It turns out that this. Some lenses are incurable. Stuff I used to take the photos. Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! 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. 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. Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. Creamy smooth bokeh. Really like the large focusing ring. modest cost for "L" series, wonderful optics and fast speed, nitpicking, but not a circular aperature and no weather sealing. My first shot was a section of the constellation Sagittarius that included the Lagoon Nebula, and Trifid Nebula. She doesn't look like she is there. Astrophotography is one of the ultimate tests of lens quality, as long exposure photography of deep-sky objects in space can highlight issues that are hidden during daytime photography. I guess thats where practice will come in handy. Not heavy like the white tele-zooms. I bought a Fotasy Minolta MD->EOSM adapter off ebay for $11, and then for about $20 each on craigs list really sharp, well built Minolta MC 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.8 lenses that turned out to be great for astrophotography. The rest are relatively uncreative, and just seem lame to me. Oh and it's stabilised. If you want autofocus and great value for money, buy the Canon 135mm, as it has almost the image quality of the Samyang, and you can get it for under $1,000 new. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens makes an excellent indoor sports lens. If this was used to shoot video you would think that the first image was using a green screen. Lensrentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus It is fantastic on my old 5d. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 Add To Cart. Juksu, your point is well taken. Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? Agreed. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. 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). 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. Again, there's no context. Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat However, all the reviews were made by nature and sports photographers, and I would like to find out more about their performance in astrophotography. Yeah I agree that the sentiment that they were designed to be used stopped down is wrong as they were designed to be used wide open because they had to be for speed (my point above). f/2! Just like the above samples, most are just bad. 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. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? 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. I mount it on my APS-C camera and the focal length literally becomes 216 mm, which is too tight. Often need f2.2 to f2.8 to gain sufficient DOF for human subjects. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. AF is accurate and very fast. The version I have has the mount for Canon EOS camera bodies, but there are several different lens mounts available on Amazon. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! It allows to push your main subject matter into abstraction wide open and get very detailed images stopped down. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. But you are talking more than 2x crop (cut half by width and height) and that leaves you to twice smaller resolution == quarter of the Mpix count.So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. AstroBin Even if I wanted a 135mm lens (and the 70-200mm f/2.8 is more versatile) it would be the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. 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. the lens is built strong, very strong. 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. However, I find the process tedious, and prefer single, manually guided, long exposures which seem to have deeper colors. The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. Reducing aperture with the built-in aperture iris interferes with the light path, and results in eight diffraction spikes around bright star images. Lior, I have done a lot of reading on modern zoom lenses. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. First of all, the background separation and the bokeh: I had photographed lots of animals in bushes before, but never before had I seen the bush melt away in the way it did with the 135mm lens. On the 135/2 all you've got is the bare metal. For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. Otherwise this lens is absolutely incredible. From my purchase research, I found a consensus that stopping down optimizes sharpness but the diaphragm will make nine diffraction spikes when stopped down. 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. Due to the weight, at times I didn't move my shooting position and just zoomed to a composition that worked. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. 135mm f2 vs 200 f2.8 primes? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. This lens is one of canons finest lenses i have ever used. The 135mm f2 is by all accounts one of their better and more reliable lenses however I believe the chance of a defective lens is lower with the Canon. I purchased this lens for the purposes of wide-field deep-sky astrophotography from my light-polluted backyard (shown below), and when traveling to a dark sky site. Let's the games begin! In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). Valerio, I sold my Canon Lens because in Nikon Lens there is a Defocus control option, very usefull in a daylight photos, as portrait. The 135 L handles this well. And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). Here are our top picks for the canon lenses for astrophotography. Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. Canon 135mm F2.8 SF for astrophotography? - Stargazers Lounge 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II With the high megapixel cameras, most people are going to ideally want to shoot at 1/200 or faster. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. I wish every lens was this good!! The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. However, they can be perfectly corrected with narrow band H-alpha or OIII filters. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. 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? 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. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. 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. A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. p.s. "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. Which Canon EOS M Would be Best for Astrophotography? Back in 1999, Sony released the F505, their first digital camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. One of Canon's best lenses for a reasonable price. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. (purchased for $725), reviewed March 26th, 2013 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. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Here is a recent ones taken with the canon xs and a lens. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. 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. Manual focus on wide angle lens, for landscapes, ok, if you have a reliable manual focus system, which Samyang, at least in my mount, does not have. DPReview March Madness, round one - vote! The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ Do you have a link to Yuri's photo stream? Stick to Andromeda, and skip the Whirlpool. image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. It must not be confused with the much cheaper SMC Takumar, often deceptively advertised as SMC Pentax Takumar, which has the M42 camera thread, and is plagued with unextinguishable blue chromatic aberration. The lenses I listed are certainly not the ONLY exceptional lenses made over the years. FULL FRAME TELEPHOTO 135mm F2.0 For example, the legendary Canon 85mm F1.2L weighs in at 1025g, and the Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art isn't too light either at 1130g. My questions, for deep sky pics, should I get the 135mm lens or the RedCat 51 APO 250mm f/4.9 which you mentioned here as well? I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. Some people like these, and consider them decorative. I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED UMC Telephoto Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras Be careful with the focus. I see that many commenters did not get what this lens can do. "Bokeru" is a verb, and it can apply equally to to optical and psychological effects, including the reduced mental clarity that can some with age. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. Why so salty? Over the years, I have tried more than two dozen telephoto lenses, until I finally found three or four perfect solutions. I've owned a few L lenses and while their USM motors have always been quick to snap in focus, this 135mm is on a different level. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. 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). These are affordably available on eBay, and result in perfectly round star images, the way nature intended them to be. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix). [emailprotected]. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? Its a no brainer if you use this focal length. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. The few occasions I use a 135 FL usually are landscape shots (where I have no use for f2) and childrens playing (where I need zoom and fast af). Has a good weight to it. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 And because you can shoot between F/2 and F/4, plenty of light reaches the sensor in a relatively short exposure. 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! And it's not the one problem from my L lenses very sad =(, My favourite lens, hands down. Here's what I see from the photographs:#1: Woman in traffic. I already did some trials with the Samyang 12mm lens. 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. In this new review, I focus exclusively on the unprecedented Samyang 135mm f/2, which is primarily designed for portrait and wildlife. Sure, that would be swellbut it doesn't matter with regard to how it performs. You're sour grapes man, you wish it were you who wrote the article. This has several advantages from less demanding tracking accuracy, to being able to use a lower ISO setting. One is the price, which starts around $800 for the smallest units, and rapidly climbs into thousands of dollars for larger apertures. I bought it for its bokeh. 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. Since I am interested in wide field astrophotography, I bought a new, unmodified, Canon 600D body for use with telephoto lenses. its useful to keep in mind these bokeh circles are the result of light sources bright lamps from autos Christmas lights streetlamps etc and are seriously overused in articles on lenses with strong subject\ backround seperations, they approach parody in the way they characterise subject separation, for most purposes and in most portrait situations its less highlight dominant backrounds that grace a photo. 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. Given the spot on DPR front page, lots of 'what-lens-should-I-buy' newbies will be spending their money on this one. Yes, because it is not f/2. A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. What is it like shooting with one today? I typically shoot with Canon lenses, but the potential for low light photography (whether thats astrophotography or the ability to film at dusk) caught my interest. 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. 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 ;). With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 Could use a few updates. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. I cant seem to find this documented anywhere. If you can tolerate vignetting, there are many normal 35mm lenses that are great wide open. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. KevinS, in my experience stopping down dramatically improves image quality in terms of chromatic aberration, coma and astigmatism. (purchased for $900), reviewed December 14th, 2006 A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. That is kind of the point I am trying to make -- These pictures are really not in another league. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Overall, the lens feels very solid and well constructed. I should mention that I have only tested this full-frame lens using my astrophotography DSLRs, all of which are crop-sensor camera bodies. Pleiades (M45) Orion Nebula (M42) Carina Nebula (shown below) North American Nebula; Heart and Soul Nebula (IC 1805 / IC 1848) All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. 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 model I use feels solid and the barrel is constructed with metal. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop using the aperture ring at the base of the lens. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. Already wide open this lens produce some high quality photos. 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. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. Or is there a use case for fitting the Samyang 135mm to a Panasonic gx85 (or Panasonic gh5) ?? For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. 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. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. 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. The Bokeh includes as well all that is in the focus, but mainly talked about how it comes visible in out of focus areas. Also, the lens can only be operated when aperture is set to 22, wondering how I could use F2. I'll take photo of Orion as soon as possible. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed February 4th, 2010 Thanks Gary! Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! reviewed August 2nd, 2017 In my test, nikon have the same color correction than Canon and same sharpness. Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). 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. The shallow depth of field present at its maximum aperture does indeed create a pleasing bokeh. 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. One way to combat potential soft images and chasing perfect focus all night is to stop the lens down to F/2.8 or even F/4. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. Olympus 75mm f1.82. I found with the 70-200 made me lazy. This brings me to my question. I mainly use for head shot photography. 1. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. If the telescope mount is precisely aligned to the celestial north pole, unguided exposures of one to two minutes are possible. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. Barney and Chris have been shooting the new Sony 50mm F1.4 GM, and we have a bunch of full resolution samples for you to peruse. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. If the title had been: "Testing My First Telephoto and LOVING IT!!!!!!!. It is sharp but somehow not that analytic way as a macro lens. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! I've done comparisons between my brand-new Samyang 85/1.4 and the old big Apollo 135/1.8 lens I had lying around, and the shots were for all practical purposes identical (exept, obviously, for the pixel count once cropped). Although typically unused in astrophotography, I did get a chance to see the beautiful bokeh this lens creates when shooting at F/2. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. 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.'. There are only a handful of foolproof strategies for making a great photograph. 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. (purchased for $890), reviewed July 17th, 2006 Shoot shiny metal at a wide aperture and you'll see some very extreme purple fringing. There is no agreement about what Bokeh means. Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable. I almost bought one, but couldn't manage that focal length and DoF with moving subjects and manual focus. Light weight and robust. 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. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY - YouTube At the other end of the aperture range though, the 5D's larger pixels actually help matters, as the softening starts later (it's very sharp even at f/16), and is noticeably lower at f/32. I agree to some extent with many of the critics of the article and disagree with much of its content, but I also have respect for the the author's right to express those opinions. The Precious - sharp images, fast focus, perfect weight, reference-quality build. I am telling them - don't! 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. 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). 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? Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. Check them out for yourself! 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. Also, accurate guiding is essential. Perhaps you have seen the photos of masterful Russian portrait photographers such as Elena Shumilova or Anka Zhuravleva. Some people do not like this and consider Bokeh to refer only to the rendering of out of focus points of light. 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. But again i am just at the beginning and i also do not want to use now a telescope. Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2 for Astrophotography: Review & Imaging Tests It is a heavy lens. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. (purchased for $890), reviewed October 21st, 2005 At f/32, it's pretty soft, but less so than a lot of lenses at that aperture. When stopped down to 49mm it really is indistinguishable from an APO, except it shows red chromatic aberration with modified cameras even with the UV/IR block or CLS-CCD filter. (purchased for $900). Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Review - The-Digital-Picture.com How good this lens overall and how sharp and color-free? wew.. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. Sigma 105/2.8 DG EX Macro (very sharp at infinity) My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. 135mm F2.0 The optical design includes one extra-low dispersion lens element to control chromatic aberration, contributing to sharp, color-accurate imaging, and each of its lens elements features Ultra Multi-Coating to improve light transmission and reduce ghosting and flare. 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 .

Cost Of Building A Hospital In Kenya, What Is A Good Fielding Percentage In Softball, Title Holding States Map, Articles C