But you couldn't have because you don't know even as much as this guy. Yes there's bokeh. In excellent condition, this lens retails for around $200. 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 think they are an outstanding value for any wide-field astrophotographer, and are particularly suitable for newcomers. But she might as well be in front of a green screen. Nikon 300/4 ED IF, Sigma 50/2.8 DG Macro (not a telephoto, but good). All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get.". A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. Thus the enthusiasm has a valid basis but may not be suitable for all shooting conditions. Super sharp from f2. Literally it means "blur" so you could just as well use the dictionary definition below the top match from Google search: Bokeh - the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. Check out some of the photos he took. It is fantastic on my old 5d. The foolproof image seems to be more a case of how a bright fuzzy cluttered moving background can completely detach from the offset dark subject matter and overwhelm it. RATING. Juksu, your point is well taken. Manually focusing a lens for astrophotography is nothing new, but the manual aperture ring adjustments may feel a little strange at first. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. I have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. At under 900USD, it's a steal. This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. 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). But will live with it as it provides good protection of the front element. And you can even crop a 135 efl with today's sensors should you actually need it. If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. Now, I have to admit that up to this point, it sounds a little too good to be true. You don't have to worry about shopping for a better lens anymore. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ 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. Seems to me that with your gallery and website of images you should refrain from passing judgment on who is and isn't a photography master. They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. 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. Off topic, Your images have a chance at remaining sharper once critical focus has been achieved, but now you have lost the extra light-gathering power you wanted. How well do Fujifilm's film simulations match up to their film counterparts? Yes, she's isolated. Yes, because it is not f/2. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. 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. Perhaps it's not a big thing, but for a L-graded lens this feature should be expected. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. 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. It can isolate subject while being tack sharp with beautiful creamy bokeh when used at f2. Material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted or otherwise used without the prior written consent of The Imaging Resource. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. @ Juksu - you're pathologically clueless. All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. Heh, it's amazing how far Samyang has come since this article (I'm loving their 45 & 75 f1.8), and kinda amusing that they ended up delivering exactly what you asked for Kinda reminds me of that article by Roger Cicala about how long lens development takes. Back in 1999, Sony released the F505, their first digital camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. If I got this lens, would it make more sense long term to get the Canon mount with a E mount adaptor so I could fit it more easily to a dedicated astro camera later? A lot of us have been saying this for years. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. To me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. To fit the Heart and Soul Nebulae in a single frame requires an extremely wide field of view (compared to the magnification of most telescopes). However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . If you want the best value possible for your money, and can survive without autofocus, buy the Samyang. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. Why would I want a 135/2.0 lens when I have a 135/1.8? So I feel I'm being cheated. I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. This is great news if you like to photograph small things up close. Sme of the wide field are. PRICE. Star parties or dark sky excursions are another great time to use a camera lens in place of the telescope. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II 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. Nice image, andysea. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY - YouTube This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. Why take a step back from 250 to sit between the RedCat and the 24-105? (purchased for $900), reviewed December 14th, 2006 Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that! How to Find the Perfect Astrophotography Target with Stellarium It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. Great post; thanks for the detailed information. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight. Sony has added a full-frame 50mm F1.4 prime to its premium 'GM' range of E-mount lenses. But you just know that there is the professionalism that is lacking here -- and the writer's Instagram page confirms that. Ironically all the sample images in this post are painfully soft. For posed portraiture, it's a very nice budget option.FWIW, I'm a corporate portrait and event pro. when you hold the lens in your hand you know you are holding a fine peice of optical equipment. Prime lenses are typically lighter as they do not need the additional glass and mechanics required to zoom at varying magnifications. With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. - in my subjects' skin. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. 135mm f2 vs 200 f2.8 primes? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights Thomas, I do have no experience with the Canon lens you mentioned but zoom lenses have limitations concerning aberrations while providing more flexibility.The Nikkor 70-200/4 that I like as a travel lens is a very good performer but the Zeiss 135/2 APO is in a different league. 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. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. It's March, and in America that means it's time to start arguing over which college athletics team is the best at basketball. Again, there's no context. Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. 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. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. Below, are a few examples of astrophotography images Ive taken with lenses of varying focal lengths. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. 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. 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). Add To Cart. 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. And with our first long lenses we were all impressed were we not? Typical L construction. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. The 135mm Rokinon with the Canon Rebel seems like a pretty good setup. Light weight and robust. You won't get the excessive background blurr -- which for the beginning photographer may actually be a good thing. Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? Lens hood - when I bought this lens years ago the included hood was rather cheap (perhaps Canon has updated the hood) by comparison with other hoods. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. 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 love the lens for my modified Sony a6000! The 135 L handles this well. I owned this lens for a long time, then traded it for the 70-200 2.8IS II. 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. (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 My copy has very stiff manual focus though and is quite heavy. If you want to preview the image field you can expect with a particular camera sensor and lens combination, Stellarium features a useful tool. Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. I just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. 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. Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price). Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. 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. This brings me to my question. Some people like these, and consider them decorative. Pocketable. Let's the games begin! Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. I am a complete amateur at photography in general and this is all new to me so thank you for all the information and videos. 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. (purchased for $900), reviewed November 2nd, 2015 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 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. This criticism refers to rare cases when your main subject matter is flat and completely inside the limited DOF range while the rest of the image is outside. My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/01/canon-135mm-f2l-usm-mini-review.html To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. I haven't seen compassion with the excellent Zeiss lens you quote (That BTW costs at least 3.5-4 times, yet a good comparison as similar to Zeiss, Samyang believes in providing the exceptional Image Quality, with Manual focus) but compare with Canon's L 135mm F2.0, that by many reviews, is considered as one the best Canon lenses ever made (Not . I do know, however, that I can take an equally framed photo I've shot with my Canon kit lens, both zoomed to 100% I run circles around this guy. Canon CR-N700 4K PTZ Camera with 15x Zoom. That setup will give you all that you really need. Digital Cameras & Digital Camera Kits | Camera Gear | B&H I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. 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. Focus throw. The article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. 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. Shoot shiny metal at a wide aperture and you'll see some very extreme purple fringing. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. Target for bortle 9 astrophotography? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging But first, there are several general rules which must be understood. Target for bortle 9 astrophotography? It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good?