Because of chromatic aberration, no telephoto lens can be used at full aperture. Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. Do you have a link to Yuri's photo stream? This lens has only two drawbacks. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. The model I use feels solid and the barrel is constructed with metal. CANON LENS FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class. Perhaps it's not a big thing, but for a L-graded lens this feature should be expected. Thanks, 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. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! ", I'd no problem with that. Add To Cart. I already did some trials with the Samyang 12mm lens. I guess thats where practice will come in handy. 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. It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? 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. Nothing just makes sense about the review -- the writer does not really understand the lens he is reviewing, very basic concepts are wrong. Most of these APOs have F ratios around 6.5, and are unable to comprehend in their field of view large celestial objects such as the Andromeda galaxy, the North America nebula, and comets. On FF I use this lens for both tight portraits and landscape shots. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. The lens is not weather-sealed, so you definitely dont want to leave your camera and lens (and your tracking mount!) Beware others critical comments here about how flat these images look, the author has chosen specific topics and viewpoints to highlight f2 with this lens, so see the wow review for what it is please and the negative comments need placing in context. They just wanted to increase their joy from photography. 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. 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. Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. Why would I want a 135/2.0 lens when I have a 135/1.8? Can I assume that this article applies only to full frame & not to micro four thirds? I rarely shoot static landscapes or posed, composed images. Thanks to you I got a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 and a 24mm f 1.4 and am considering this lens at the moment, but wonder how it compares to the Canon 135 mm f/2. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. p.s. 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. They're heavy, and expensive, but you can carry one lens instead of three, and can vary the compression and field of view to a significant degree - from nearly normal, to long portrait focal lengths. As in all arts the client's likes influence the result up to a point. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. if you compare images taken with this lens to those from a 105mm f1.8 ais or a cosina 125mm and you'll see what i mean. Colour and contrast is great. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. I was blown away when I loaded the photos into my computer. The Rho Ophiuchi Cloud Complex by Eric Cauble using the Samyang 135mm F/2 lens. In this buying guide weve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. Samyang 135 f/2 astrophotography gallery Below some pictures I made using Samyang 135 lens with QHY163 mono camera and iOptron Smart EQ Pro mount. 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. Whats the best camera for around $2000? Magical images, great AF, great close focusing abilities. Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. I found with the 70-200 made me lazy. This is so annoying that I intend to replace the Canon lens cap with a Tamron cap. As soon as e.g. IS would also help outside with wind. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. This lens is one of canons finest lenses i have ever used. 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. f2, very sharp, virtually without CAs, contrast, colour, lightwight, buildings. Theres no image stabilization on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 either, but thats a non-issue for amateur astrophotographers. 1. I like fast lenses, and my Nikkor 105DC is my favourite. Again, there's no context. however i started to realise how every subject might actually be a cardboard cutout being photographed. Its a trade-off, and one that seems to surface time and time again in this hobby. This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. As you know, camera lenses come in varying focal lengths, apertures, and optical quality. Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. I seems many people he are confused about the meaning of the word. Tamron has announced its 11-20mm F2.8 Di III-A RXD ultra-wide angle zoom will be made available for Fujifilm X-mount. Overall, spectacular lens. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. I have done a review comparing the sharpness and quality of bokeh to the Canon 70-200 2.8. In the highest contrast situations there's a hint of both purple and green fringing but both are minor and easy to remove with software. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. A coupe of stage shows, one very recent, and a random collection using this lens exclusively 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. 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. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: An h-alpha filter would still be useful for your D500, but much more so if it were modified! Some people do not like this and consider Bokeh to refer only to the rendering of out of focus points of light. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. Tack sharp even at wide open aperture. 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?) The image below highlights the creative freedom this lens provides. [emailprotected]. Also, when used as recommended, and properly guided at full camera resolution, they are all comparable to a field-corrected APO, producing perfect images from edge to edge which can be easily cropped 25% with no evidence of aberrations. f1.4 was a necessisty rather than a creative luxury. Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. AF ring feels loose compared to my other L lenses. 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. I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. I thought I would miss shooting at 200mm, but 135mm is long enough for most portraits and gives a decent amount of compression. The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. I do not use burst mode, but the lens would produce movie-like frames. 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. 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. Also, the newer and much more expensive 200mm F4 SMC Pentax with the K mount is decisively inferior, showing small but annoying red chromatic aberration. 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. Have not used a 70-200 since. I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". In this configuration, the lens is still a very fast F3.4. Generally, prime lenses have a reputation for being slightly sharper, and I have found that to be true whether I am shooting a nebula or a Scarlet Tanager. I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) Let's unbox, review and test this lens to find out why it is one of the best bang for your buck deals in astrophotography! 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. FULL FRAME TELEPHOTO 135mm F2.0 All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. 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. So I sold it for nearly what I bought it for and chalked it up to a learning experience. 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? 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. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice. With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. The 135mm focal length is absolutely perfect for the Heart and Soul Nebulae if youre using a crop sensor DSLR camera. Canon 135mm is a great 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. For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. If you must have autofocus, and care about weight, buy the Canon. However, I find the process tedious, and prefer single, manually guided, long exposures which seem to have deeper colors. The image shown below covers 4.96 x 5.98 degrees in the constellation Cassiopeia. 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. A lot of us have been saying this for years. As it is it is earns a 9. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. (purchased for $970), reviewed March 17th, 2011 How well do Fujifilm's film simulations match up to their film counterparts? If this was used to shoot video you would think that the first image was using a green screen. 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. Available Monday. This lens has a long focus adjustment ring, with great tension. 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. Stuff I used to take the photos. Yes, she's isolated. 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. That is the story.#7: Leaves.That doesn't work. Although if Bokeh and sharpness is your thing and you can live with MF the Laowa 105mm f/2 Smooth Trans Focus (STF) is amazing. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. Amazing for portraits, easily fast enough for indoor sports. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 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. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II Definitely now on my to-buy list. The latter are designed for crop sensor cameras and the back of the lens sticks too far into the body of the camera and would hit the EOS-clip filter. By far the best one is the Tiffen Haze 2 filter. I just purchased a very lightly used Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM for $620 from a great online dealer and can't wait for an opportunity to try it out with my Astronomik CLS clip on a T4i at a dark site. 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. That means that it doesnt require a robust equatorial telescope mount as a larger, heavier telephoto lens would. Thats quite a jump from 135mm, so the camera body you use with this lens may change the types of targets you shoot. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. You currently have javascript disabled. 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. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. But you just know that there is the professionalism that is lacking here -- and the writer's Instagram page confirms that. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? Well, for me. I shoot it wide open 90% of the time. The lens arrived next day, less than 24 hours after I hit the order button.
canon 135mm f2 astrophotography
Published On - shooting in nassau county, fl