Instead it means the style of rendering. If you must have autofocus, and care about weight, buy the Canon. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. Tamron has announced its 11-20mm F2.8 Di III-A RXD ultra-wide angle zoom will be made available for Fujifilm X-mount. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. There is no such thing, in my opinion. It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. A series of such images can be digitally stacked to produce excellent results. Thanks.. Geometric distortion is lower than one would expect, at 0.15% pincushion maximum, with an average of 0.07%. Already wide open this lens produce some high quality photos. Simple fact is the Samyang 135/2 is a remarkably good lens for the price, and it offers a set of optical characteristics that typically cost 2-4x more. The only thing that could possibly make this better would be to add IS. Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Review - Imaging Resource All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get.". I do not use burst mode, but the lens would produce movie-like frames. f/2! 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. 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. This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. The closest Ive been to the 135mm range is 105mm on my Canon 24-105 zoom. I have a Nikon d 500. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix). The interest of a f/1.4 is to be able to be perfect at f/2.8, while a f/1.8 or f/2 might need to be on f/4 to have the same sharpeness and overall IQ.They are not meant to be used wide open, except in rare moments. I used Canon's 135 f/2 for ten years. At a local amateur soccer game using the 135 f/2 the action was almost always too close, or too far away. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. That's why I really enjoy shooting portraits with it. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. He's better than I am on BS, I got to give him that. When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. 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. (cont. If you're using or are looking to buy the Samyang or Rokinon 135mm F/2, please let me know what you're imaging with it or any questions you may have in the comment section below. I understand the optical design is quite old. The 135 f/2 is not perfect. It is the lens I use as a reference point to compare all new lens acquisitions to after purchase to determine if they need to be returned for repair or replacement. 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. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. As you can see, the magnification of the lens used will dictate the type of projects you shoot. Dear Trevor, He loves photography, and runs a YouTube channel with tutorials, lens reviews and photography inspiration. Sometimes though, we stumble upon a great lens design which is strong in all three. Super sharp from f2. But this lens changed my mind. Lens hood - when I bought this lens years ago the included hood was rather cheap (perhaps Canon has updated the hood) by comparison with other hoods. If the title had been: "Testing My First Telephoto and LOVING IT!!!!!!!. BTW, the 300-mm Tele-Tessar you describe -- what camera was it made for? Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. So I feel I'm being cheated. thank you for that great review and also the explanations. Great reach for street shots. The Heart and Soul Nebulae captured using a DSLR and the Rokinon 135mm lens. Perhaps I missed it, but did you use a clip-in light pollution filter with your 60D and this lens? Still, all things considered, I prize this lens very highly and can not imagine giving it up. It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. PRICE. The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. Be careful with the focus. Over the last ten to fifteen years excellent apochromatic telescopes have become available for visual use and photography. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. My work requires auto-focus. This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? f2, very sharp, virtually without CAs, contrast, colour, lightwight, buildings. It may be superfluous to add, but it can't do any harm, that in astrophotography all shutter control must be done with a wired or wireless electrical shutter release swith. Whereas quality apochromats can be corrected with broad band filters, such as the Astronomik UV/IR cut filter or the CLS-CCD filter, telephoto lenses can not. don't get me wrong; this lens will take great photos, but the 'flatness' i was getting in my photos nearly had me give up 25 years of hobby photography. Now - THAT's a lens everyone should have ;). You won't get the excessive background blurr -- which for the beginning photographer may actually be a good thing. 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. I also find the other photos not very good. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. 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). 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II The 135L is half the weight of the 70-200 2.8IS. 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. I got my first 400 around 50 years ago, and I must say that each step forward feels like a revolution, for a while. 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. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. A lot of us have been saying this for years. If the telescope mount is precisely aligned to the celestial north pole, unguided exposures of one to two minutes are possible. This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. 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. Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens - DPReview Over the years, Ive shot deep-sky targets at varying focal lengths from 50mm to over 1000mm. For example, a friend recently recommended Pentax 6x7 prime lenses which were designed for a large format flat field, and are also adaptable to the EOS system. 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. When stopped down to 37mm, at F5.4, it also produces perfect, small and round star images across the entire field. (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 There are a total of 8 stops actually written on the lens. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop . My guidescope is a 5in F5 Jaeger's achromat with a 2.3x Barlow, and a 9mm illuminated reticle eyepiece. Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. Really, just an amazing lens, easily worth the $800-900 it commands on the street. 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. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Canon 135 mm is really E X T R A O R D I N A R Y lens. Don't know what the young man uses as his camera, and if he has tried to keep the noise under control, or even tried to focus on the eyes of the mallard, or the cat (their eyes are not truly in focus). It just doesn't get any better than this! 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. I love this lens, The Sharpest Lens available for Eos cameras IMO The only downside with that lens is that it is manual focus, which might not be suitable for photographing sports or children. Everyone should have one? Otherwise I might not achieve focus? I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. In the right hands this lens really does have "magic pixie dust", as a friend once described. It's tiny compared to almost everything else in the 85-135 range, and used properly, it can produce results that hold up to my DC (all other factors being equal such as subject distance, f-stop, lighting, etc.). I've been using a vintage FD 135/3.5 on my A7R IV as a compact tele option, often alongside a tiny Samyang 75/1.8. IS would also help outside with wind. I hear great things about the Canon 200/2.8 L but do not have one. Just place your subject against a distant background, and half of the job is done. This is perhaps because I'm more of a zoom guy (I have the trio of Canon f2.8 L zoom lenses, with coverage from 16mm to 200mm), and I didn't see that big a difference between my 70-200 f2.8 and my 135 f2except I could cover a lot more with my zoom than I could with a prime. We take OM System's new 90mm prime F3.5 macro lens out and about around Seattle, in search of sunlight, people and very tiny things to get up close and personal with. 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. D8XX cameras, subject isolation and quality of bokeh.Zoom lenses can not hold a candle to such primes. Weight. best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. AF is accurate and very fast. Can't argue with your reasoning, Juksu, about the framing of the article, but just stopping by to say I really liked that cat picture, am shopping for a new smartphone, struck that this type of photo is in another league - all newbie observations, of course, which sort of supports your thoughts that an article like this would be better framed as a "Love this new long lens stuff" sort of thing. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. Such "full spectrum" cameras are somewhat more sensitive in the ultraviolet, but much more sensitive in the deep red and infrared. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. 135mm f2 vs 200 f2.8 primes? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights 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. The lens is not weather-sealed, so you definitely dont want to leave your camera and lens (and your tracking mount!) A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. No rear seals - since the 17-40 Canon has added rear seals to L lenses, to help in weather sealing. Prime means that this lens is fixed at 135mm, it is not a zoom lens that allows for focal length adjustments. LENSES FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY: Samyang 135mm f2 REVIEW - YouTube 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. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. They're heavy, and expensive, but you can carry one lens instead of three, and can vary the compression and field of view to a significant degree - from nearly normal, to long portrait focal lengths. Yes, because it is not f/2. DPReview March Madness, round one - vote! I do know, however, that I can take an equally framed photo I've shot with my Canon kit lens, both zoomed to 100% I run circles around this guy. The lens hood is not petal-shaped, which is great news for those using this lens for astrophotography. Begun in 1975, the Pentax K-mount legacy continues to this day. 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. 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. When stopped down to 37mm, F5.4, it is almost identical to the Takumar except that on highly enlarged images it shows a hint of coma in the distant corners. 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. Thanks & Cheers 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. Given the spot on DPR front page, lots of 'what-lens-should-I-buy' newbies will be spending their money on this one. I've owned nice SLR gear since 1976, and am normally a wide angle shooter this is my favorite lens, of all time. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! Mr Ericsson makes a very good point, and to go and dig irrelevant background info on him to discredit him is just well THAT is trolling. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. We were surprised by just how much difference there was between these AI-powered image enlargers. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. (purchased for $800), reviewed March 15th, 2010 (on a full frame camera)Wonderful lens for some portraiture applications, sporting events and candids at a party or event. It seems lazy to me. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". 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. Second night out with mine right now and I am here in the comments looking for the part number or link! Which Canon EOS M Would be Best for Astrophotography? I guess thats where practice will come in handy. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out.