Be careful with the focus. For posed portraiture, it's a very nice budget option.FWIW, I'm a corporate portrait and event pro. Will this ever get old? It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. 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. These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. I am not really looking at buying anything else, though. But first, there are several general rules which must be understood. I dont mean to be rude, but I fail to see any photographic comparison or test to display the quality of this lens against others, concerning coma or anything else, except considerations on the manual focusing, its shape and ergonomic. (purchased for $900), reviewed November 2nd, 2015 Aperture ring. It seems they are now quite comparable in quality to prime lenses. Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. Tack sharp at f/2. It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. Agreed. Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. It is good to know that the 200/4 SMC Takumar is good. This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. 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. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. I almost bought one, but couldn't manage that focal length and DoF with moving subjects and manual focus. This includes everything from the rich star fields of Sagittarius, to a complete look at the Andromeda Galaxy. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! If you want the best possible image quality, and you must have autofocus, and you don't care if it is a bit heavy (maybe you need it for studio use), buy the Sigma. The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens from Samyang is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and most telephoto applications. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. Available in other Styles, Configurations & Kits. 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. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. Neutral yet very nice colours. But If you want the "look" you get with a medium telephoto at f/2, hen all those negatives become irrelevant. Please send your photos of the Andromeda galaxy. I do not like this. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat @juksu - you're such a liar. 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). I took a few shots with the lens on my way home after buying it. I'm thinking a modern (but expensive) Nikon 200mm f/2.0, 300mm f/4 or f/2.8 or a Borg telephoto/telescope would all be very good. Lots of older lenses no longer satisfy. Other times, like the Witch Head Nebula, I love seeing the star responsible for the object in all its glaring glory! AF ring feels loose compared to my other L lenses. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? If you shoot things in motion on a Canon body, and need some reach without massive bulk, this is the one I recommend. In fact, in my test shots, I noticed that the red channel was a little softer than green and blue. 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? Then you should have tried the 180mm nikkor ED, the old one, which is the favorite tool of a lot of astrophotographers. I'll walk you through all this inc. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. [emailprotected]. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. If you must have autofocus, and care about weight, buy the Canon. To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. 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. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. I've tested some of the old Pentax 6x7 lenses with a friend. They were not however designed to be bokeh monsters though that was just a side effect of making them fast and people bought them for speed with bokeh being the afterthought so not Bokeh for the sake of Bokeh as he said. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice. Cost. 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 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. 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. The inset picture is a magnified view of the bottom right corner of the frame. Some APOs can be fitted with pricey telecompressors, but those invariably result in vignetting and coma. http://www.astrovale-f-2/index.html, Hi Lord_Vader, This is an amazing lens.Very sharp wide open and no improvement when stopped own. This lens has a long focus adjustment ring, with great tension. You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that! Again, there's no context. However, I find the process tedious, and prefer single, manually guided, long exposures which seem to have deeper colors. It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. This lens flares easily and the flare can be especially ugly if a sun or flash are in the frame. I guess thats where practice will come in handy. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. I don't know about other photographers but I do not have many applications for this focal length. We always expect to see some drop in performance (particularly corner sharpness) when we move from testing on a sub-frame to a full-frame camera, but the 135mm f/2L turned in a really remarkable performance even at full-frame. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. This lens is available on Amazon for most camera bodies. 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. Take care not to confuse this lens with the 200mm F4 SMC Takumar 6x7 which has a different optical configuration, and which I have never tested. Some people do not like this and consider Bokeh to refer only to the rendering of out of focus points of light. https://www.dpreview.com/news/7777572944/video-using-the-5-700-canon-200mm-f2-on-the-new-sony-a7r-iii, DPReview TV: We share our 2021 predictions while freezing our asses off, Video: Here's how Adobe Lightroom Mobile works on the Zeiss ZX1, DPReview TV: How to set up Sony's 'Real-Time' autofocus tracking, 7Artisans releases a $195 35mm F5.6 golden pancake lens for Leica M mount cameras, OM System M. Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro Sample Gallery, Fujifilm X-T5 production sample gallery (DPReview TV), DPReview TV: Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Review, DPReview TV: Sony 50mm F1.4 GM vs Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art, The best cameras for family and friends photos in 2022, Best affordable cameras for sports and action in 2022. Tiring. The extremes are 2 and 22. 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. @ Juksu - you're pathologically clueless. Its a no brainer if you use this focal length. Now I wonder why people are never happy even on 3rd day of a new year :) Come on guys just think "Micael Widell" was working over holiday period to publish this free article ;). 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. I bought my lens in mint condition for $350 from Japan, but I see that some retailers are asking significantly more. Another drawback is the focal length. IS would also help outside with wind. Meanwhile the ol' Canon 135/2 is still commanding a higher than average price on the used market (70%+ of MSRP isn't common), I guess the low weight and super easy resale have almost made it a high end commodity. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! And it's not the one problem from my L lenses very sad =(, My favourite lens, hands down. In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report. 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. One thing I am most stun is its AF performance. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. However, they can be perfectly corrected with narrow band H-alpha or OIII filters. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. 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. My copy has very stiff manual focus though and is quite heavy. 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. The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed January 1st, 2007 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. This free website's biggest source of support is when you use these links, especially these directly to it at Adorama or at Amazon, when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. At $900 US it a relative steal. (AVX). It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC lens. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. Latter looks quite professional.. 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. And now important part: This lens can be stopped down if desired effect is not required and no, with 85/1.8 you will never get this effect. The presentation and hands-on look and feel of the 135mm F/2 lens is impressive considering the reasonable price of this lens. 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. 10/10 (Editor's Choice) Check Price. Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. Interesting. 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 excellent condition, this lens retails for around $200. 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). Many lenses lose their appeal after time, but not this one. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 This lens is one of canons finest lenses i have ever used. So whats so great about shooting at 135mm anyway? 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. Available 03/21/23. If You can afford it, buy it! You can use Stellarium to preview the image scale with the 135mm lens and your DSLR. The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. Ive been using kit lenses for the past year, favoring the Nikkor 50mm 2.8. 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. Over the years, Ive shot deep-sky targets at varying focal lengths from 50mm to over 1000mm. Technical Specifications Looking for specific info? Perhaps you have seen the photos of masterful Russian portrait photographers such as Elena Shumilova or Anka Zhuravleva. Colour and contrast is great. She doesn't look like she is there. Available Monday. But you just know that there is the professionalism that is lacking here -- and the writer's Instagram page confirms that. 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). It would not surprise me if modern lenses were useable at full aperture. The following image was captured by Eric Cauble using the Samyang branded version of this lens. AF is accurate and very fast. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! Most small refracting telescopes start in the 300 to 400 mm focal length range, and even these are classed as widefield telescopes. In this new review, I focus exclusively on the unprecedented Samyang 135mm f/2, which is primarily designed for portrait and wildlife. Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. Fantastic IQ & Bokeh. The aesthetic quality of the blur in the out-of-focus parts of the image are buttery smooth and soft. Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC LensCheck Price (Amazon): https://amzn.to/2MOUFeOExample Images: https://astrobackyard.com/rokinon-135mm-f2-astrophotography/I've . Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. Canon 135mm is a great lens. Defocus control enables the photographer to use an aperture of f/4 for the subject and to adjust the amount of background blur or the amount of foreground blur. 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). Several functions may not work. The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens is a fantastic companion for the Canon 60Da, as it offers a useful "mid-range" focal length for a variety of deep-sky projects. He's better than I am on BS, I got to give him that. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. Holiday Savings $50 . Last time I used a 135mm f2 was decades ago on a Canon F1. As it is it is earns a 9. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. The lens is available on eBay for around $200. I have only owned my 135mm for less then a year, but already it is one of my top three most used and most fun lenses. 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. 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. I have used the canon 70-200 f2.8L ii and also the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 L with excellent results. My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. Some people like these, and consider them decorative. Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. This lens has only two drawbacks. To achieve creamy bokeh, a lens should have a wide maximum aperture and a long focal length. The reason the 135mm lens was that it was the longest lens that would focus with a Leica rangefinder. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. Bottom line, this is just an outstanding lens by any measure, one that makes clear why you'd want to pay the freight for expensive prime glass. 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. I can tell you its a great performer for astro use. Ironically all the sample images in this post are painfully soft. If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! Or just get a zoom that is 24-200mm and you are covered. I liked the extra versatility of the zoom and the ability to shoot at 200mm. p.s. It could really use an update to its coatings. 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?? Online since 2011, AstroBin is the #1 complete solution for image hosting of astrophotographs. I purchased this lens for the purposes of wide-field deep-sky astrophotography from my light-polluted backyard (shown below), and when traveling to a dark sky site. Another thing that makes people go "wow" over the 135mm F2 lens design is the bokeh, which can be so creamy that distant backgrounds almost render as gradients. This thing is a beast in comparison. I'm not a fan of the large hood. Do you expect me to gawk? "That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten"Did you notice that this 135mm F2 lens on an APS-C camera is more or less equivalent to a 200mm F2.8 lens on an FF camera ?So this lens can be seen as the 200mm F2.8 lens for APS-C camera users. Sony has added a full-frame 50mm F1.4 prime to its premium 'GM' range of E-mount lenses. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. Great for portraits. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. Material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted or otherwise used without the prior written consent of The Imaging Resource. It's March, and in America that means it's time to start arguing over which college athletics team is the best at basketball. It is so sharp it makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. (purchased for $800), reviewed March 15th, 2010 30-35% diameter reduction is usually necessary on "good" lenses. Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. Off topic, Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Also, when shooting the heart nebula, is the sky tracker a must or not required? 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). I typically shoot with Canon lenses, but the potential for low light photography (whether thats astrophotography or the ability to film at dusk) caught my interest. Creamy smooth bokeh. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. 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. Lagoon and Trifid wide field IC1396 nebula in Cepheus - wide field image. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. 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 The Olympus Zuiko 180/2.8 and 100/2.8 impressed me in the 1980s, but in the digital era they are not so sharp. 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. Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! 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. The lens hood is not petal-shaped, which is great news for those using this lens for astrophotography. Include the Carl Zeiss in your research though, it might be an interesting lens for you, even if it is a bit pricey for what you get. I owned this lens for a long time, then traded it for the 70-200 2.8IS II. (For Nikon users there's the new 105mm too.). I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. I've owned nice SLR gear since 1976, and am normally a wide angle shooter this is my favorite lens, of all time. This way you get both lenses with only one! Really like the large focusing ring. Got it! 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. One of them is simplicity: A clear, simple subject that constitutes a shape, standing out and contrasting against a calm and simple background. The other one is the inevitable and persistent regret that, because of chromatic aberration, the full 75mm aperture of this beautiful lens can not be used in full visible spectrum photography. 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? Tack sharp even at wide open aperture. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. f/2! @juksu - you're such a hypocrite. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? 21P Giacobini Zinner NGC1499 California Barnard 8 Cr399 Coathanger North America and Pelican Veil nebula HORGB M11 cluster area If this was used to shoot video you would think that the first image was using a green screen. Along with improvements in telescope mounts, camera technology, filters, and digital image processing, these have allowed amateurs to produce astrophotographs of nearly professional quality. Really excels as indoor sports lens on a crop camera. The 135 f/2 is not perfect. The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. - in my subjects' skin. My work requires auto-focus. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Thats quite a jump from 135mm, so the camera body you use with this lens may change the types of targets you shoot. Large focus ring. Now, I have to admit that up to this point, it sounds a little too good to be true. Maybe try a 400mm f/2.0 to see it that one's got enough blur. I think youll find that this lens is behind some of the most amazing wide-field astrophotography images online! (on a full frame camera)Wonderful lens for some portraiture applications, sporting events and candids at a party or event. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. Olympus 4x Optical Zoom f/2 Lens; 25-100mm (35mm Equivalent) Show More. I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. 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. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: Your Baader filter passes 420-680nm and, in theory, a good APO should be able to focus that part of the spectrum with no chromatic aberration. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? Oh and it's stabilised. Super Sharp.Super Fast AF. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. http://www.idyll.com/laney2014 Sharp wide open, wonderful bokeh, fast AF in dark conditions. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. With a rounded 9-blade diaphragm, shallow depth of field imaging will be rendered with pleasing out-of-focus highlights. I would love to see his test images. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. http://www.idyll.com/135. 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.So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. Deserves to be in the camera hall of fame. I speak Japanese fluently, was a translator in Tokyo for 8 years and studied photography there for two years. In my test, nikon have the same color correction than Canon and same sharpness. Thanks! Part of it might be that they were designed for film photography and modern digital sensor are far more demanding in terms of optical quality. With the high megapixel cameras, most people are going to ideally want to shoot at 1/200 or faster. 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. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). Here is a recent ones taken with the canon xs and a lens. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. 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. 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.
Lakes Middle School Bell Schedule, Ahpra Contact Number Melbourne, Triumph Spitfire 1500 Engine Rebuild, Music Of The Spheres Strauss, Does Collegeboard Know If You Copy And Paste, Articles C