Every different lens design has different "bokeh" even when the lenses are by specs same, like Canon 135mm f/2 vs Samyang 135mm f/2 are both same, but both render differently, even when both have same DOF. I disagree. During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. 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). So whats so great about shooting at 135mm anyway? 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. CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. 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. Now, I have to admit that up to this point, it sounds a little too good to be true. There is no such thing, in my opinion. 8MP is plenty for the usual 8x10 or 16x20 portrait print. " Not heavy like the white tele-zooms. 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. I bought my lens in mint condition for $350 from Japan, but I see that some retailers are asking significantly more. Great post; thanks for the detailed information. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Got it! Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 Colour and contrast is great. 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). I will say that at F/4 this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner when used on my 60Da. Thanks, Chris, hi Trevor my name is sagar i have same lens but i have one question why lot of stars are appearing in my image which is taken thru rokinon 135mm, Your email address will not be published. 10/10 (Editor's Choice) Check Price. Theres no image stabilization on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 either, but thats a non-issue for amateur astrophotographers. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. I would never shell out hundreds of euros for a 135 prime let alone one with manual focus. Images that sing. Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. The screws should be set sufficiently tightly to prevent shift, yet not so tightly as to interfere with fine focusing. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. My point is that we must never lose the joy of photography. I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. The closest Ive been to the 135mm range is 105mm on my Canon 24-105 zoom. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix) ". These lenses go about as close as you could get without a dedicated macro lens. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). (For Nikon users there's the new 105mm too.). An h-alpha filter would still be useful for your D500, but much more so if it were modified! On the 135/2 all you've got is the bare metal. PRICE. 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. 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. best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. It is by far the fastest focusing, best bokeh, and lowest light lens you will ever find. As it is it is earns a 9. Used on a crop body the results are still splendid but you gain on DOF, making it a great combination for wedding/event and ambient/available light. it is crisp, fast, and awsome. With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. And you can even crop a 135 efl with today's sensors should you actually need it. modest cost for "L" series, wonderful optics and fast speed, nitpicking, but not a circular aperature and no weather sealing. To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? Shoot shiny metal at a wide aperture and you'll see some very extreme purple fringing. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. It could easily rival 'bokeh monsters lenses' at fraction of their price. http://www.idyll.com/135. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Really excels as indoor sports lens on a crop camera. It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. I enjoied the use of this lens many years before the DSLR. The reason the 135mm lens was that it was the longest lens that would focus with a Leica rangefinder. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. 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. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. You just panned the subject for his photos and then turn around and needle thematic for looking into Ericsson. 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. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. I think youll find that this lens is behind some of the most amazing wide-field astrophotography images online! The presentation and hands-on look and feel of the 135mm F/2 lens is impressive considering the reasonable price of this lens. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. I understand the optical design is quite old. It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. Did anybody use this lens for DSLR astrophoto? Does this work well with any of the 1.4x / 1.7x / 2.0x Teleconverters (extenders / barlows)? (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 The model I use feels solid and the barrel is constructed with metal. Material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted or otherwise used without the prior written consent of The Imaging Resource. The inset picture is a magnified view of the bottom right corner of the frame. 2 Dielectric Diagonals. 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. Interesting. 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. The 5D's larger pixels also make chromatic aberration somewhat lower at most apertures. I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. The version I have has the mount for Canon EOS camera bodies, but there are several different lens mounts available on Amazon. Still - a great portrait lens when used at f/2.8 or f/4, with a creamy bokeh indeed. A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. Also, accurate guiding is essential. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! Even if the background is very close to your subject, somehow the optical construction in the 135mm lens will still manage to separate the background beautifully. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. Chromatic aberration is almost eliminated in narrowband, so lenses with that problem may be fine performers. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. Here are our top picks for the canon lenses for astrophotography. My Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 mounted to a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. thank you for that great review and also the explanations. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. Instead it means the style of rendering. But first, there are several general rules which must be understood. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. Have you ever come across this phenomena? They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. Please send your photos of the Andromeda galaxy. Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. 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 ;). The 135 L handles this well. My 24-70L needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to begin to match the sharpness of my 135L at f2.0 (the test shots were of the portrait of Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill). If you want the best possible image quality, and you must have autofocus, and you don't care if it is a bit heavy (maybe you need it for studio use), buy the Sigma. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). (purchased for $900), reviewed August 22nd, 2008 Perhaps you have seen the photos of masterful Russian portrait photographers such as Elena Shumilova or Anka Zhuravleva. I got mine for $60.00 on Craigslist but seen them on eBay for $100 and less all the time. Sharp but smooth at the same time. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. 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. 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. 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. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. Focus are dead on with my Fullframe or APS system. Since i am totally new in this field, i would like to start with astrophotography but using my existing camera (Fuji XT-30). This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. Aperture ring. 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. In the past, Ive covered a number of different lenses, from the Sigma 24mm F/1.4 to the Canon EF 300mm F/4L. As you'd expect though, distortion and light falloff are both higher with a full-frame image circle, but perhaps not as much as you'd normally expect. 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. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. One of Canon's best lenses for a reasonable price. It's a trade off. Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. Today I want to talk about another such lens design: The 135mm F2 lens. 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. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. 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. Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Adam007,"a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels"No thanks. To prevent damage to the lens finish, apply nylon acorn nuts (or cap nuts) to the tips of the retaining ring's three alignment screws. Many lenses lose their appeal after time, but not this one. Here's what I see from the photographs:#1: Woman in traffic. Nice image, andysea. This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s. 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. As soon as e.g. Already wide open this lens produce some high quality photos. Second night out with mine right now and I am here in the comments looking for the part number or link! OM System's latest lens is a whopper of a macro, featuring optical stabilization, full weather sealing, up to 2x magnification and a whole lot more. Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. 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. Light weight and robust. AF is accurate and very fast. Definitely now on my to-buy list. You currently have javascript disabled. I was very happy for this reason to eventually get a full frame DSLR in 2007 and sell the 85mm lens and buy a 105mm one to replace it. 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?) Better than nothing I guess, would depend on how much it raises the price. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. The extremes are 2 and 22. when you hold the lens in your hand you know you are holding a fine peice of optical equipment. In my test, nikon have the same color correction than Canon and same sharpness. Sure, that would be swellbut it doesn't matter with regard to how it performs. Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. I like fast lenses, and my Nikkor 105DC is my favourite. That is the story.#7: Leaves.That doesn't work. 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. No telephoto lens, and no apochromat, is sufficiently corrected to accomodate such a wide spectral range. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 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. Although this lens feels solid, it is rather light when compared to a telescope. Cost. What is it like shooting with one today? The 135mm focal length is absolutely perfect for the Heart and Soul Nebulae if youre using a crop sensor DSLR camera. Its nice to have the F/2. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. IS would also help outside with wind.