canon 135mm f2 astrophotography
You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. 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. Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2 for Astrophotography: Review - YouTube enlarge. The aperture range of this lens is F/2 to F/22, with 9 diaphragm blades (aperture blades) that work in harmony to set your f-stop. Most of the available 135mm F2 lenses have a very short minimum focusing distance in relation to the focal length, creating a magnification ratio of around 0.2 - 0.25. Lensrentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus Will I be able to capture the heart nebula with the lens youre talking about or would I need to modify my camera as well? Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. 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. Backwards compatible (film). Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. The finish and texture of the Rokinon 135mm F/2 is a step up from the 14mm F/2.8 I ordered a few years ago. I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. I got mine for $60.00 on Craigslist but seen them on eBay for $100 and less all the time. Now I have only the Nikon but I can try to take a photo of the same subject fully open The 5D's larger pixels also make chromatic aberration somewhat lower at most apertures. Here is a short list of great astrophotography targets to shoot at 135mm with this lens: Below, is an incredible example of the types of projects possible with the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 lens. I know this is a very old article but I was re reading as I mulled over this very point (85/1.4 vs 135/1.8) and I've gotta point out this math is all wrong First off 85->135 is a 1.6x crop and a 1.6x crop will yield 16MP on 42MP bodies (42 / (1.6x1.6) ), ~20MP on the A1, and ~24MP on the A7R IV. 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. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. 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. Canon CR-N700 4K PTZ Camera with 15x Zoom. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. Manually focusing a lens for astrophotography is nothing new, but the manual aperture ring adjustments may feel a little strange at first. Sharp but smooth at the same time. At $900 US it a relative steal. To achieve creamy bokeh, a lens should have a wide maximum aperture and a long focal length. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. 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. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. Not another article that promotes portraits shot with wide open lens and out of focus highlights in the background. What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? 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. Robert. It is NOT extremely sharp wide open, it often requires massive AF adjustment on DLSRs (sometimes beyond what the body allows as micro-adjustment) and AF is not reliable enough to consistently ensure sharp focus at full aperture. But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. The image shown below covers 4.96 x 5.98 degrees in the constellation Cassiopeia. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? Creamy smooth bokeh. From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. Off topic, Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Review - Imaging Resource For comparison, no other lens I know of would earn more than 8/10. 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. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. (purchased for $900). 2 Dielectric Diagonals. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. I have a Nikon d 500. Reg. A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. 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. Yep the speed wars in the 70's that gave us all these bokeh monsters were all about the fact that its hard to get usable images in poor lighting when your film was stuck at iso 80 (or even 400 when you were pushing it). 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. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) As a complete beginner in Astrophotography should I buy Rokinon 135mm lens or Canon EF 75-300mm lens with Canon EF 50mm lens? 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. I hear great things about the Canon 200/2.8 L but do not have one. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 My Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 mounted to a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. AF ring feels loose compared to my other L lenses. I would recommend buying it used if you want to save some money, with the added benefit that you can re-sell it at the same price as you bought it for, effectively giving you the opportunity to "rent it" for free. Canon 135mm is a great lens. Below, are a few examples of astrophotography images Ive taken with lenses of varying focal lengths. If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. Just like the above samples, most are just bad. I found with the 70-200 made me lazy. The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. $218.00 for 7 days. The Image Sensor Frame tool lets you enter in the size of your camera sensor, and focal length of your lens (or telescope) to display a frame over the star map. I bought this lens after reading your great review for my Nikon D5300. At 135mm, you can get really creative about the object or objects you shoot and where you position them within the frame. (And cost less too). Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - Amazon.com Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. 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. (Actually if I can live with the DoF I prefer it to my 85/1.2 too, as there is much less bonus colour.) Now - THAT's a lens everyone should have ;). (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 From my purchase research, I found a consensus that stopping down optimizes sharpness but the diaphragm will make nine diffraction spikes when stopped down. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens. I used Canon's 135 f/2 for ten years. Thats quite a jump from 135mm, so the camera body you use with this lens may change the types of targets you shoot. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat Smooth but contrasty. My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. 45 minutes. 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. @juksu - you're such a liar. It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. [emailprotected]. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY - YouTube I had both for a while. Aside from being much more affordable, telephoto lenses are easier to transport, easier to mount and easier to guide, and are much more likely to produce encouraging results to a beginner. Last time I used a 135mm f2 was decades ago on a Canon F1. Together they still weight less than any modern 135mm :>. I think the bokeh won me over with the cat, as well as the fact that I like animals; the case for the duck was the same. The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. I wanted to add my experience with some lenses that I thought worthy of being considered too, and some of the equipment that I have used. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. 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. Some APOs can be fitted with pricey telecompressors, but those invariably result in vignetting and coma. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? Hey! It is harder work than using a zoom lens, and some shots I just cannot get at all (cannot get close enough, or far enough way) but the shots I do get are so much nicer looking than I get with any other lens that for me and my goals it is a fair trade off. 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. As if absolutely clueless Youtube instructors who have no idea what they are talking about weren't enough. The interest of a f/1.4 is to be able to be perfect at f/2.8, while a f/1.8 or f/2 might need to be on f/4 to have the same sharpeness and overall IQ.They are not meant to be used wide open, except in rare moments. I love the lens for my modified Sony a6000! And with our first long lenses we were all impressed were we not? Does the bright star reflection bother you? The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. 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. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop . (purchased for $900), reviewed November 2nd, 2015 It's an ideal portrait lens. Begun in 1975, the Pentax K-mount legacy continues to this day. Not rude at all, a fair comment. But If you want the "look" you get with a medium telephoto at f/2, hen all those negatives become irrelevant. Best lens for portraiture I've ever tried. I guess thats where practice will come in handy. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Review - The-Digital-Picture.com With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. There is no agreement about what Bokeh means. Same thing as people mistake "shallow DOF" to blurry background. Imaging Resource 1998 - 2023. 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. 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. The lenses I listed are certainly not the ONLY exceptional lenses made over the years. PRICE. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. One of the prime examples of such a design is the "nifty fifty"the 50mm F1.8 lens construction that many lens manufacturers provide. Selecting between it and the 200mm Takumar was not an easy choice but, in the end, I chose the Takumar because it seemed to have slightly better contrast. EF-mount only, this packs more megapixels, a bigger sensor, and a high max ISO. And they like circles (no ellipses or polygons) and smooth colour (no hard edges, no onion rings). 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. It can isolate subject while being tack sharp with beautiful creamy bokeh when used at f2. 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). (purchased for $970), reviewed March 17th, 2011 Thanks.. Whats the best camera for around $2000? 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. Youll never have to worry about losing your position just by touching the lens, but you can always tape the position down to be sure. You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! It is sharp but somehow not that analytic way as a macro lens. 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. Some lenses are incurable. 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 such a hypocrite. $449.00. http://www.idyll.com/135. However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. Seems to me that Michael is pretty new to using long telephoto lenses, he writes that the Samyang is the first he has owned. Since i am totally new in this field, i would like to start with astrophotography but using my existing camera (Fuji XT-30). If you buy a nifty fifty or a 100mm macro lens you simply cannot go wrongyou will get a great and handy lens for your money, with great image quality. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. Sharp wide open, wonderful bokeh, fast AF in dark conditions. The lenses I selected are all affordable prime lenses, easily available on the second-hand market, and adaptable to the EOS system. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. Here is a recent ones taken with the canon xs and a lens. Many students just wanted to take better snapshots of family, vacation, pets, etc. 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 . http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ f/2, fast-accurate-silent focus, (relatively) small & light, super sharp!! 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. Large focus ring. This lens has a long focus adjustment ring, with great tension. Required fields are marked *. Agreed. The Samyang 135mm F/2 easily lives up to its hype and should be near the top of your list of purchases if you are new or experienced in the field of astrophotography. Hi Thomas As far as I know, the Nikon D500 is not modified for astrophotography out of the box (it includes a built in IR cut filter that blocks much of the 656nm wavelength). Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. In this buying guide weve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best. 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. Sharpness, contrast and the natural vignetting on full-frame cameras is awesome! I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. So, for Joe User or especially for Jane Client, one really has to look closely to see much of a difference. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. Thanks, Yes, each can produce different results (And that's why I keep and use several different lenses), but my point is that sharpness or bokeh are not the only factors for portraits -- sometimes it just comes down to convenience or price! KevinS, in my experience stopping down dramatically improves image quality in terms of chromatic aberration, coma and astigmatism. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. What is it like shooting with one today? Shoot shiny metal at a wide aperture and you'll see some very extreme purple fringing. Better than nothing I guess, would depend on how much it raises the price. I am no stranger to the full manual control of this lens, for both aperture and focus. The flawless image quality is only half the story though. Yes, she's isolated. The 135mm focal length is absolutely perfect for the Heart and Soul Nebulae if youre using a crop sensor DSLR camera. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. How good this lens overall and how sharp and color-free? 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. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! Some real life images from my photoblog: http://hellabella.de, One of the best and sharpest lens around. The Sadr Region in Cygnus, including the Crescent Nebula by Eric Cauble. For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. When stopped down to 37mm, F5.4, it is almost identical to the Takumar except that on highly enlarged images it shows a hint of coma in the distant corners. I have used the canon 70-200 f2.8L ii and also the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 L with excellent results. If 135mm f2 works for you, then fine. Why so salty? The images were collected using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i camera riding on a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. 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. Lenses with extreme sharpness and bokeh tend to be heavy. 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. As in all arts the client's likes influence the result up to a point. You can use Stellarium to preview the image scale with the 135mm lens and your DSLR. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. 1. "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. Reducing aperture with the built-in aperture iris interferes with the light path, and results in eight diffraction spikes around bright star images. The lens shows a very slight pincushion distortion, but it's well under 0.1% of frame height, an excellent performance by any measure. Helps me as a beginner a lot In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. p.s. After several years off, the venerable magazine has held a public open call photo contest and selected nine finalists and one winning image for its 'Photos of the Year.'. ", I'd no problem with that. 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. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. The Heart and Soul Nebulae captured using a DSLR and the Rokinon 135mm lens. Star parties or dark sky excursions are another great time to use a camera lens in place of the telescope. 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. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. Andysea, those are great images on your website. This seems to be the norm for telephotos. "If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! Otherwise I might not achieve focus? Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. I also find the other photos not very good. Not heavy like the white tele-zooms. You can't really ask them to stand still while you move around. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/01/canon-135mm-f2l-usm-mini-review.html Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. IQ will rival any other lens. Do you expect me to gawk? the lens is built strong, very strong. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. Still, all things considered, I prize this lens very highly and can not imagine giving it up. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. Have not used a 70-200 since. Already wide open this lens produce some high quality photos. never mind.. confirmed from others that F19 is indeed the one that is excluded on this lens! Great reach for street shots. In fact, in my test shots, I noticed that the red channel was a little softer than green and blue. - in my subjects' skin. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. When i just judge by the indicator line as i click through, it seems like its 19 that gets skipped wondering if there is anything more definite? CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. Can I assume that this article applies only to full frame & not to micro four thirds? It's terrible. The background blur is amazingly creamy with this lens. 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. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on. Of the old teles I've had, Nikon's 400mm f/3.5 was decent, Olympus's 300mm f/4.5 was good (it had a precursor to ED glass) Pentax's 300mm Takumar was TERRIBLE, Pentax's 500mm was terrible, Nikon's 135 f/2.8 Q was ok, and Sigma's 400mm f/5.6 "apo" was satisfactory.