Second night out with mine right now and I am here in the comments looking for the part number or link! Several days ago another member posted a stunning telephoto image of the Snake Nebula, Barnard 72, taken with a Canon lens which costs $12,000. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. in the rain. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. I liked the extra versatility of the zoom and the ability to shoot at 200mm. Big F-value.Light. Thanks.. 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. Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. I wish every lens was this good!! The image shown below covers 4.96 x 5.98 degrees in the constellation Cassiopeia. I would love to see his test images. Excellent color and saturation, a virtually perfect lens. It seems they are now quite comparable in quality to prime lenses. (purchased for $900), reviewed November 2nd, 2015 Really like the large focusing ring. 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. I enjoied the use of this lens many years before the DSLR. Still - a great portrait lens when used at f/2.8 or f/4, with a creamy bokeh indeed. For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. The Rho Ophiuchi Cloud Complex by Eric Cauble using the Samyang 135mm F/2 lens. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM (72mm filters, 0.9m/3' close-focus, 25.0 oz./708g, about $1,035.) The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. A higher-res Blackmagic Studio Camera just dropped. Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. The latter are designed for crop sensor cameras and the back of the lens sticks too far into the body of the camera and would hit the EOS-clip filter. 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. (purchased for $890), reviewed July 17th, 2006 Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. 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. Yes, each can produce different results (And that's why I keep and use several different lenses), but my point is that sharpness or bokeh are not the only factors for portraits -- sometimes it just comes down to convenience or price! Some APOs can be fitted with pricey telecompressors, but those invariably result in vignetting and coma. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. This lens is available for several camera mounts, including Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, and Fuji. 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. With todays huge variety of digital sensors, each with their own characteristics, in-camera and post-processing etc., much depends on the given combination of your photo gear to create a certain effect. For portraits and with a high MP body I'd be more inclined than ever to just go 85mm, and for other uses it's hard to pass up the zooms' versatility, but I still there's still room for 135s in some kits and some formats. And they like circles (no ellipses or polygons) and smooth colour (no hard edges, no onion rings). 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. Since I am interested in wide field astrophotography, I bought a new, unmodified, Canon 600D body for use with telephoto lenses. They seem to be really good for NB work. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. Best lenses for astrophotography: 50, 85 and 135mm - DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging - Cloudy Nights Cloudy Nights Astrophotography and Sketching DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. Second of all, the incredible sharpness of the photo: I have owned many lenses, most of which I bought because they were supposed to have world-class sharpness, but the Samyang 135mm still stands out to me. 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? This summer I'm going to try the lenses out for LRGB images to see how they perform. If you buy a nifty fifty or a 100mm macro lens you simply cannot go wrongyou will get a great and handy lens for your money, with great image quality. The lens is available on eBay for around $200. 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. Not only does the Rokinon 135 add additional reach, but I can also now shoot at F/2, instead of F/4 on the Canon. My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. This creates an effective focal length of roughly 200mm, a useful magnification for a wide variety of astro-imaging scenarios. This lens flares easily and the flare can be especially ugly if a sun or flash are in the frame. I have been following your work both on YT and here from Japan for a while. Sony has added a full-frame 50mm F1.4 prime to its premium 'GM' range of E-mount lenses. (purchased for $899), reviewed December 9th, 2006 The closest Ive been to the 135mm range is 105mm on my Canon 24-105 zoom. So, for Joe User or especially for Jane Client, one really has to look closely to see much of a difference. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. But in the rush to make hybrids why are aren't we giving video shooters the tools they need? This lens is available on Amazon for most camera bodies. Most small refracting telescopes start in the 300 to 400 mm focal length range, and even these are classed as widefield telescopes. Robert. Stellarium has a great viewport feature that allows you to preview different lens and sensor combinations on DSO's before you decide on the focal length you want. She's cold? 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 . Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. The second best, is the Hoya Pro One Digital MC UV(0) filter. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. I have never had a bad experience buying used Canon lenses from eBay sellers with 99.5%+ positive feedback. USM works so quickly and accurately, it puts my 24-70/f2.8L to shame. 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. We have come to accept that most lenses are strong in only one or two of these three factors, that I personally focus on when researching lenses to buy. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. In the highest contrast situations there's a hint of both purple and green fringing but both are minor and easy to remove with software. Let's the games begin! The lens hood is removable (and reversible), which makes packing the Rokinon 135mm away into the included lens pouch possible. it is crisp, fast, and awsome. The Heart and Soul Nebulae captured using a DSLR and the Rokinon 135mm lens. I'll take photo of Orion as soon as possible. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Today I want to talk about another such lens design: The 135mm F2 lens. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. 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 find neither the cat nor the duck particularly good. It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? The shallow depth of field present at its maximum aperture does indeed create a pleasing bokeh. People mistake "Bokeh" to blurry background, what is very very common mistake. Is it possible to get good results on a Baader filter modifed Canon 450D and a good telephoto lens, or do I need to get a good APO? I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. 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. Again, there's no context. When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. 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. The lens hood is not petal-shaped, which is great news for those using this 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. Because of chromatic aberration, no telephoto lens can be used at full aperture. Build quality: excellent. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. I think the bokeh won me over with the cat, as well as the fact that I like animals; the case for the duck was the same. Check out 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. I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. 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. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight. Colour and contrast is great. you can see here a lot of photos mostly shot with the f/4 version. I love this lens, The Sharpest Lens available for Eos cameras IMO Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ 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. 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 Include the Carl Zeiss in your research though, it might be an interesting lens for you, even if it is a bit pricey for what you get. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. If you have pictures taken using the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens, please feel free to share your results in the comments section (links to Astrobin, Flickr or your personal gallery are fine). Great post; thanks for the detailed information. Creamy smooth bokeh. 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. 2. BTW, the 300-mm Tele-Tessar you describe -- what camera was it made for? Thanks! 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. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. I've missed shots at wide apertures because the DOF is so extremely thin. - 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 an effort to save money, Id like to start using a Canon 80D that we already own to start picking targets and imaging. I mainly use for head shot photography. I can tell you its a great performer for astro use. Standards have risen in recent years. Tack sharp at f/2. I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. 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. when you hold the lens in your hand you know you are holding a fine peice of optical equipment. But you couldn't have because you don't know even as much as this guy. Photography is full of fuzzy concepts. This seems to be the norm for telephotos. What's it got and what's it like to use? The Japanese word "bokeh" can be translated into English as "blur". I guess thats where practice will come in handy. You currently have javascript disabled. Target for bortle 9 astrophotography? In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. 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. 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). The cat is a case for the bit bucket i my opinion - it has no composition, a distracting background and a random parts of the body in focus - the same picture made with a smart phone could not look worse. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". - 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. 10/10 (Editor's Choice) Check Price. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. The lens came in a handsome box, with core specifications and a lens construction diagram printed on the side. 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. A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. Seems to me that with your gallery and website of images you should refrain from passing judgment on who is and isn't a photography master. 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? The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. A Canon 70-200L IS II at 200mm at f2.8 has all the same characteristics of the Canon 135L. 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. Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens. Would you recommend a collar/support for the lens? I want to see the bokeh and the sharpness at 100% mag, don't care about the photos. The model I use feels solid and the barrel is constructed with metal. I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) 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. So there - it is not a perfect object. KevinS, in my experience stopping down dramatically improves image quality in terms of chromatic aberration, coma and astigmatism. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? I really like how they augment my longer focal length scopes. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. At 135mm, you can get really creative about the object or objects you shoot and where you position them within the frame. Olympus 75mm f1.82. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. @juksu - you're such a hypocrite. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix) ". Material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted or otherwise used without the prior written consent of The Imaging Resource. Exterem apertures are extrems (wether it's full open or closed) that should be reserved for extrem cases. Its nice to have the F/2. That is kind of the point I am trying to make -- These pictures are really not in another league. It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. http://www.astrovale-f-2/index.html, Hi Lord_Vader, Whats the best camera for around $2000? I just purchased a very lightly used Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM for $620 from a great online dealer and can't wait for an opportunity to try it out with my Astronomik CLS clip on a T4i at a dark site. Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. f/2! Have not used a 70-200 since. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. Everyone should have one? (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. Not rude at all, a fair comment. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC lens. Another article that I read only the headline and saw a couple of samples then jumped directly to comments. For posed portraiture, it's a very nice budget option.FWIW, I'm a corporate portrait and event pro. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Beautiful portrait lens. @ Juksu - you're pathologically clueless. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. (purchased for $900). With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. Well, after lugging that lens around for years, I'm experimenting with adding the 135L back to my kit. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. Defocus control enables the photographer to use an aperture of f/4 for the subject and to adjust the amount of background blur or the amount of foreground blur. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. We think it rises to the challenge. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: Writer Anno Huidekoper takes a look at what this manual SLR can do and how it stacks up to its contemporaries. Light weight and robust. Some real life images from my photoblog: http://hellabella.de, One of the best and sharpest lens around. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. For those of you that like to pixel-peep, have a look at the single image frame captured using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC at F/4. It seems lazy to me. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). The extremes are 2 and 22. If you don't like that article that's your right as a member. How good this lens overall and how sharp and color-free? Amazing for portraits, easily fast enough for indoor sports. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. Without the blurb I would have taken it as a 24 hour news studio shot with back projection or a cut and paste layer.The other stuff is really nice though. The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. 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 Nikon 300/4 ED IF, Sigma 50/2.8 DG Macro (not a telephoto, but good). Some people like these, and consider them decorative. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. 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.