The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. The lens hood is not petal-shaped, which is great news for those using this lens for astrophotography. If the title had been: "Testing My First Telephoto and LOVING IT!!!!!!!. Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. It turns out that this. And because you can shoot between F/2 and F/4, plenty of light reaches the sensor in a relatively short exposure. Canon CR-N700 4K PTZ Camera with 15x Zoom. But first, there are several general rules which must be understood. Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on. Stellarium has a great viewport feature that allows you to preview different lens and sensor combinations on DSO's before you decide on the focal length you want. The model I use feels solid and the barrel is constructed with metal. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be to add IS. We think it rises to the challenge. 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. Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. I've done comparisons between my brand-new Samyang 85/1.4 and the old big Apollo 135/1.8 lens I had lying around, and the shots were for all practical purposes identical (exept, obviously, for the pixel count once cropped). This creates an effective focal length of roughly 200mm, a useful magnification for a wide variety of astro-imaging scenarios. Stage photography is another good use for the 135 L. It's not the most versatile lens, but it's very great for tight portrait shoots; background blur is creamy IMO; one of the best 'bokeh' lens. The reason the 135mm lens was that it was the longest lens that would focus with a Leica rangefinder. Tack sharp even at wide open aperture. Beautiful portrait lens. Nice image, andysea. I have had a blast with a samyang, but a used 135mm f2.8 is VERY . 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! 10/10 (Editor's Choice) Check Price. 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. 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. Aperture ring. The image below highlights the creative freedom this lens provides. These lenses can be had on eBay in mint condition for around $70, and are probably the most price efficient optical instrument in the world. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. I just wish this lens had IS for low light and portraits with flash. With the 135 I imagine I'd have to get up on the roof. My copy has very stiff manual focus though and is quite heavy. They just wanted to increase their joy from photography. if you compare images taken with this lens to those from a 105mm f1.8 ais or a cosina 125mm and you'll see what i mean. Standards have risen in recent years. The Japanese word "bokeh" can be translated into English as "blur". Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. To achieve creamy bokeh, a lens should have a wide maximum aperture and a long focal length. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: It is so sharp it makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. The article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. 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. 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. :). Canon 135 mm is really E X T R A O R D I N A R Y lens. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) F2 allows higher shutter speeds in lower light without raising the ISO. Bokeh == Visual character of the lens optics to render light and color mixing together. The best ones listed below serve well with a one stop reduction, and some require two or even three stops. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. I own Samyang 135 f2 for Nikon Mount and indeed it is incredible value lens. I have never had a bad experience buying used Canon lenses from eBay sellers with 99.5%+ positive feedback. Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. 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. Big F-value.Light. I got mine for $60.00 on Craigslist but seen them on eBay for $100 and less all the time. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). It would not surprise me if modern lenses were useable at full aperture. Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. Samyang 85mm f1.83. The images were collected using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i camera riding on a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. They account for much of the disagreement that we see on-line (but not for the rudeness and viciousness of some of it). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Some lenses are incurable. You can't really ask them to stand still while you move around. best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. If so, which one? 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 I like fast lenses, and my Nikkor 105DC is my favourite. Large emission nebulae like the California Nebula (pictured below) are a great choice for this focal length. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report. I have used the canon 70-200 f2.8L ii and also the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 L with excellent results. 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. 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. See the full-size version on Astrobin. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. The full extent of the relationship between Rokinon and Samyang is unknown to me, but the packaging on my lens says Technology by Samyang Optics. Depth of field at f/2 on the 135 is so shallow that I usually shot it stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 anyway. Contrasty, saturated, nice colours. And with our first long lenses we were all impressed were we not? You can use Stellarium to preview the image scale with the 135mm lens and your DSLR. Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. At 135mm, you can get really creative about the object or objects you shoot and where you position them within the frame. http://www.astrovale-f-2/index.html, Hi Lord_Vader, You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that! During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. 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. I know taste is subjective, but it seems to me that some people have become obsessed with blur and bokeh. Never before (nor after) have I seen a lens with this level of sharpness wide open. However, when my Canon "L" lenses are used at f8 they are all very sharp and the 135L does not blow the others away. I do not use burst mode, but the lens would produce movie-like frames. I'll take photo of Orion as soon as possible. As it is it is earns a 9. Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. Reg. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. Just not useful if you already have traditional focal lengths. This way you get both lenses with only one! Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. 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. Because it manage to do so. I took a few shots with the lens on my way home after buying it. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. Smooth but contrasty. While there are certainly pricey 135mm F2 lenses out there (such as the aforementioned Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art, or the Carl Zeiss 135mm) there are a couple that give you extreme value for the money. 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? 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. It's not a bad lens, probably a great one, even if it doesn't seems really as sharp as a basic 85mm f/1.8 (used at f/2.8) , but it's a bad idea to work wide open if you don't need to. I am no stranger to the full manual control of this lens, for both aperture and focus. I would like to make this work with the Nikkor 180mm ED (i.e., what I have versus what I cannot havelol). I read and bought it. (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 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. I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. Hey! Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. 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. 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. Interesting. if you really want to get the best gym photos that can be taken, use it and enjoy what you will see. 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". Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Or is there a use case for fitting the Samyang 135mm to a Panasonic gx85 (or Panasonic gh5) ?? This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. She's cold? 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. 135 mm. Most small refracting telescopes start in the 300 to 400 mm focal length range, and even these are classed as widefield telescopes. What is it like shooting with one today? 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. 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. $399 00. Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. That is the story.#7: Leaves.That doesn't work. A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. Whats the best camera for around $2000? 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. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. Ive captured a lot of deep-sky astrophotography targets from the northern hemisphere, but Im usually in too deep to capture an entire region of space at once. One of the prime examples of such a design is the "nifty fifty"the 50mm F1.8 lens construction that many lens manufacturers provide. This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. etc.. Ron. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. #light_bulb I would disagree. Valerio, Electronically Assisted Astronomy (No Post-Processing), Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Cloudy Nights, DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, This is not recommended for shared computers, Back to DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, Buckeyestargazer 2022 in review and New Products. This lens is available for several camera mounts, including Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, and Fuji. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. We have come to accept that most lenses are strong in only one or two of these three factors, that I personally focus on when researching lenses to buy. For example, the legendary Canon 85mm F1.2L weighs in at 1025g, and the Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art isn't too light either at 1130g. In the right hands this lens really does have "magic pixie dust", as a friend once described. you can see here a lot of photos mostly shot with the f/4 version. 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. (purchased for $800), reviewed March 15th, 2010 Pocketable. enlarge. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. So I sold it for nearly what I bought it for and chalked it up to a learning experience. 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. Please send your photos of the Andromeda galaxy. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. There have been a lot of Tele-Tessars over the years. Again, there's no context. Equipment used was an astromodified Canon 700D, Samyang 135mm f2, SkyTech Triband filter, Star Adventurer 2i, ZWO mini finder with ASI120MM, guiding with PHD2 and polar alignment using sharpcap. 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. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Film Friday: DPRTV reviews Fujifilm's Acros II film, Fujifilm launches Instax Mini 12 instant camera, DPReview March Madness, vote for your champions, Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM sample gallery (DPReview TV), OM System M. Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro sample gallery, Live from Japan: Highlights from CP+ 2023, Retro Review: 24 years later, the Sony F505 is still pretty cool, Hands on with the OM System M. Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro, New FAA rules make it easier for recreational drone pilots to fly in restricted US airspaces, Leica marks James Bond's 60th* with a special edition D-Lux 7, Film Friday: A closer look at the Pentax KX, an original K-mount SLR, Blackmagic Design announces a new Studio Camera 6K Pro, National Geographic selects Pictures of the Year photo contest winner, Sigma brings DC DN APS-C primes to Nikon Z-mount, Panasonic Lumix S 14-28mm F4-5.6 Macro sample gallery, Tamron announces 11-20mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom for Fujifilm X-mount, Film Friday: DPReview TV steps back in time to shoot APS film, Finer Points: Here's an easy way to improve video autofocus, DPReview TV: One simple fix to improve video autofocus, Head-to-head: Adobe Super Resolution vs. ON1 Resize AI vs. Topaz Labs Gigapixel AI, Waiting for the fishy in the little dishy by Gil Aegerter, Lava Lizard on Marine Iguana by ZimmWisdom. First of all, the background separation and the bokeh: I had photographed lots of animals in bushes before, but never before had I seen the bush melt away in the way it did with the 135mm lens. But ppl should know there is much better advice in the forums. Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! I thought I had to sell my 100/F2.8 macro L but thanks for letting me know I can keep it. I used Canon's 135 f/2 for ten years. The Bokeh includes as well all that is in the focus, but mainly talked about how it comes visible in out of focus areas. i also have the 300mm f4.5 non ED nikkor which is quite nice . (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 Another drawback is the focal length. I'm not a fan of the large hood. I use the word design, because although the available 135mm F2 lenses aren't the exact same optical formula, they share many important traits. 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. I mount it on my APS-C camera and the focal length literally becomes 216 mm, which is too tight. Several functions may not work. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. It just doesn't get any better than this! The screws should be set sufficiently tightly to prevent shift, yet not so tightly as to interfere with fine focusing. And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). Its nice to have the F/2. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. I should mention that I have only tested this full-frame lens using my astrophotography DSLRs, all of which are crop-sensor camera bodies. I don't know about other photographers but I do not have many applications for this focal length. 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. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. Although if Bokeh and sharpness is your thing and you can live with MF the Laowa 105mm f/2 Smooth Trans Focus (STF) is amazing. My work requires auto-focus. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. 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. 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. My point is that we must never lose the joy of photography. 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. Lots of wet blankets around here. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? I seems many people he are confused about the meaning of the word. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC lens. This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. I have done a review comparing the sharpness and quality of bokeh to the Canon 70-200 2.8. 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. For some objects a reflection can take away from the photo because it covers interesting details of the object (Think Alnitak in the Horsehead Nebula). I had both for a while. This is one of my all time favourites. 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. 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. 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. Test Notes To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix) ". 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. 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. But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. While some people LOVE the bokeh circles (first photo), others hate them and consider them a distraction.The 50mm f/1.8 is hardly a lens to talk about. And as this article clearly shows, no amount of blurr will make a poorly composed photo good. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. I have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. Image quality, weight and value for money. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. In an effort to save money, Id like to start using a Canon 80D that we already own to start picking targets and imaging. At $900 US it a relative steal. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. A quick question, I have a Sony a6300 mirrorless camera which is great but the sensor is very close behind the mount. I disagree. You don't have to worry about shopping for a better lens anymore. You won't get the excessive background blurr -- which for the beginning photographer may actually be a good thing. - 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. I owned this lens for a long time, then traded it for the 70-200 2.8IS II. here some information (sorry only in italian) http://www.astrovale-usm/index.html 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). 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! I wish every lens was this good!! Testing on an EOS-5D, we see that it's sharpness is almost as good wide open in the corners as on the EOS-20D with its smaller sensor. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. A series of such images can be digitally stacked to produce excellent results. CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. An h-alpha filter would still be useful for your D500, but much more so if it were modified! 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. I bought this lens after reading your great review for my Nikon D5300. 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. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options.