It must not be confused with the much cheaper SMC Takumar, often deceptively advertised as SMC Pentax Takumar, which has the M42 camera thread, and is plagued with unextinguishable blue chromatic aberration. Samyang 135mm F/2 ED UMC Review (Camera Labs), Does a F/2.0 lens become F/2.8 when used on a crop sensor camera? I just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. etc.. Ron. Im so new to all of this so thank you for your insightful and educational posts. Thanks & Cheers Lior, I have done a lot of reading on modern zoom lenses. The first example is good to show that you can take photos of persons in front of an ugly background without completely ruining the shot (important for people shooting events), the last one is the only one I really like (because of the color) but you could shoot this with any lens with short MFD. Sure, not all 135mm lenses are lightweightSigma's new 135mm F1.8 is rather heavy at 1130gbut if you look at the Samyang 135mm F2, which is pretty much flawless optically, it weighs only 830g. Released only weeks apart, the Sony 50mm F1.4 GM and Sigma F1.4 DG DN Art are clear competitors. 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. This creates an effective focal length of roughly 200mm, a useful magnification for a wide variety of astro-imaging scenarios. The extremes are 2 and 22. Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. I got this lens because of portraiture. As it is it is earns a 9. Available Monday. Astrophotography is one of the ultimate tests of lens quality, as long exposure photography of deep-sky objects in space can highlight issues that are hidden during daytime photography. It's a trade off. The interest of a f/1.4 is to be able to be perfect at f/2.8, while a f/1.8 or f/2 might need to be on f/4 to have the same sharpeness and overall IQ.They are not meant to be used wide open, except in rare moments. http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5109, After reading too many long, and arduous threads pertaining to the new Zeiss 135, I felt compelled to share my perspective on the wonderful Canon 135. Pocketable. Many lenses lose their appeal after time, but not this one. I think youll find that this lens is behind some of the most amazing wide-field astrophotography images online! The 135mm F2 lens design is truly special, and in this article (and the video I made), I want to try to convince you as well. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. Prime lenses are typically lighter as they do not need the additional glass and mechanics required to zoom at varying magnifications. Best lenses for astrophotography: 50, 85 and 135mm - DSLR, Mirrorless I know this is a very old article but I was re reading as I mulled over this very point (85/1.4 vs 135/1.8) and I've gotta point out this math is all wrong First off 85->135 is a 1.6x crop and a 1.6x crop will yield 16MP on 42MP bodies (42 / (1.6x1.6) ), ~20MP on the A1, and ~24MP on the A7R IV. 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?? Plus it is harder to attach than other lens hoods. If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. 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. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? The 135 is lighter, but that's its only advantage. It's March, and in America that means it's time to start arguing over which college athletics team is the best at basketball. One is its size and weight, which requires a sturdy support on the telescope. Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? 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. Thanks! (purchased for $900), reviewed December 4th, 2006 The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC. I actually have to walk 1/2 way up the stairs to be able get folk in the frame. "If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. But I sold it and went back to using a 70-200 (alongside a 24-70). 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. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. Perhaps it's not a big thing, but for a L-graded lens this feature should be expected. Beware others critical comments here about how flat these images look, the author has chosen specific topics and viewpoints to highlight f2 with this lens, so see the wow review for what it is please and the negative comments need placing in context. 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. 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? Whereas quality apochromats can be corrected with broad band filters, such as the Astronomik UV/IR cut filter or the CLS-CCD filter, telephoto lenses can not. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. 135mm f2 vs 200 f2.8 primes? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights Or just get a zoom that is 24-200mm and you are covered. Standards have risen in recent years. I've tested some of the old Pentax 6x7 lenses with a friend. With todays huge variety of digital sensors, each with their own characteristics, in-camera and post-processing etc., much depends on the given combination of your photo gear to create a certain effect. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. Overall, spectacular lens. The moment I tried the Samyang 135mm F2 for the first time after purchasing it, I immediately felt that it was a very special lens. Yes, it is about the same as 85mm f/1.4 blur factor is 60mm, while 135mm f/2 blur factor is 67mm. (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 My Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 mounted to a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. Preaching to the choir! Sure, the Nifty 50 is an incredible value (and a LOT cheaper), but the 135mm puts you within range of some of the best astrophotography targets in the night sky. Canon 135 mm is really E X T R A O R D I N A R Y lens. You may need to refocus your subject as the temperature changes throughout the night. I rarely shoot static landscapes or posed, composed images. I just wish this lens had IS for low light and portraits with flash. 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. Focus end stop. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. Instead it means the style of rendering. Focusing a wide open F/2 lens is demanding of the optics, especially on a field of stars in the night sky. The 135 L handles this well. I mount it on my APS-C camera and the focal length literally becomes 216 mm, which is too tight. $449.00. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). As soon as e.g. My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. After several years off, the venerable magazine has held a public open call photo contest and selected nine finalists and one winning image for its 'Photos of the Year.'. Manually focusing a lens for astrophotography is nothing new, but the manual aperture ring adjustments may feel a little strange at first. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. (AVX). It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. That means that it doesnt require a robust equatorial telescope mount as a larger, heavier telephoto lens would. (Actually if I can live with the DoF I prefer it to my 85/1.2 too, as there is much less bonus colour.) Selecting between it and the 200mm Takumar was not an easy choice but, in the end, I chose the Takumar because it seemed to have slightly better contrast. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be to add IS. So I feel I'm being cheated. 135 mm. To see even more example photos using the Rokinon 135mm lens (or Samyang branded version), go ahead a perform a search on Astrobin or Flickr, with the appropriate filter. Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. Nothing just makes sense about the review -- the writer does not really understand the lens he is reviewing, very basic concepts are wrong. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. Everyone should have one? Large focus ring. So I sold it for nearly what I bought it for and chalked it up to a learning experience. Do you have a link to Yuri's photo stream? As a complete beginner in Astrophotography should I buy Rokinon 135mm lens or Canon EF 75-300mm lens with Canon EF 50mm lens? My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! If you want autofocus and great value for money, buy the Canon 135mm, as it has almost the image quality of the Samyang, and you can get it for under $1,000 new. It can isolate subject while being tack sharp with beautiful creamy bokeh when used at f2. Rokinon 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens (Canon EF) - B&H Photo Available 03/21/23. In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report. Also Nikon DC 135mm f/2 is a great lens, a little better than 135mm Canon Samyang should definitely make 135 f2 with the same optical formula and AF for Sony EFF and also Nikon F plus Canon EF mount if possible. Must have if you're serious about portraits. A coupe of stage shows, one very recent, and a random collection using this lens exclusively As the reader reviews below testify, this is an absolutely stellar lens, probably one of the sharpest and most distortion-free that Canon makes. I got many great shots from this lens but also missed ton of shots due manual focus only. Best Canon Lens for Astrophotography [Top 8 Reviewed] A series of such images can be digitally stacked to produce excellent results. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 Aside from being much more affordable, telephoto lenses are easier to transport, easier to mount and easier to guide, and are much more likely to produce encouraging results to a beginner. Also, the lens can only be operated when aperture is set to 22, wondering how I could use F2. Does this work well with any of the 1.4x / 1.7x / 2.0x Teleconverters (extenders / barlows)? Check out some of the photos he took. Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. 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. This lens is simply lighter, cheaper & faster (f/2.0 vs f/2.8). 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. Manual focus on wide angle lens, for landscapes, ok, if you have a reliable manual focus system, which Samyang, at least in my mount, does not have. A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price). Stick to Andromeda, and skip the Whirlpool. Well, after lugging that lens around for years, I'm experimenting with adding the 135L back to my kit. Round one of polls are now open, pick your winners and share your voice. When stopped down to 37mm, F5.4, it is almost identical to the Takumar except that on highly enlarged images it shows a hint of coma in the distant corners. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. Super sharp from f2. He has quite a breadth photos many of which are quite good. And as this article clearly shows, no amount of blurr will make a poorly composed photo good. Seems like a great lens. 6 Reasons I Love the Canon 135mm f/2 Lens - YouTube Yes, she's isolated. Far from being a generic run-of-the-mill image hosting website, it was created and is still operated by an astrophotographer, and boasts features that are very specific to astrophotography. If they could make 135 f2 lighter version with AF for Sony and price is slightly under Sigma 135 /1.8 and obviously Batis 135 2.8 it could sell like hotcakes. Yep the speed wars in the 70's that gave us all these bokeh monsters were all about the fact that its hard to get usable images in poor lighting when your film was stuck at iso 80 (or even 400 when you were pushing it). The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens from Samyang is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and most telephoto applications. So there - it is not a perfect object. If you can tolerate vignetting, there are many normal 35mm lenses that are great wide open. The aperture ring is marked with each f-stop, and you need to manually click through F/2 F/22 and watch the blades do their work. Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. I have been following your work both on YT and here from Japan for a while. Any good ones apart from the Big Boys. This has several advantages from less demanding tracking accuracy, to being able to use a lower ISO setting. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. The 70-200 f2.8 L2 and he 400f5.6 will however set you back way more than $1.100. A camera tracker (or star tracker) is necessary for long exposure deep-sky astrophotography, but a compact model such as the iOptron SkyTracker or Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer will do just fine. 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). When stopped down to 49mm it really is indistinguishable from an APO, except it shows red chromatic aberration with modified cameras even with the UV/IR block or CLS-CCD filter. This lens is available on Amazon for most camera bodies. Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. Thats quite a jump from 135mm, so the camera body you use with this lens may change the types of targets you shoot. You might never need another lens in the overlapping range at 135mm there isn't much difference between the separation afforded by f/2 vs f/2.8, and the latest 70-200s are plenty sharp. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. 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. By far the best one is the Tiffen Haze 2 filter. My Rokinon 135F2 on my crop body is fun to play with.. a budget lens with budget construction on a discontinued camera system.. but hey im just a ham and egger https://flic.kr/p/21nj82V, I had a Canon 135/2 for a while, but I decided I preferred the 100 L used not as a Macro but a normal lens (which my non-L USM 100 Macro was quite poor for). What's it got and what's it like to use? But will live with it as it provides good protection of the front element. I will say that at F/4 this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner when used on my 60Da. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Sharp but smooth at the same time. (For Nikon users there's the new 105mm too.). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. I recommend the author change the title of his article from "The Best Telephoto Lenses." to "Some Inexpensive Telephoto Lenses I Have Tested" The original title generates a claim and expectation in the reader that his article can't support that leads to reader frustration and just more questions; why didn't you test this one or do this etc. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". I am not really looking at buying anything else, though. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. IQ will rival any other lens. Thanks.. But ppl should know there is much better advice in the forums. And in their task to get that blurry background, they most often throw their main subject out of focus and/or to focus for anything else in the photograph that would make it, and end results are just "gear porn". It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. Some real life images from my photoblog: http://hellabella.de, One of the best and sharpest lens around. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. A lot of lenses today are better than anything money could buy in 1980.