canon 135mm f2 astrophotography

Finally, to prevent image shift during exposure, all telephoto lenses must be supported at two points: at the camera end, and at the far end with a large retaining ring. Another drawback is the focal length. Everyone assumes their definition is the "true" one. Focus end stop. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. Adam007,"a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels"No thanks. In the past, Ive covered a number of different lenses, from the Sigma 24mm F/1.4 to the Canon EF 300mm F/4L. Not another article that promotes portraits shot with wide open lens and out of focus highlights in the background. 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. It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice. Another lens to consider at this focal length (at maximum zoom) is the Rokinon 135mm F/2. Since i am totally new in this field, i would like to start with astrophotography but using my existing camera (Fuji XT-30). if you really want to get the best gym photos that can be taken, use it and enjoy what you will see. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix) ". For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. I'll walk you through all this inc. 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. The best ones listed below serve well with a one stop reduction, and some require two or even three stops. 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. http://www.idyll.com/135. 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). (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 wew.. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. But like a glitch in the matrix, an anomaly that shouldn't exist, you can get the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm for as little as $430 brand new. When all that was available were APS-C crop cameras a 85mm lens provided a near equivalent view angle to the 135mm on a full frame camera. Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. #light_bulb I would disagree. Really, just an amazing lens, easily worth the $800-900 it commands on the street. Widefield Astrophotography with the Samyang 135mm f/2 Lens Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! You can barely tell it's a pond.#3: Duck.Birds with bokeh are fine. Stuff I used to take the photos. Build quality: excellent. Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. Andysea, those are great images on your website. Large focus ring. I would only recommend this lens for casual photographers where missed shot means nothing. The Precious - sharp images, fast focus, perfect weight, reference-quality build. (purchased for $845), reviewed November 16th, 2005 Bye By far the best one is the Tiffen Haze 2 filter. Tack sharp at f/2. I thought I had to sell my 100/F2.8 macro L but thanks for letting me know I can keep it. I am not really looking at buying anything else, though. Now - THAT's a lens everyone should have ;). Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. Stuff I used to take the photos in this video:- The Canon 135mm f2 lens: https://amzn.to/346Paz7- Sony A7III Camera: https://amzn.to/2xM776q- Sony Grip exten. Excellent color and saturation, a virtually perfect lens. And they like circles (no ellipses or polygons) and smooth colour (no hard edges, no onion rings). In this post, Ill explain why I think the Rokinon 135mm F/2 is the perfect addition to an arsenal of astrophotography lenses. Bottom line, this is just an outstanding lens by any measure, one that makes clear why you'd want to pay the freight for expensive prime glass. My work requires auto-focus. (purchased for $890), reviewed July 17th, 2006 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. 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. Sharp wide open, wonderful bokeh, fast AF in dark conditions. Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. Crazy fast AF! I speak Japanese fluently, was a translator in Tokyo for 8 years and studied photography there for two years. I have a Nikon d 500. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. As you know, camera lenses come in varying focal lengths, apertures, and optical quality. My point is that we must never lose the joy of photography. Really excels as indoor sports lens on a crop camera. 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. I use the word design, because although the available 135mm F2 lenses aren't the exact same optical formula, they share many important traits. Available 03/21/23. fast, sharp wide open, excellent bokeh, value for money, very fast, sharp, gorgeous background blur, world class lens. @juksu - you're such a liar. Why would I want a 135/2.0 lens when I have a 135/1.8? Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. However, all the reviews were made by nature and sports photographers, and I would like to find out more about their performance in astrophotography. 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. Today I want to talk about another such lens design: The 135mm F2 lens. 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. Voting ends March 8, 2023. A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! What you need to know is the author is a hobbyist and hands his images over to px500, the bottom of the barrel so of course he is impressed, he doesnt use top flight gear day in, day out to earn his pay. It's an ideal portrait lens. They are by nature designed to compromise by magnification and distance, and are therefore not optically optimized at any single setting. Check them out for yourself! image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. There is no such thing, in my opinion. 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. SIx months on from buying it this has become my favourite lens ever, beating my previous favourite (Leica's 4th version of the 35mm Summicron for its M-series rangefinders). 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. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. Ironically all the sample images in this post are painfully soft. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. The best 200mm lens is precisely the older 200mm F4 SMC Takumar, which comes with the M42 camera thread, and requires the M42-EOS adapter. 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. I found this highly restrictive for shooting indoors where there was seldom enough distance between me with my camera and my subject(s). For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. Be careful with the focus. The Nikon D810A, however, is modified for astrophotography out of the box. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. 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. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). As you'd expect from a premium prime lens, both maximum and average chromatic aberration is very low across the aperture range, with the maximum CA on the order of 0.02% of frame height regardless of aperture. The lens has 14 stops when turning the aperture. 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. Amazing sharpness wide open at F2.0 and the focus ring is nice and firm not tight you don't really need to tape it down for astrophotography. My canon is clear modded and I use a an Astronomik EOS-clip L filter to block the uv and ir. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. One of Canon's best lenses for a reasonable price. The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography. The sigma 150mm f2.8 tests very well, zeiss 135mm apo sonnar, and leica 180mm f3.5 apo all proven performers on star tests. Just like the above samples, most are just bad. Nice image, andysea. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. Camera tech for video has come a long way in recent years, with faster autofocus, subject tracking, eye tracking and smarter lenses that stabilize the frame. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM lens. How good it is? - Cloudy Nights (purchased for $800), reviewed March 15th, 2010 When the aperture is stopped down to 37mm using step-down filter rings, this lens produces incredibly tiny pinpoint star images from edge to edge. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? 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. Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. here some information (sorry only in italian) http://www.astrovale-usm/index.html Typical L construction. BTW, the 300-mm Tele-Tessar you describe -- what camera was it made for? The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. We think it rises to the challenge. Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2 for Astrophotography: Review - YouTube Overall, spectacular lens. But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. If 135mm f2 works for you, then fine. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2 for Astrophotography: Review & Imaging Tests 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. For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. Of my last 3500 shots only 62 were made with the 135 f/2. Aperture ring. This way you get both lenses with only one! parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. The 135mm F2 lens design is truly special, and in this article (and the video I made), I want to try to convince you as well. Many lenses lose their appeal after time, but not this one. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. I own a 135 since the film days (because you "had to have one" and could not afford much else), still have the zeiss Jena f3.5 M42 and even jumped for the zeiss f2.8 for my yashica when they were sold for next to nothing. 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? The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. (AVX). Juksu, your point is well taken. It is a parade of photos that should have been galled out after a boring Sunday afternoon shoot of "Think I'll bring along a camera when I walk the dog", There are so many things wrong in this 'review' -- most of all the idea that 'you' should get this lens and somehow it magically makes the duck or the cat stuck right in the center of picture a great photo! 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. My only complaint about this lens is that the depth of the lens shade forces me to remove the shade in order to remove or replace the lens cap (my hands are fairly large). During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. Could use a few updates. The 5D's larger pixels also make chromatic aberration somewhat lower at most apertures. It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. Finally, although we don't explicitly test for it, we have to note that this lens' bokeh (rendering of out-of-focus objects) is really excellent as well. 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. At 135mm, you can get really creative about the object or objects you shoot and where you position them within the frame. So so far the best that I have used are the 200f2.8L and the 400f5.6L. 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). I shoot dozens of weddings every year but the 135mm stayed in my bag a majority of the time; I just didn't find myself needing to use it. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. 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. Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. That means that it doesnt require a robust equatorial telescope mount as a larger, heavier telephoto lens would. Reg. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. It is harder work than using a zoom lens, and some shots I just cannot get at all (cannot get close enough, or far enough way) but the shots I do get are so much nicer looking than I get with any other lens that for me and my goals it is a fair trade off. What is it like shooting with one today? (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? The 135mm focal length is absolutely perfect for the Heart and Soul Nebulae if youre using a crop sensor DSLR camera. What's it got and what's it like to use? 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. This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. Together they still weight less than any modern 135mm :>. Read on to find out which you should be using and why! Super sharp from f2. Optics quality, sharp,very special picture, sharpness, clarity, weight, fast, accurate AF (fringe benefit of f/2), price, no IS, makes you regret buying any zoom lenses, compact, very sharp wide open, good color contrast, bokeh, this is the lens. You will see why. How good this lens overall and how sharp and color-free? I bought my lens in mint condition for $350 from Japan, but I see that some retailers are asking significantly more. Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. 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 Heart and Soul Nebulae captured using a DSLR and the Rokinon 135mm lens. I enjoied the use of this lens many years before the DSLR. This lens flares easily and the flare can be especially ugly if a sun or flash are in the frame. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! 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. Does this work well with any of the 1.4x / 1.7x / 2.0x Teleconverters (extenders / barlows)? Whats the best camera for around $2000? MCovington, my Zeiss 300/4 is the full thickness barrel version, made in West Germany, serial number 5990836. I owned this lens for a long time, then traded it for the 70-200 2.8IS II. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. Great for portraits. An h-alpha filter would still be useful for your D500, but much more so if it were modified! Test Notes We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class. A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. This free website's biggest source of support is when you use these links, especially these directly to it at Adorama or at Amazon, when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live.

Which Of The Following Theories Most Accurately Explains Pitch Perception?, Glvar Membership Fees, Frimley Park Hospital Breast Clinic, 12 Apostles Lds Seniority, Articles C