They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. 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. While some people LOVE the bokeh circles (first photo), others hate them and consider them a distraction.The 50mm f/1.8 is hardly a lens to talk about. 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. For me, that's enough. Ive captured a lot of deep-sky astrophotography targets from the northern hemisphere, but Im usually in too deep to capture an entire region of space at once. You may need to refocus your subject as the temperature changes throughout the night. 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. Rokinon lenses are made in Korea, and so is the Samyang variation. I just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens. It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. in the rain. (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 Online since 2011, AstroBin is the #1 complete solution for image hosting of astrophotographs. My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. The Sadr Region in Cygnus, including the Crescent Nebula by Eric Cauble. I've owned nice SLR gear since 1976, and am normally a wide angle shooter this is my favorite lens, of all time. I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. 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. AHAB. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. 135mm and 200mm lenses are suitable for wide angle star-field views, and comet and asteroid hunting, while 300mm lenses serve very well for the Andromeda galaxy, large emission nebulae, open clusters, and even larger globular clusters. 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. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. In 3 months I got loosy focus ring. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. 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. Seems to me that Michael is pretty new to using long telephoto lenses, he writes that the Samyang is the first he has owned. Must have if you're serious about portraits. The flat lens hood is great for taking flat frames after a night of astrophotography. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. Some noteworthy targets to try. Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. Everyone should have one? I have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. The optical design includes one extra-low dispersion (ED) lens element to control chromatic aberration, and ultra multi-coatings (UMC) to both improve light transmission and reduce flare. I wish every lens was this good!! I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. 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. Olympus 4x Optical Zoom f/2 Lens; 25-100mm (35mm Equivalent) Show More. The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. You get what you get.#4: Cat in Underbrush.That's pretty good.#5: Woman with Blanket.It's like a snapshot. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. if you really want to get the best gym photos that can be taken, use it and enjoy what you will see. When i check a F stop chart, i see 15 stops if i count the main, and the secondary ones: 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.3, 4, 4.8, 5.6, 6.7, 8, 9.5, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22. At under 900USD, it's a steal. On the 135/2 all you've got is the bare metal. You can use Stellarium to preview the image scale with the 135mm lens and your DSLR. Typical L construction. You will get perfectly round star images if you use an aperture stop in front of the lens made of a series of filter thread step-down rings. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? Contrasty but not harsh. Ive been using kit lenses for the past year, favoring the Nikkor 50mm 2.8. I just wish this lens had IS for low light and portraits with flash. Yes, it is about the same as 85mm f/1.4 blur factor is 60mm, while 135mm f/2 blur factor is 67mm. 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? It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. never mind.. confirmed from others that F19 is indeed the one that is excluded on this lens! My guidescope is a 5in F5 Jaeger's achromat with a 2.3x Barlow, and a 9mm illuminated reticle eyepiece. There are only a handful of foolproof strategies for making a great photograph. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 (purchased for $700), reviewed June 13th, 2009 I will say that at F/4 this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner when used on my 60Da. D8XX cameras, subject isolation and quality of bokeh.Zoom lenses can not hold a candle to such primes. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. Has a good weight to it. But, since fast 300mm ED lenses are beyond my toy budget, I would appreciate seeing magnified center and corner test images of actual star fields. (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. Sure, the Nifty 50 is an incredible value (and a LOT cheaper), but the 135mm puts you within range of some of the best astrophotography targets in the night sky. Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. 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. In fact, it might be fun to try! Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. f2, very sharp, virtually without CAs, contrast, colour, lightwight, buildings. AF ring feels loose compared to my other L lenses. Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. An update to the Mini 11, the new camera adds parallax correction capabilities, automatic flash control and a multi-function twist lens. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. 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. Its a trade-off, and one that seems to surface time and time again in this hobby. What is it like shooting with one today? So I sold it for nearly what I bought it for and chalked it up to a learning experience. But again i am just at the beginning and i also do not want to use now a telescope. Personally, I can't stand these circles, and I see them as VERY distracting.Lots of fads come and go, and this is just another one of these fads that some photographers are obsessed with. The Rho Ophiuchi Cloud Complex by Eric Cauble using the Samyang 135mm F/2 lens. With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. F2 allows higher shutter speeds in lower light without raising the ISO. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? This is one of my all time favourites. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! Off topic, The Precious - sharp images, fast focus, perfect weight, reference-quality build. A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! To actually learn to compose the photos so that the background complements the image instead of being something that must be blurred away. This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. Agreed. There's literally no story!#6: Purple Flower.The isolation works because it's the only color. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. Theres no image stabilization on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 either, but thats a non-issue for amateur astrophotographers. 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. Digital camera types . If You can afford it, buy it! Focal length: 135mm Maximum aperture: f/2.0 Lens construction: 10 elements in 8 groups Angle of view: 18 degrees Closest focusing distance: 3 feet Focus adjustment: Rear focusing system with USM Mount: Canon Filter size: 72mm Dimensions: 3.2 inches in diameter and 4.4 inches long Weight: 1.7 pounds Warranty: 1 year See more Prime means that this lens is fixed at 135mm, it is not a zoom lens that allows for focal length adjustments. 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. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s. Why take a step back from 250 to sit between the RedCat and the 24-105? Images that sing. I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. Yes, she's isolated. Of my last 3500 shots only 62 were made with the 135 f/2. The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. 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. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! It always happens to me with Samyang, it makes good glasses, fast and sharp, I want to have them, but they are not comfortable to use, not in Sony E, their focus is not precise, and they are not "so" cheap. Let's the games begin! Over the years, I have tried more than two dozen telephoto lenses, until I finally found three or four perfect solutions. But for me, the reason to get this lens is the Bokeh and DOF control. Focus end stop. If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. Excellent build quality, fast auto focus, and its fast. These are affordably available on eBay, and result in perfectly round star images, the way nature intended them to be. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. - posted in Beginning Deep Sky Imaging: I have recently received my star adventurer and as of now only have the star adventurer, benro tripod (super stable), and a unmodded canon t2i with only a 18-55mm lens. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. 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? Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? Unfortunately I haven't more the Canon lens. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. 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. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. 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?) 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 . I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. Click on following link to view images Because of chromatic aberration, no telephoto lens can be used at full aperture. 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. In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. $449.00. Juksu, your point is well taken. The APO showed no chromatic aberration at all with the addition of the Astronomik UV/IR cut clip filter (passing 380-680nm), but the telephoto lenses, even when stopped down, showed a tight bright red ring around all stars. Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. Perhaps I missed it, but did you use a clip-in light pollution filter with your 60D and this lens? This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. No more inside shooting with flash! IS would also help outside with wind. Or just get a zoom that is 24-200mm and you are covered. I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. @juksu - you're such a hypocrite. (Actually if I can live with the DoF I prefer it to my 85/1.2 too, as there is much less bonus colour.) Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price.

How Much Is Boldt Castle Worth, Fat Larry James Cause Of Death, Brandy Modela Olympian, Articles C