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. (purchased for $899), reviewed December 9th, 2006 I liked the extra versatility of the zoom and the ability to shoot at 200mm. 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. Sharpness, contrast and the natural vignetting on full-frame cameras is awesome! The Canon is about as sharp as the Samyang, but it has some very slight chromatic aberration. An update to the Mini 11, the new camera adds parallax correction capabilities, automatic flash control and a multi-function twist lens. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 Check out The 135mm Rokinon with the Canon Rebel seems like a pretty good setup. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. 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. 45 minutes. So I feel I'm being cheated. Especially for beginning astrophotographers, who should first invest most of their finances into a good telescope mount, telephoto lenses are an excellent and affordable solution. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . 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. From my experience, the toughest test on a lense is its ability to function wide open. Lots of older lenses no longer satisfy. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. (purchased for $900), reviewed December 4th, 2006 I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. Sometimes though, we stumble upon a great lens design which is strong in all three. I am telling them - don't! 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. 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?? It could really use an update to its coatings. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. Robert. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. I got many great shots from this lens but also missed ton of shots due manual focus only. This is an amazing lens.Very sharp wide open and no improvement when stopped own. How good this lens overall and how sharp and color-free? I got this lens because of portraiture. The version I have has the mount for Canon EOS camera bodies, but there are several different lens mounts available on Amazon. She doesn't look like she is there. See the full-size version on Astrobin. (purchased for $900), reviewed November 2nd, 2015 And because you can shoot between F/2 and F/4, plenty of light reaches the sensor in a relatively short exposure. Focus throw. Im so new to all of this so thank you for your insightful and educational posts. Well, if you consider downloading a lens image from https://www.bhphotovideo.com, and photoshop it on top of my photos to cover mistakes, and demonstrate sharpness of a lens with a jpeg that is way oversharpened; if you call knowledge that "the long focal length compresses the background" , If you call blurr a bokeh just because it sounds better, and so on 1000 words would not be enough to point out what a mess this review is Then you are right, I absolutely do not know as much as he does. don't get me wrong; this lens will take great photos, but the 'flatness' i was getting in my photos nearly had me give up 25 years of hobby photography. I was blown away when I loaded the photos into my computer. We revisit a classic DPReviewTV episode in which Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake shoot a few rolls of Fujifilm's Acros 100 II, and a few frames on the X-T3 in Acros film simulation, to find out. I'll walk you through all this inc. Again, there's no context. Not too heavy. I would! 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. Thanks & Cheers As the reader reviews below testify, this is an absolutely stellar lens, probably one of the sharpest and most distortion-free that Canon makes. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. IS would also help outside with wind. It would seem to be a better use of a camera to first look for a suitable background, and then and only then to use bokeh. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. 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. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? This is so annoying that I intend to replace the Canon lens cap with a Tamron cap. 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. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. Adam007,"a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels"No thanks. If anything the argument in favor of even smaller and lighter 85/1.4s (like the 600g Sigma DN) is stronger than ever, and I say that as someone that loves shooting at 135-150mm. Crazy fast AF! Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. 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. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. Do you expect me to gawk? During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. This lens has a long focus adjustment ring, with great tension. :). A camera tracker (or star tracker) is necessary for long exposure deep-sky astrophotography, but a compact model such as the iOptron SkyTracker or Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer will do just fine. Mr Ericsson makes a very good point, and to go and dig irrelevant background info on him to discredit him is just well THAT is trolling. 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). Check them out for yourself! Not another article that promotes portraits shot with wide open lens and out of focus highlights in the background. When I was on my way home after purchasing my first 135mm lens (the Samyang/Rokinon one) I took a few quick snapshots just to try out the lens. (purchased for $845), reviewed November 16th, 2005 If you own an EOS Camera - It's a no Brainer, Buy one I have compared many times my 135/2 against my 100/2.8 and there is a big difference. Sony has added a full-frame 50mm F1.4 prime to its premium 'GM' range of E-mount lenses. In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. Show some humility and don't troll. Helps me as a beginner a lot 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 think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. The flat lens hood design allows you to easily take flat frames with the Rokinon 135mm using the white t-shirt method or using a flat panel. If 135mm f2 works for you, then fine. "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. Such "full spectrum" cameras are somewhat more sensitive in the ultraviolet, but much more sensitive in the deep red and infrared. Hey! The aesthetic quality of the blur in the out-of-focus parts of the image are buttery smooth and soft. 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. I speak Japanese fluently, was a translator in Tokyo for 8 years and studied photography there for two years. You currently have javascript disabled. Aperture ring. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed October 5th, 2008 in the rain. To shoot indoors under typical gymnasium lighting, you often need f/2.0 or wider to get a shutter speed high enough to stop the action. With an effective focal length of roughly 216mm when coupled with a Canon crop sensor body, the field of view is nearly identical to the one youd find on a full-frame camera with a 200mm telephoto lens. Great for portraits. They seem to be really good for NB work. 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?) Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. 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. Its a no brainer if you use this focal length. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. Several functions may not work. It's gross, all is a matter of balance and the perfect one, given you want sharp and fuzzy elements in your picture, is in the blend, and the way details seems to disappear gracefully (while keeping a level of readability). FULL FRAME TELEPHOTO 135mm F2.0 Bye Trully sharp accross whole frame from f2 on 5d. But, since fast 300mm ED lenses are beyond my toy budget, I would appreciate seeing magnified center and corner test images of actual star fields. One of the prime examples of such a design is the "nifty fifty"the 50mm F1.8 lens construction that many lens manufacturers provide. 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. If the title had been: "Testing My First Telephoto and LOVING IT!!!!!!!. Tiring. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. AF is accurate and very fast. Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable. 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. Everyone assumes their definition is the "true" one. My guidescope is a 5in F5 Jaeger's achromat with a 2.3x Barlow, and a 9mm illuminated reticle eyepiece. I am not really looking at buying anything else, though. Otherwise I might not achieve focus? Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. Also Nikon DC 135mm f/2 is a great lens, a little better than 135mm Canon http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ That setup will give you all that you really need. Also, when shooting the heart nebula, is the sky tracker a must or not required? One of them is simplicity: A clear, simple subject that constitutes a shape, standing out and contrasting against a calm and simple background. The CA is pretty low wide open and it rivals my 200mm L lens. 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. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. Just not useful if you already have traditional focal lengths. I've recently started using 135 and 200mm lenses from the 1970s with my mono CCD and they've proven very useful for imaging large emission nebulae. Unfortunately I haven't more the Canon lens. At f/32, it's pretty soft, but less so than a lot of lenses at that aperture. There is no such thing, in my opinion. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. I shoot it wide open 90% of the time. 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. Super sharp from f2. This is the EF-M series version. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. 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. Without the blurb I would have taken it as a 24 hour news studio shot with back projection or a cut and paste layer.The other stuff is really nice though. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. The background blur is amazingly creamy with this lens. If you want to preview the image field you can expect with a particular camera sensor and lens combination, Stellarium features a useful tool. 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. My Rokinon 135F2 on my crop body is fun to play with.. a budget lens with budget construction on a discontinued camera system.. but hey im just a ham and egger https://flic.kr/p/21nj82V, I had a Canon 135/2 for a while, but I decided I preferred the 100 L used not as a Macro but a normal lens (which my non-L USM 100 Macro was quite poor for). The best of them, Nikon's 70-200E, is just as sharp all but the very best primes - ie, already too sharp for most portrait work. The aperture ring is marked with each f-stop, and you need to manually click through F/2 F/22 and watch the blades do their work. The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. If you're using or are looking to buy the Samyang or Rokinon 135mm F/2, please let me know what you're imaging with it or any questions you may have in the comment section below. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. Here are our top picks for the canon lenses for astrophotography. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. To me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. 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. Focus are dead on with my Fullframe or APS system. You don't have to worry about shopping for a better lens anymore. ", I'd no problem with that. Write your own user review for this lens. Nothing else like it and the reason the two DC lenses have remained in production since they were introduced in 1993. https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1180017085/photos/3721717/bokeh. (purchased for $900), reviewed August 22nd, 2008 Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. If you shoot things in motion on a Canon body, and need some reach without massive bulk, this is the one I recommend. Tack sharp at f/2. There's just nothing there. 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. I enjoied the use of this lens many years before the DSLR. The presentation and hands-on look and feel of the 135mm F/2 lens is impressive considering the reasonable price of this lens. The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. Because of chromatic aberration, no telephoto lens can be used at full aperture. I am still very proud of some of the photos I shoot with a Pentax O450 15 years ago - a good smartphone camera today is at least as capable. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. The next 200mm lens of excellent quality is the 200mm F4 Nikkor F which requires the Nikon F to EOS adapter. It seems lazy to me. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. The 135 is lighter, but that's its only advantage. 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. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. I mainly use for head shot photography. Over the years, I have tried more than two dozen telephoto lenses, until I finally found three or four perfect solutions. You will never be able to beat this lense, believe me, i have tried them all. Super sharp and renders beautiful creamy bokeh. One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. 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. It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. Olympus 75mm f1.82. Will this ever get old? Then you should have tried the 180mm nikkor ED, the old one, which is the favorite tool of a lot of astrophotographers. Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. Add To Cart. $218.00 for 7 days. 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. Now, I have to admit that up to this point, it sounds a little too good to be true. One thing I am most stun is its AF performance. When I got home and loaded the photo into Lightroom I was blown away by two things. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. These lenses go about as close as you could get without a dedicated macro lens. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. Yes there's bokeh. Still - a great portrait lens when used at f/2.8 or f/4, with a creamy bokeh indeed. What is it like shooting with one today? This is a stunning lens, clearly one of the very best lenses that Canon produces, this is in the same world class as the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 L lenses. enlarge. Great post; thanks for the detailed information. This is one of my all time favourites. She's cold? Along with improvements in telescope mounts, camera technology, filters, and digital image processing, these have allowed amateurs to produce astrophotographs of nearly professional quality. In this configuration, the lens is still a very fast F3.4. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. It is really thanks to another commentator pointing out something that finally makes sense out of this mess: This article is by someone who just got his first first telephoto ever, and is writing about how he feels when he is trying it out. He's better than I am on BS, I got to give him that. In these situations, a portable, wide-field imaging rig wins. Any good ones apart from the Big Boys. Please send your photos of the Andromeda galaxy. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix) ". I can tell you its a great performer for astro use. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. Writer Anno Huidekoper takes a look at what this manual SLR can do and how it stacks up to its contemporaries. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! But ppl should know there is much better advice in the forums.