Jordan's twin brother Gordon is back to review the cinema-focused Canon EOS R5 C! I cant wait to try this lens out during the winter months on some wide-field targets in Orion. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. I have been following your work both on YT and here from Japan for a while. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s. IQ will rival any other lens. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. Its a trade-off, and one that seems to surface time and time again in this hobby. But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! Smooth but contrasty. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. This lens is available for several camera mounts, including Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, and Fuji. 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. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. It's kinda curious how topsy turvy things have gotten since this article, just 4 years later, I think 135mm is possibly more niche than ever yet Samyang finally delivered an AF version of this concept at a lighter weight for E mount, but also at a higher price. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. But this lens changed my mind. Contrasty but not harsh. Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). 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. 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. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. This is great news if you like to photograph small things up close. If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. If you shoot things in motion on a Canon body, and need some reach without massive bulk, this is the one I recommend. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. However, I am convinced that its large aperture and fast F ratio would perform exceptionally well in three color or narrow band H-alpha and OIII photography. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. Its a joy to work with every time. It's terrible. 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 got many great shots from this lens but also missed ton of shots due manual focus only. I have compared many times my 135/2 against my 100/2.8 and there is a big difference. Theres no image stabilization on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 either, but thats a non-issue for amateur astrophotographers. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. For comparison, no other lens I know of would earn more than 8/10. Cost. She's cold? I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. The 70-200 f2.8 L2 and he 400f5.6 will however set you back way more than $1.100. It is good to know that the 200/4 SMC Takumar is good. Asahi Optical's Pentax KX was one of the first cameras with this lens mount, acting as a midrange model in the lineup. When the aperture is stopped down to 37mm using step-down filter rings, this lens produces incredibly tiny pinpoint star images from edge to edge. Focal length: 135mm Maximum aperture: f/2.0 Lens construction: 10 elements in 8 groups Angle of view: 18 degrees Closest focusing distance: 3 feet Focus adjustment: Rear focusing system with USM Mount: Canon Filter size: 72mm Dimensions: 3.2 inches in diameter and 4.4 inches long Weight: 1.7 pounds Warranty: 1 year See more Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. 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. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? If you can afford it buy this lens, you will love it. You can barely tell it's a pond.#3: Duck.Birds with bokeh are fine. Rudy, why didn t you include any L lenses from canon? Not rude at all, a fair comment. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. 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. Seems to me that Michael is pretty new to using long telephoto lenses, he writes that the Samyang is the first he has owned. There are only a handful of foolproof strategies for making a great photograph. In this new review, I focus exclusively on the unprecedented Samyang 135mm f/2, which is primarily designed for portrait and wildlife. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. Ive spent a handful of nights testing this lens in my Bortle Scale Class 6/7 backyard, and my results live up to the hype it gets in terms of astrophotography performance. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . Overall, the lens feels very solid and well constructed. The images were collected using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i camera riding on a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. Magical images, great AF, great close focusing abilities. The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). Sharp without being harsh. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. Hi Thomas As far as I know, the Nikon D500 is not modified for astrophotography out of the box (it includes a built in IR cut filter that blocks much of the 656nm wavelength). It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. I mainly use for head shot photography. I don't know about other photographers but I do not have many applications for this focal length. The lens has 14 stops when turning the aperture. Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. I would only recommend this lens for casual photographers where missed shot means nothing. Otherwise, on FF body this lens is wonderful. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. I'll walk you through all this inc. Youll never have to worry about losing your position just by touching the lens, but you can always tape the position down to be sure. I am no stranger to the full manual control of this lens, for both aperture and focus. parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. FULL FRAME TELEPHOTO 135mm F2.0 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. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Amazing sharpness wide open at F2.0 and the focus ring is nice and firm not tight you don't really need to tape it down for astrophotography. f/2! For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. 8MP is plenty for the usual 8x10 or 16x20 portrait print. " Seems like a great lens. If so, which one? I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. Perhaps it's not a big thing, but for a L-graded lens this feature should be expected. But that 10Mpix is more than enough to make a very good A3-A2 size print, but your technique needs to be very good as even slight misfocus is even more visible and the rendering faults as well. I rarely shoot static landscapes or posed, composed images. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop using the aperture ring at the base of the lens. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. The 135 L handles this well. Olympus 75mm f1.82. i too use the 135mm nikkor[ with a MB speed booster on fuji x for outstanding separation], also a samyang 85 mm 1.4 nikon mt with speedbooster also gives excellent separation, yes, I think I have read that the old Nikkor 135mm f3.5 was even sharper than the f2.8. Such "full spectrum" cameras are somewhat more sensitive in the ultraviolet, but much more sensitive in the deep red and infrared. Below, are a few examples of astrophotography images Ive taken with lenses of varying focal lengths. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. For example, a friend recently recommended Pentax 6x7 prime lenses which were designed for a large format flat field, and are also adaptable to the EOS system. @juksu - you're such a liar. The extent of this influence lies mainly in photographer's perception and creativity.As all arts photography may serve given needs due to numerous reasons with the resulting integrity of the work not necessarily suggesting art.The photographic gear (from lens cleaning tissues up to s/w) is just the tool(s) of a photographer in order to produce its work. But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. One of them is simplicity: A clear, simple subject that constitutes a shape, standing out and contrasting against a calm and simple background. Really like the large focusing ring. From my experience, the toughest test on a lense is its ability to function wide open. I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. @ Juksu - you're pathologically clueless. I have just acquired my astrophotography set up thanks to all your videos and doing some research. The only reason i sell this lens is because of versatility. There is some controversy about the use of UV filters, but I found that a good UV filter significantly improves contrast, sharpens small star images, and reduces chromatic aberration. But again i am just at the beginning and i also do not want to use now a telescope. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. 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.'. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. No, Mr. sigh, overdone bokeh and centre sharpness bear little relevance to the art of this hobby. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. A Canon 70-200L IS II at 200mm at f2.8 has all the same characteristics of the Canon 135L. Camera tech for video has come a long way in recent years, with faster autofocus, subject tracking, eye tracking and smarter lenses that stabilize the frame. (Dpreview), Use the 500 Rule to find the Perfect Exposure Length for Astrophotography, Use a DSLR Ha Filter for Astrophotography, AstroBackyard | Astrophotography Tips and Tutorials2023, Optical Construction: 11 Glass elements in 7 Groups. 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. I would love to see his test images. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). 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). I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) Overall, spectacular lens. There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. In photoshop I love to zoom 200, 300 and even 400% to see the extreme details it is an absolutely amazing lens, great backround blur, great for low light weddings with available light. Stage photography is another good use for the 135 L. This lens provides all of these requirements. Lior, I have done a lot of reading on modern zoom lenses. Some APOs can be fitted with pricey telecompressors, but those invariably result in vignetting and coma. Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. Are you really using 135 a lot? On FF I use this lens for both tight portraits and landscape shots. Click on following link to view images Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable. I ordered this lens on Amazon, utilizing my Amazon Prime membership. Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Well, for me. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. He has quite a breadth photos many of which are quite good. It turns out that this. Add To Cart. However, I find the process tedious, and prefer single, manually guided, long exposures which seem to have deeper colors. When attached to a DSLR camera with a full frame sensor, the lens offers a massive 15.5 x 10.6 field of view, or 18.8 across the diagonal. One is its size and weight, which requires a sturdy support on the telescope. Thanks, Chris, hi Trevor my name is sagar i have same lens but i have one question why lot of stars are appearing in my image which is taken thru rokinon 135mm, Your email address will not be published. Tack sharp at f/2. There are, of course, outlierssuch as the legendary unicorn lens Canon EF 200mm F2but that one isn't a great alternative unless you are cool with spending $5,700 and carrying around something about as wieldy as a fire hydrant. There was no reason to test any other because, when stopped down to 49mm, F6.1, this lens is simply perfect, comparable to any APO on the market. Which is the better buy? Have not used a 70-200 since. A lot of us have been saying this for years. Any good ones apart from the Big Boys. 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. If you have pictures taken using the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens, please feel free to share your results in the comments section (links to Astrobin, Flickr or your personal gallery are fine). It seems they are now quite comparable in quality to prime lenses.