The Samyang 135mm F/2 easily lives up to its hype and should be near the top of your list of purchases if you are new or experienced in the field of astrophotography. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 Standards have risen in recent years. The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens is a fantastic companion for the Canon 60Da, as it offers a useful "mid-range" focal length for a variety of deep-sky projects. in the rain. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. Besides lack of IS, the only major issue I have with this lens is flare. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography. 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. The 70-200 f2.8 L2 and he 400f5.6 will however set you back way more than $1.100. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. This way the focus will favor the red light which is more objectionable within a star image than a bit of blue. This lens provides all of these requirements. I want to see the bokeh and the sharpness at 100% mag, don't care about the photos. Also type the lens you are interested in into the search window on Astrobin to see examples shot with that lens. As if absolutely clueless Youtube instructors who have no idea what they are talking about weren't enough. Can I assume that this article applies only to full frame & not to micro four thirds? Nothing just makes sense about the review -- the writer does not really understand the lens he is reviewing, very basic concepts are wrong. 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 Adam007,"a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels"No thanks. MCovington, my Zeiss 300/4 is the full thickness barrel version, made in West Germany, serial number 5990836. $399 00. Still - a great portrait lens when used at f/2.8 or f/4, with a creamy bokeh indeed. A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! 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. I like fast lenses, and my Nikkor 105DC is my favourite. Better than nothing I guess, would depend on how much it raises the price. Just not useful if you already have traditional focal lengths. Only con I can think of, and that may be a big one depending on how you plan to use the lens is the lack of weather sealing. BirdDog P240 40X NDI PTZ Camera. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. Already wide open this lens produce some high quality photos. From my experience, the toughest test on a lense is its ability to function wide open. 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. best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. 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. Check out Sure, that would be swellbut it doesn't matter with regard to how it performs. 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. It is a heavy lens. Ive spent a handful of nights testing this lens in my Bortle Scale Class 6/7 backyard, and my results live up to the hype it gets in terms of astrophotography performance. The closest Ive been to the 135mm range is 105mm on my Canon 24-105 zoom. I had both for a while. Bond, I expect you to buy! I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. My goal for this article was to show some great example photos and share some ideas for projects this lens is a good fit for. Its a joy to work with every time. 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. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. Some people do not like this and consider Bokeh to refer only to the rendering of out of focus points of light. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. Since I am interested in wide field astrophotography, I bought a new, unmodified, Canon 600D body for use with telephoto lenses. (Dpreview), Use the 500 Rule to find the Perfect Exposure Length for Astrophotography, Use a DSLR Ha Filter for Astrophotography, AstroBackyard | Astrophotography Tips and Tutorials2023, Optical Construction: 11 Glass elements in 7 Groups. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. Recently, the FAA announced that recreational drone pilots in the USA can request LAANC authorization to fly in controlled airspace at night. Especially for beginning astrophotographers, who should first invest most of their finances into a good telescope mount, telephoto lenses are an excellent and affordable solution. It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. But first, there are several general rules which must be understood. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. Im so new to all of this so thank you for your insightful and educational posts. 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. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. Cost. The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. But ppl should know there is much better advice in the forums. sigh, overdone bokeh and centre sharpness bear little relevance to the art of this hobby. It is sharp but somehow not that analytic way as a macro lens. SharpStar Askar ACL200 200-mm f/4 astrographic telephoto lens, Astrotrac 360 tracking platform first impression, FIELD TEST: CARL ZEISS APOCHROMATIC & SHARPEST (CZAS) BINOVIEWER, Deus_Ex_Mamiya and Michael Covington like this. 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. If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. Or is there a use case for fitting the Samyang 135mm to a Panasonic gx85 (or Panasonic gh5) ?? I shoot it wide open 90% of the time. Lenses with extreme sharpness and bokeh tend to be heavy. In the right hands this lens really does have "magic pixie dust", as a friend once described. With a rounded 9-blade diaphragm, shallow depth of field imaging will be rendered with pleasing out-of-focus highlights. Lots of wet blankets around here. When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. #light_bulb I would disagree. So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. 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". Sharp without being harsh. Rudy, why didn t you include any L lenses from canon? Another thing that makes people go "wow" over the 135mm F2 lens design is the bokeh, which can be so creamy that distant backgrounds almost render as gradients. If you want to preview the image field you can expect with a particular camera sensor and lens combination, Stellarium features a useful tool. We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! Meanwhile the ol' Canon 135/2 is still commanding a higher than average price on the used market (70%+ of MSRP isn't common), I guess the low weight and super easy resale have almost made it a high end commodity. 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. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. If so, which one? 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. 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 routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. Although typically unused in astrophotography, I did get a chance to see the beautiful bokeh this lens creates when shooting at F/2. This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. 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 have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. Along with improvements in telescope mounts, camera technology, filters, and digital image processing, these have allowed amateurs to produce astrophotographs of nearly professional quality. The following image was captured by Eric Cauble using the Samyang branded version of this lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ With the 135 I imagine I'd have to get up on the roof. Its actually kind of neat to watch! 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. Trully sharp accross whole frame from f2 on 5d. Latter looks quite professional.. ", I'd no problem with that. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 The clip-in Astronomik 12nm Ha is one of their most popular filters ever and for good reason! Large hood. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. 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. Everyone should have one? $218.00 for 7 days. Best lens for portraiture I've ever tried. 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. The other one is the inevitable and persistent regret that, because of chromatic aberration, the full 75mm aperture of this beautiful lens can not be used in full visible spectrum photography. "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. This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. With an effective focal length of roughly 216mm when coupled with a Canon crop sensor body, the field of view is nearly identical to the one youd find on a full-frame camera with a 200mm telephoto lens. Check them out for yourself! The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) 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. (cont. It's March, and in America that means it's time to start arguing over which college athletics team is the best at basketball. Online since 2011, AstroBin is the #1 complete solution for image hosting of astrophotographs. Hey Trevor, great article! Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. 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 don't know about other photographers but I do not have many applications for this focal length. Yes, because it is not f/2. My copy has very stiff manual focus though and is quite heavy. The size (3.2 x 4.4"/82.5 x 112mm) and weight (1.7 lb/750g) (and color) of this lens are not imposing - you probably won't get much attent Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. Whats the best camera for around $2000? My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. In this buying guide weve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best. One is the price, which starts around $800 for the smallest units, and rapidly climbs into thousands of dollars for larger apertures. The second best, is the Hoya Pro One Digital MC UV(0) filter. Reg. Tiring. 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. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'!