The Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 was the first lens I had ever used like this, and these aspects do not hinder the astrophotography experience whatsoever. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. Samyang 135mm f2, 100mm f2.8, and asperical 16mm f2.8. 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. At 135mm, you can get really creative about the object or objects you shoot and where you position them within the frame. If you must have autofocus, and care about weight, buy the Canon. After the first exposure in M mode, the camera throws an error saying Error please press the shutter button again. I own a 135 since the film days (because you "had to have one" and could not afford much else), still have the zeiss Jena f3.5 M42 and even jumped for the zeiss f2.8 for my yashica when they were sold for next to nothing. parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. I am telling them - don't! 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 Because it's an L-series lens by Canon, you can be sure that the image quality and performance of the 24-105mm meet the demanding aspects of astrophotography such as focus and star quality. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. Bokeh == Visual character of the lens optics to render light and color mixing together. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. My 24-70L needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to begin to match the sharpness of my 135L at f2.0 (the test shots were of the portrait of Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill). Also Nikon DC 135mm f/2 is a great lens, a little better than 135mm Canon Sharpness, contrast and the natural vignetting on full-frame cameras is awesome! Its actually kind of neat to watch! Helps me as a beginner a lot - in my subjects' skin. image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. The optical design includes one extra-low dispersion (ED) lens element to control chromatic aberration, and ultra multi-coatings (UMC) to both improve light transmission and reduce flare. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. I would recommend buying it used if you want to save some money, with the added benefit that you can re-sell it at the same price as you bought it for, effectively giving you the opportunity to "rent it" for free. With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. i also have the 300mm f4.5 non ED nikkor which is quite nice . About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. But you couldn't have because you don't know even as much as this guy. Just like the above samples, most are just bad. Back in 1999, Sony released the F505, their first digital camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. The 135 is lighter, but that's its only advantage. We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! The Legendary Canon 60Da | Astrophotography DSLR (Image Examples) Its nice to have the F/2. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. This is a very practical way to plan your next astrophotography project, and especially handy when using a wide field lens like the Rokinon 135mm F/2. And you can even crop a 135 efl with today's sensors should you actually need it. Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. Amazing for portraits, easily fast enough for indoor sports. SIx months on from buying it this has become my favourite lens ever, beating my previous favourite (Leica's 4th version of the 35mm Summicron for its M-series rangefinders). Not another article that promotes portraits shot with wide open lens and out of focus highlights in the background. #light_bulb I would disagree. No telephoto lens, and no apochromat, is sufficiently corrected to accomodate such a wide spectral range. Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. This is one of my all time favourites. In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. 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. As the reader reviews below testify, this is an absolutely stellar lens, probably one of the sharpest and most distortion-free that Canon makes. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. Aperture ring. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. You're sour grapes man, you wish it were you who wrote the article. I have a vintage Nikon135mm f/2.8 AI-s which produces virtually the same bokeh and weighs a quarter of this or any other 135mm AF lens. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? Canon 135mm F2.8 SF for astrophotography? - Stargazers Lounge People mistake "Bokeh" to blurry background, what is very very common mistake. It is sharp but somehow not that analytic way as a macro lens. 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. Does the bright star reflection bother you? It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. Several days ago another member posted a stunning telephoto image of the Snake Nebula, Barnard 72, taken with a Canon lens which costs $12,000. I read and bought it. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! This is a very popular lens, and I am sure there are a ton of lens test reports for it available online. Its a no brainer if you use this focal length. I need fast auto-focus, predictable focus lock and natural, vibrant color rendition. 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. 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. 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. So I sold it for nearly what I bought it for and chalked it up to a learning experience. One way to combat potential soft images and chasing perfect focus all night is to stop the lens down to F/2.8 or even F/4. As in all arts the client's likes influence the result up to a point. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. Perhaps I missed it, but did you use a clip-in light pollution filter with your 60D and this lens? I know taste is subjective, but it seems to me that some people have become obsessed with blur and bokeh. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. 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! Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 Images that sing. For comparison, no other lens I know of would earn more than 8/10. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. 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. With the high megapixel cameras, most people are going to ideally want to shoot at 1/200 or faster. Pocketable. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. Yes, because it is not f/2. So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: When you shoot a 135mm F2 lens at F2, your subject will stand out in this beautiful way, often without much work needed from you as the photographer. Contrasty but not harsh. My tests on it are described on http://pikespeakphoto.com/tests/canonlens135.html, i have never been a prime lens fan, just seems to leave you feeling trapped in a single dimension. The author's recipe for a good photo is:1) Just shoot blindly, with no regard to what's in the frame, because the lens will blur away everything on the background.2) If (1) does not work, just head on to https://www.bhphotovideo.com, download a jpg of the lens you were using, and photoshop it on top of the taillaits of the passig car that didn't get blurred out enough.3?) Or is there a use case for fitting the Samyang 135mm to a Panasonic gx85 (or Panasonic gh5) ?? It is fantastic on my old 5d. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Canon 135 mm is really E X T R A O R D I N A R Y lens. This lens is available for several camera mounts, including Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, and Fuji. 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. Canon 135mm f/2 L Review - Ken Rockwell If you want the best value possible for your money, and can survive without autofocus, buy the Samyang. Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Review - Imaging Resource The aperture range of this lens is F/2 to F/22, with 9 diaphragm blades (aperture blades) that work in harmony to set your f-stop. Another drawback is the focal length. Anyone use the Samyang 135mm for astrophotography? The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. 1. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. Is it possible to get good results on a Baader filter modifed Canon 450D and a good telephoto lens, or do I need to get a good APO? I am no stranger to the full manual control of this lens, for both aperture and focus. Show some humility and don't troll. You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! 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. Often need f2.2 to f2.8 to gain sufficient DOF for human subjects. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC. But you are talking more than 2x crop (cut half by width and height) and that leaves you to twice smaller resolution == quarter of the Mpix count. Samyang 85mm f1.83. To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. That means that it doesnt require a robust equatorial telescope mount as a larger, heavier telephoto lens would. Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. 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. If you aren't completely set on the 135mm, the 200mm f/2.8L is a fantastic lens and i think its less expensive than the 135mm f/2L. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. Thanks Gary! You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that! (purchased for $1,000), reviewed February 4th, 2010 Great reach for street shots. Im so new to all of this so thank you for your insightful and educational posts. Has a good weight to it. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. Dear Trevor, Can't argue with your reasoning, Juksu, about the framing of the article, but just stopping by to say I really liked that cat picture, am shopping for a new smartphone, struck that this type of photo is in another league - all newbie observations, of course, which sort of supports your thoughts that an article like this would be better framed as a "Love this new long lens stuff" sort of thing. They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. The 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 is another story.While the 135mm f/2, in general, is a good lens, there are lots of lenses other than the 135 f/2 that will produce a very smoothly blurred background, including zoom lenses.It sounds like Micael is new to photography.Just my impression from this article. Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED UMC Telephoto Lens Then you should have tried the 180mm nikkor ED, the old one, which is the favorite tool of a lot of astrophotographers. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. I thought I would miss shooting at 200mm, but 135mm is long enough for most portraits and gives a decent amount of compression. A lot of lenses today are better than anything money could buy in 1980. Rokinon 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens (Canon EF) - B&H Photo This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. (For Nikon users there's the new 105mm too.). The 135mm f2 is by all accounts one of their better and more reliable lenses however I believe the chance of a defective lens is lower with the Canon. 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. What's it got and what's it like to use? There are a total of 8 stops actually written on the lens. Geometric distortion is lower than one would expect, at 0.15% pincushion maximum, with an average of 0.07%. Agreed. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II Plus it is harder to attach than other lens hoods. I actually have to walk 1/2 way up the stairs to be able get folk in the frame. Yes, each can produce different results (And that's why I keep and use several different lenses), but my point is that sharpness or bokeh are not the only factors for portraits -- sometimes it just comes down to convenience or price! 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. Yes, she's isolated. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. There are only a handful of foolproof strategies for making a great photograph. In the past, Ive covered a number of different lenses, from the Sigma 24mm F/1.4 to the Canon EF 300mm F/4L. Because of some residual chromatic aberration even with the aperture stop, the best focus lies not where the star image is the smallest, but rather just slightly away from infinity, at the point where the star image barely begins to enlarge. I rarely shoot static landscapes or posed, composed images. 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. Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC LensCheck Price (Amazon): https://amzn.to/2MOUFeOExample Images: https://astrobackyard.com/rokinon-135mm-f2-astrophotography/I've . Samyang 135 f/2 astrophotography gallery Below some pictures I made using Samyang 135 lens with QHY163 mono camera and iOptron Smart EQ Pro mount. My goal for this article was to show some great example photos and share some ideas for projects this lens is a good fit for. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: An update to the Mini 11, the new camera adds parallax correction capabilities, automatic flash control and a multi-function twist lens. We think it rises to the challenge. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. A single, 90-second exposure using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC at F/4. (purchased for $890), reviewed October 21st, 2005 It is harder work than using a zoom lens, and some shots I just cannot get at all (cannot get close enough, or far enough way) but the shots I do get are so much nicer looking than I get with any other lens that for me and my goals it is a fair trade off. The F/2.0 maximum aperture of the Rokinon 135mm lens offers a chance to collect a serious amount of signal in a single shot. 135mm f2 vs 200 f2.8 primes? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. Also, the newer and much more expensive 200mm F4 SMC Pentax with the K mount is decisively inferior, showing small but annoying red chromatic aberration. If you can afford it buy this lens, you will love it. Really like the large focusing ring. I find 400gm as the tolerable weight limit for a lens on my panasonic gx85, and I am guessing following telephoto lenses would satisfy the itch to get good bokeh shots, 1. The combination of a wide aperture and very little light lost in transmission makes very high shutter speeds possible. There's literally no story!#6: Purple Flower.The isolation works because it's the only color. 135mm and 200mm lenses are suitable for wide angle star-field views, and comet and asteroid hunting, while 300mm lenses serve very well for the Andromeda galaxy, large emission nebulae, open clusters, and even larger globular clusters. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. Well, for me. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. At least not in my camera (Sony A6000), the focal length in a crop sensor does not make it very suitable for portrait, the photo detail is something else, but without AF that type of photography with that focal distance and at least 80 cm of the subject it requires too much dedication, with how comfortable the DMF approach mode is for that type of photography Also in my mount it does not have any communication with the camera (it does not have a chip, it only has it for Nikon). Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price). A lot of us have been saying this for years. What I am trying to avoid is spending another $1,100 on a quality APO, and instead using my existing Nikkor 180mm ED lens with a Baader-modified Canon 450D that I just obtained. I ordered this lens on Amazon, utilizing my Amazon Prime membership. D8XX cameras, subject isolation and quality of bokeh.Zoom lenses can not hold a candle to such primes. Exposure uniformity (vignetting) is also really excellent, reaching a maximum of 1/4 EV (on a camera with an APS-C size sensor) at f/2, and dropping to well under 1/10 EV at f/2.8 and above. The version I have has the mount for Canon EOS camera bodies, but there are several different lens mounts available on Amazon. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC lens. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. When all that was available were APS-C crop cameras a 85mm lens provided a near equivalent view angle to the 135mm on a full frame camera. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. If you own an EOS Camera - It's a no Brainer, Buy one Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. Trully sharp accross whole frame from f2 on 5d. Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. 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 excellent condition, this lens retails for around $200. http://www.idyll.com/135. Seems to me that Michael is pretty new to using long telephoto lenses, he writes that the Samyang is the first he has owned. This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 I own Samyang 135 f2 for Nikon Mount and indeed it is incredible value lens. Check them out for yourself! Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. 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. In this configuration, the lens is still a very fast F3.4. IQ will rival any other lens. I'm enjoying the Sigma Art 135mm - it's notably sharper than the Canon (which I owned at the same time), and it's f/1.8 instead of f/2. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. This lens is one of canons finest lenses i have ever used. this lens typifies modern design being confined to sharpness, colour & bokeh. I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. 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. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. 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. With weather sealing this would be a 10. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. F2 allows higher shutter speeds in lower light without raising the ISO.

Viewstate Decoder Github, Somnophilia Personality Traits, Titan Missile Silo Map Arizona, Articles C