purposes and in most portrait situations its less highlight dominant backrounds that grace a photo. Large emission nebulae like the California Nebula (pictured below) are a great choice for this focal length. Its nice to have the F/2. The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. i also have the 300mm f4.5 non ED nikkor which is quite nice . From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. OTOH you can now get a 70-180 f2.8 zoom that weights virtually the same and is only a tiny bit longer (Tamron's on E mount, like 20mm longer than the AF SY or most other modern 135s), and there's lighter than ever 85/1.4s (eg Sigma's DN for L/E mount) that can achieve a very similar look while coming in at 600g, tho at an even higher price. Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2 for Astrophotography: Review & Imaging Tests But the Rokinon f/2 version fits into a different market. So.. its like there is one F stop not being used by the lens..how do you know what click is for what F stop?? 645 lenses such as the mamiya apo line and pentax edif can operate within these conditions without vignetting on apsc sensors. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. At $900 US it a relative steal. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. For comparison, no other lens I know of would earn more than 8/10. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. How's that for an endorsement? A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. My questions, for deep sky pics, should I get the 135mm lens or the RedCat 51 APO 250mm f/4.9 which you mentioned here as well? It also focuses really fast and accurate and is light. I bought a Fotasy Minolta MD->EOSM adapter off ebay for $11, and then for about $20 each on craigs list really sharp, well built Minolta MC 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.8 lenses that turned out to be great for astrophotography. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED UMC Telephoto Lens Will this ever get old? Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. I seems many people he are confused about the meaning of the word. I love the lens for my modified Sony a6000! It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. I therefore reduce the aperture at the front end of the lens (as an aperture stop) by screwing in a series of step-down rings into the filter thread. The inset picture is a magnified view of the bottom right corner of the frame. My work requires auto-focus. With an effective focal length of roughly 216mm when coupled with a Canon crop sensor body, the field of view is nearly identical to the one youd find on a full-frame camera with a 200mm telephoto lens. As if absolutely clueless Youtube instructors who have no idea what they are talking about weren't enough. I was very happy for this reason to eventually get a full frame DSLR in 2007 and sell the 85mm lens and buy a 105mm one to replace it. The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. LENSES FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY: Samyang 135mm f2 REVIEW - YouTube Jordan's twin brother Gordon is back to review the cinema-focused Canon EOS R5 C! The flat lens hood design allows you to easily take flat frames with the Rokinon 135mm using the white t-shirt method or using a flat panel. It improves slightly stopped down. The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. You will get perfectly round star images if you use an aperture stop in front of the lens made of a series of filter thread step-down rings. Lots of wet blankets around here. I would love to see his test images. I have compared many times my 135/2 against my 100/2.8 and there is a big difference. IQ will rival any other lens. It has just a hint of chromatic aberration on very bright stars and, if highly enlarged by 400-800%, the stars in the very corners barely begin to show a touch of astigmatism. And you can even crop a 135 efl with today's sensors should you actually need it. Wonderful image quality, lots of detail, contrasty, subject separation, fast and accurate AF, bright viewfinder, solid construction, unobtrusive in use, No weather sealing, makes all my other lenses look poor (even the 'L' zooms that, when I first got them, imagined could hardly be improved on). Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. BirdDog P240 40X NDI PTZ Camera. With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. I found this highly restrictive for shooting indoors where there was seldom enough distance between me with my camera and my subject(s). Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? F2 allows higher shutter speeds in lower light without raising the ISO. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. But you couldn't have because you don't know even as much as this guy. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. Required fields are marked *. It is a parade of photos that should have been galled out after a boring Sunday afternoon shoot of "Think I'll bring along a camera when I walk the dog", There are so many things wrong in this 'review' -- most of all the idea that 'you' should get this lens and somehow it magically makes the duck or the cat stuck right in the center of picture a great photo! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Because it manage to do so. Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? Barney and Chris have been shooting the new Sony 50mm F1.4 GM, and we have a bunch of full resolution samples for you to peruse. Perhaps I missed it, but did you use a clip-in light pollution filter with your 60D and this lens? The Rokinon 135mm F/2 was Built for Astrophotography Also type the lens you are interested in into the search window on Astrobin to see examples shot with that lens. There's just nothing there. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. Do you expect me to gawk? But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. One is the price, which starts around $800 for the smallest units, and rapidly climbs into thousands of dollars for larger apertures. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. Micael Widell is a photography enthusiast based in Stockholm, Sweden. In fact, it might be fun to try! But I would argue that a 135mm F2 lens produces even greater bokeh, thanks to the long focal length that compresses the background far more than the 85mm lens. I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. RATING. For portraits and with a high MP body I'd be more inclined than ever to just go 85mm, and for other uses it's hard to pass up the zooms' versatility, but I still there's still room for 135s in some kits and some formats. No more inside shooting with flash! Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. Fantastic IQ & Bokeh. Really, just an amazing lens, easily worth the $800-900 it commands on the street. To prevent damage to the lens finish, apply nylon acorn nuts (or cap nuts) to the tips of the retaining ring's three alignment screws. No, Mr. I think youll find that this lens is behind some of the most amazing wide-field astrophotography images online! I hear great things about the Canon 200/2.8 L but do not have one. Best lenses for astrophotography: 50, 85 and 135mm - DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging - Cloudy Nights Cloudy Nights Astrophotography and Sketching DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Thats quite a jump from 135mm, so the camera body you use with this lens may change the types of targets you shoot. Canon 135mm is a great lens. The best ones listed below serve well with a one stop reduction, and some require two or even three stops. I cant wait to try this lens out during the winter months on some wide-field targets in Orion. Add To Cart. Light weight and robust. My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. I've owned a few L lenses and while their USM motors have always been quick to snap in focus, this 135mm is on a different level. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . But like a glitch in the matrix, an anomaly that shouldn't exist, you can get the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm for as little as $430 brand new. In the right hands this lens really does have "magic pixie dust", as a friend once described. Perhaps you have seen the photos of masterful Russian portrait photographers such as Elena Shumilova or Anka Zhuravleva. Bye From my purchase research, I found a consensus that stopping down optimizes sharpness but the diaphragm will make nine diffraction spikes when stopped down. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Telephoto Lens for Canon EF Digital SLR Cameras Colour and contrast is great. Nothing just makes sense about the review -- the writer does not really understand the lens he is reviewing, very basic concepts are wrong. To me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. In this review, however, I am using the lens on a crop sensor (APS-C) Canon EOS 60Da, which puts the field of view at 12.4 degrees. We revisit a classic DPReviewTV episode in which Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake shoot a few rolls of Fujifilm's Acros 100 II, and a few frames on the X-T3 in Acros film simulation, to find out. Could use a few updates. Generally, prime lenses have a reputation for being slightly sharper, and I have found that to be true whether I am shooting a nebula or a Scarlet Tanager. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. Of course headline central sharpness is great, that is what grabs headlines, always shot at f2: any 135mm lens is going to give similar results. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. I agree to some extent with many of the critics of the article and disagree with much of its content, but I also have respect for the the author's right to express those opinions. (Actually if I can live with the DoF I prefer it to my 85/1.2 too, as there is much less bonus colour.) The size (3.2 x 4.4"/82.5 x 112mm) and weight (1.7 lb/750g) (and color) of this lens are not imposing - you probably won't get much attent Unfortunately, standard photography lenses are generally poorly corrected for CA at the red end of the spectrum, relying on the human eye's poorer resolution in red than green or blue. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. Even if I wanted a 135mm lens (and the 70-200mm f/2.8 is more versatile) it would be the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens. Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Some APOs can be fitted with pricey telecompressors, but those invariably result in vignetting and coma. I mainly use for head shot photography. I've recently started using 135 and 200mm lenses from the 1970s with my mono CCD and they've proven very useful for imaging large emission nebulae. Begun in 1975, the Pentax K-mount legacy continues to this day. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? I have the Canon 135 f/2 and loved it from day one. The lens hood is removable (and reversible), which makes packing the Rokinon 135mm away into the included lens pouch possible. Heh, it's amazing how far Samyang has come since this article (I'm loving their 45 & 75 f1.8), and kinda amusing that they ended up delivering exactly what you asked for Kinda reminds me of that article by Roger Cicala about how long lens development takes. Also, when shooting the heart nebula, is the sky tracker a must or not required? Does the bright star reflection bother you? FULL FRAME TELEPHOTO 135mm F2.0 The screws should be set sufficiently tightly to prevent shift, yet not so tightly as to interfere with fine focusing. Without the blurb I would have taken it as a 24 hour news studio shot with back projection or a cut and paste layer.The other stuff is really nice though. The spec sheet for the Rokinon 135mm F/2 boasts a number of qualities, with the ones listed below being the most important when it comes to night photography and astro. We take OM System's new 90mm prime F3.5 macro lens out and about around Seattle, in search of sunlight, people and very tiny things to get up close and personal with. Will I be able to capture the heart nebula with the lens youre talking about or would I need to modify my camera as well? I ordered this lens on Amazon, utilizing my Amazon Prime membership. The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Canon EF Mount from Rokinon is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and all medium telephoto applications. Aperture ring. Thanks to you I got a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 and a 24mm f 1.4 and am considering this lens at the moment, but wonder how it compares to the Canon 135 mm f/2. Of the old teles I've had, Nikon's 400mm f/3.5 was decent, Olympus's 300mm f/4.5 was good (it had a precursor to ED glass) Pentax's 300mm Takumar was TERRIBLE, Pentax's 500mm was terrible, Nikon's 135 f/2.8 Q was ok, and Sigma's 400mm f/5.6 "apo" was satisfactory. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. I disagree. (AVX). It is so sharp it makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. Canon 135mm F2.8 SF for astrophotography? - Stargazers Lounge This way the focus will favor the red light which is more objectionable within a star image than a bit of blue. With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. I bought it for its bokeh. So I feel I'm being cheated. Well, if you consider downloading a lens image from https://www.bhphotovideo.com, and photoshop it on top of my photos to cover mistakes, and demonstrate sharpness of a lens with a jpeg that is way oversharpened; if you call knowledge that "the long focal length compresses the background" , If you call blurr a bokeh just because it sounds better, and so on 1000 words would not be enough to point out what a mess this review is Then you are right, I absolutely do not know as much as he does. Rokinon lenses are made in Korea, and so is the Samyang variation. AF ring feels loose compared to my other L lenses. It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. canon 135mm f2 astrophotography - fullpackcanva.com The duck and cat are really the only good shots. Are you really using 135 a lot? At the other end of the aperture range though, the 5D's larger pixels actually help matters, as the softening starts later (it's very sharp even at f/16), and is noticeably lower at f/32. These were just a tad less sharp at the corners than their Canon competition, but certainly extremely sharp all over the field if closed down one stop or even half a stop. Optics quality, sharp,very special picture, sharpness, clarity, weight, fast, accurate AF (fringe benefit of f/2), price, no IS, makes you regret buying any zoom lenses, compact, very sharp wide open, good color contrast, bokeh, this is the lens. Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. Personally, I can't stand these circles, and I see them as VERY distracting.Lots of fads come and go, and this is just another one of these fads that some photographers are obsessed with. The Rokinon 135mm F2.0 is considered to be a full-frame lens because it can accommodate a full-frame image sensor with its 18.8-degree angle of view. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. I got mine for $60.00 on Craigslist but seen them on eBay for $100 and less all the time. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. - posted in Beginning Deep Sky Imaging: I have recently received my star adventurer and as of now only have the star adventurer, benro tripod (super stable), and a unmodded canon t2i with only a 18-55mm lens.
Sandwell Bulky Waste Collection Phone Number,
Representation Of King Hrothgar In The Present Society,
Picrew Animal Maker,
Abbeville Funeral Home,
Vatican Underground Tunnels,
Articles C
