I do not like this. Depth of field at f/2 on the 135 is so shallow that I usually shot it stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 anyway. The extremes are 2 and 22. Whats the best camera for around $2000? I love the lens for my modified Sony a6000! Its actually kind of neat to watch! Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. Latter looks quite professional.. 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. 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 article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. There is no agreement about what Bokeh means. Zoom lenses are entirely unsuitable for astrophotography due to prominent aberrations of every kind. 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. 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? The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. It would not surprise me if modern lenses were useable at full aperture. The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens from Samyang is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and most telephoto applications. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. http://www.idyll.com/laney2014 It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. If you shoot things in motion on a Canon body, and need some reach without massive bulk, this is the one I recommend. Bye Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. 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. An update to the Mini 11, the new camera adds parallax correction capabilities, automatic flash control and a multi-function twist lens. As soon as e.g. It is sharp but somehow not that analytic way as a macro lens. Super Sharp.Super Fast AF. No rear seals - since the 17-40 Canon has added rear seals to L lenses, to help in weather sealing. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: It also focuses really fast and accurate and is light. +1 for the 135mm lens. I thought I would miss shooting at 200mm, but 135mm is long enough for most portraits and gives a decent amount of compression. I use the word design, because although the available 135mm F2 lenses aren't the exact same optical formula, they share many important traits. No more inside shooting with flash! Photography is art and technology, the latter serving the first.Photography is not something arty with a lot of gadgetry. Check out Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? If you own an EOS Camera - It's a no Brainer, Buy one Many lenses lose their appeal after time, but not this one. 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 ;). 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. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. In an effort to save money, Id like to start using a Canon 80D that we already own to start picking targets and imaging. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. http://www.idyll.com/135. Equipment used was an astromodified Canon 700D, Samyang 135mm f2, SkyTech Triband filter, Star Adventurer 2i, ZWO mini finder with ASI120MM, guiding with PHD2 and polar alignment using sharpcap. I have done a review comparing the sharpness and quality of bokeh to the Canon 70-200 2.8. Well saturated but neutral. What is it like shooting with one today? Why would I want a 135/2.0 lens when I have a 135/1.8? The spec sheet for the Rokinon 135mm F/2 boasts a number of qualities, with the ones listed below being the most important when it comes to night photography and astro. Aperture ring. In these situations, a portable, wide-field imaging rig wins. This seems to be the norm for telephotos. Best lenses for astrophotography: 50, 85 and 135mm - DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging - Cloudy Nights Cloudy Nights Astrophotography and Sketching DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. 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. But for many of us, somewhere in between, are plenty of short to mid-tele lenses that will deliver solid service (in terms of subject separation) without carrying around still another kilo for the sake of more blur. 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. (purchased for $700), reviewed June 13th, 2009 There's just nothing there. Writer Anno Huidekoper takes a look at what this manual SLR can do and how it stacks up to its contemporaries. This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. Nice image, andysea. The cat is a case for the bit bucket i my opinion - it has no composition, a distracting background and a random parts of the body in focus - the same picture made with a smart phone could not look worse. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. A quick question, I have a Sony a6300 mirrorless camera which is great but the sensor is very close behind the mount. A Canon 70-200L IS II at 200mm at f2.8 has all the same characteristics of the Canon 135L. 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. 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. One of them is simplicity: A clear, simple subject that constitutes a shape, standing out and contrasting against a calm and simple background. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. Also, accurate guiding is essential. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. 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. IS would also help outside with wind. The CA is pretty low wide open and it rivals my 200mm L lens. There have been a lot of Tele-Tessars over the years. However, as I have no actual experience with the Baader filter, I would suggest that you consult other members on the particular APO - Baader filter combination you have in mind. Backwards compatible (film). 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. Since I am interested in wide field astrophotography, I bought a new, unmodified, Canon 600D body for use with telephoto lenses. So whats so great about shooting at 135mm anyway? One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. @juksu - you're such a hypocrite. 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 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. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! Standards have risen in recent years. when you hold the lens in your hand you know you are holding a fine peice of optical equipment. 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? Have you ever come across this phenomena? I actually have to walk 1/2 way up the stairs to be able get folk in the frame. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. Given the spot on DPR front page, lots of 'what-lens-should-I-buy' newbies will be spending their money on this one. The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! 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. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. Neutral yet very nice colours. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. Several functions may not work. Below, are a few examples of astrophotography images Ive taken with lenses of varying focal lengths. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. This is one of my all time favourites. But in the rush to make hybrids why are aren't we giving video shooters the tools they need? Asahi Optical's Pentax KX was one of the first cameras with this lens mount, acting as a midrange model in the lineup. That's why I really enjoy shooting portraits with it. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. Since Eric was so generous to share his images with me, I had to include his photo of the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex as well. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. The 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Canon EF Mount from Rokinon is a manual focus telephoto prime lens useful for portraiture and all medium telephoto applications. AHAB. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. 30-35% diameter reduction is usually necessary on "good" lenses. Really, just an amazing lens, easily worth the $800-900 it commands on the street. MCovington, my Zeiss 300/4 is the full thickness barrel version, made in West Germany, serial number 5990836. (purchased for $900), reviewed December 4th, 2006 Do you expect me to gawk? Lior, I have done a lot of reading on modern zoom lenses. Thanks Gary! Thus the enthusiasm has a valid basis but may not be suitable for all shooting conditions. 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?) There's literally no story!#6: Purple Flower.The isolation works because it's the only color. 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. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price). Click on following link to view images And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. Large hood. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. If so, which one? Now i have the f2.8 version, and while the resolution is better it s under no circumstance as good as the f/4 one. The lens has 14 stops when turning the aperture. People mistake "Bokeh" to blurry background, what is very very common mistake. From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. 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. Yes, because it is not f/2. Seems like a great lens. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. 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. But If you want the "look" you get with a medium telephoto at f/2, hen all those negatives become irrelevant. These lenses can be had on eBay in mint condition for around $70, and are probably the most price efficient optical instrument in the world. In photoshop I love to zoom 200, 300 and even 400% to see the extreme details it is an absolutely amazing lens, great backround blur, great for low light weddings with available light. No, Mr. I had of course heard that this lens is supposed to be very sharp, but I had never before had such a full blown "wow" experience when reviewing the sharpness of a lens. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. 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. Stage photography is another good use for the 135 L. 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. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. I speak Japanese fluently, was a translator in Tokyo for 8 years and studied photography there for two years. Plus it is harder to attach than other lens hoods. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. Add To Cart. Trully sharp accross whole frame from f2 on 5d. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. 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 OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. Used with a FF body the DOF can be unforgiving, but if you nail focus the results can be magnificent. You can't really ask them to stand still while you move around. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed October 5th, 2008 And yet this review is on front page of DPReview prompting me to go and buy this lens -- so surely it must be a professional , well grounded review, right? Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? And in their task to get that blurry background, they most often throw their main subject out of focus and/or to focus for anything else in the photograph that would make it, and end results are just "gear porn". I have a vintage Nikon135mm f/2.8 AI-s which produces virtually the same bokeh and weighs a quarter of this or any other 135mm AF lens. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. I have used the canon 70-200 f2.8L ii and also the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 L with excellent results. f1.4 was a necessisty rather than a creative luxury. etc.. Ron. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. For portraits and with a high MP body I'd be more inclined than ever to just go 85mm, and for other uses it's hard to pass up the zooms' versatility, but I still there's still room for 135s in some kits and some formats. Its a trade-off, and one that seems to surface time and time again in this hobby. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. (purchased for $845), reviewed November 16th, 2005 Great reach for street shots. I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. 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. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. 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 the moment I reviewed the first sub-exposure on the display screen of my camera, I feel in love with the mid-range magnification of a 135mm lens. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: I bought this lens after reading your great review for my Nikon D5300. ", I'd no problem with that. Has a good weight to it. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. These were just a tad less sharp at the corners than their Canon competition, but certainly extremely sharp all over the field if closed down one stop or even half a stop. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s.
Copyright © 2023 | Theme by st rose of lima quotes