canon 135mm f2 astrophotography canon 135mm f2 astrophotography

One is the price, which starts around $800 for the smallest units, and rapidly climbs into thousands of dollars for larger apertures. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Recently, the FAA announced that recreational drone pilots in the USA can request LAANC authorization to fly in controlled airspace at night. $449.00. Part of it might be that they were designed for film photography and modern digital sensor are far more demanding in terms of optical quality. (purchased for $900). 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. You don't have to worry about shopping for a better lens anymore. I have been following your work both on YT and here from Japan for a while. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. Litepanels Studio X2 Bi-Color LED Fresnel Light. But this lens changed my mind. Most of these APOs have F ratios around 6.5, and are unable to comprehend in their field of view large celestial objects such as the Andromeda galaxy, the North America nebula, and comets. The California Nebula. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. 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. With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. One way to combat potential soft images and chasing perfect focus all night is to stop the lens down to F/2.8 or even F/4. Do you expect me to gawk? I have had a blast with a samyang, but a used 135mm f2.8 is VERY . 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 own Samyang 135 f2 for Nikon Mount and indeed it is incredible value lens. Image quality, weight and value for money. 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. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. It's kinda curious how topsy turvy things have gotten since this article, just 4 years later, I think 135mm is possibly more niche than ever yet Samyang finally delivered an AF version of this concept at a lighter weight for E mount, but also at a higher price. image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop . DPReview March Madness, round one - vote! This lens has only two drawbacks. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. 1. Due to the weight, at times I didn't move my shooting position and just zoomed to a composition that worked. The image is a 90-second exposure at ISO 400 using a Canon EOS 60Da. A Bargain, very competively priced The inset picture is a magnified view of the bottom right corner of the frame. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. Seems to me that Michael is pretty new to using long telephoto lenses, he writes that the Samyang is the first he has owned. They just wanted to increase their joy from photography. Large emission nebulae like the California Nebula (pictured below) are a great choice for this focal length. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. 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. 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. in the rain. My Rokinon 135F2 on my crop body is fun to play with.. a budget lens with budget construction on a discontinued camera system.. but hey im just a ham and egger https://flic.kr/p/21nj82V, I had a Canon 135/2 for a while, but I decided I preferred the 100 L used not as a Macro but a normal lens (which my non-L USM 100 Macro was quite poor for). The F/2.0 maximum aperture of the Rokinon 135mm lens offers a chance to collect a serious amount of signal in a single shot. Sure, that would be swellbut it doesn't matter with regard to how it performs. Could use a few updates. The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. Please send your photos of the Andromeda galaxy. Contrasty but not harsh. Reg. When i just judge by the indicator line as i click through, it seems like its 19 that gets skipped wondering if there is anything more definite? So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8). Over the years, I have tried more than two dozen telephoto lenses, until I finally found three or four perfect solutions. Stick to Andromeda, and skip the Whirlpool. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. USM works so quickly and accurately, it puts my 24-70/f2.8L to shame. Crazy fast AF! 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. In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. I'll take photo of Orion as soon as possible. The article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. Focus throw. People mistake "Bokeh" to blurry background, what is very very common mistake. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. 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). "That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten"Did you notice that this 135mm F2 lens on an APS-C camera is more or less equivalent to a 200mm F2.8 lens on an FF camera ?So this lens can be seen as the 200mm F2.8 lens for APS-C camera users. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. Build quality: excellent. Not rude at all, a fair comment. AF is accurate and very fast. I do not like this. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! I'm not a fan of the large hood. But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. Your Baader filter passes 420-680nm and, in theory, a good APO should be able to focus that part of the spectrum with no chromatic aberration. it is crisp, fast, and awsome. 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. Lots of wet blankets around here. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. Another drawback is the focal length. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? RATING. 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. Everyone assumes their definition is the "true" one. If the telescope mount is precisely aligned to the celestial north pole, unguided exposures of one to two minutes are possible. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. Valerio, Electronically Assisted Astronomy (No Post-Processing), Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Cloudy Nights, DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, This is not recommended for shared computers, Back to DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, Buckeyestargazer 2022 in review and New Products. It's Film Friday, so let's take a look back at the film format that gave APS-C sensors their name! 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). They seem to be really good for NB work. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. Valerio, I sold my Canon Lens because in Nikon Lens there is a Defocus control option, very usefull in a daylight photos, as portrait. I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. Photography is full of fuzzy concepts. Perfect lens on the same level as CZ! Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. 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. In this new review, I focus exclusively on the unprecedented Samyang 135mm f/2, which is primarily designed for portrait and wildlife. 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. (AVX). Together they still weight less than any modern 135mm :>. One is its size and weight, which requires a sturdy support on the telescope. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. Although typically unused in astrophotography, I did get a chance to see the beautiful bokeh this lens creates when shooting at F/2. 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. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. Several functions may not work. 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. I found this highly restrictive for shooting indoors where there was seldom enough distance between me with my camera and my subject(s). 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. 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. This is so annoying that I intend to replace the Canon lens cap with a Tamron cap. It just doesn't get any better than this! Find out what happens when Chris shoots some very expired APS film using old Canon and Nikon cameras. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. I have just acquired my astrophotography set up thanks to all your videos and doing some research. Manual focus on wide angle lens, for landscapes, ok, if you have a reliable manual focus system, which Samyang, at least in my mount, does not have. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. http://www.astrovale-f-2/index.html, Hi Lord_Vader, OM System's latest lens is a whopper of a macro, featuring optical stabilization, full weather sealing, up to 2x magnification and a whole lot more. I thought I would miss shooting at 200mm, but 135mm is long enough for most portraits and gives a decent amount of compression. Well, after lugging that lens around for years, I'm experimenting with adding the 135L back to my kit. Although this lens feels solid, it is rather light when compared to a telescope. I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". Better than nothing I guess, would depend on how much it raises the price. Got it! 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! The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. You won't get the excessive background blurr -- which for the beginning photographer may actually be a good thing. Add To Cart. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 No, Mr. 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? 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. Here is a recent ones taken with the canon xs and a lens. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. In general, prime telephotos should outperform zooms. You currently have javascript disabled. You will see why. It requires the Contax-EOS adapter for attachment to the camera. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. 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. 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. 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. 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. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. This is an amazing lens.Very sharp wide open and no improvement when stopped own. I need fast auto-focus, predictable focus lock and natural, vibrant color rendition. Whats the best camera for around $2000? Many students just wanted to take better snapshots of family, vacation, pets, etc. Canon EOS 60Da with the Rokinon 135mm F/2 lens. See the full-size version on Astrobin. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ The lenses I listed are certainly not the ONLY exceptional lenses made over the years. I took a few shots with the lens on my way home after buying it. Big F-value.Light. EF-mount only, this packs more megapixels, a bigger sensor, and a high max ISO. Maybe try a 400mm f/2.0 to see it that one's got enough blur. 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. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. Large hood. But you are talking more than 2x crop (cut half by width and height) and that leaves you to twice smaller resolution == quarter of the Mpix count. The 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 is another story.While the 135mm f/2, in general, is a good lens, there are lots of lenses other than the 135 f/2 that will produce a very smoothly blurred background, including zoom lenses.It sounds like Micael is new to photography.Just my impression from this article. It's a trade off. It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice. This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. The clip-in Astronomik 12nm Ha is one of their most popular filters ever and for good reason! These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. I bought my lens in mint condition for $350 from Japan, but I see that some retailers are asking significantly more. The lens has 14 stops when turning the aperture. you can see here a lot of photos mostly shot with the f/4 version. 135 mm. The Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 was the first lens I had ever used like this, and these aspects do not hinder the astrophotography experience whatsoever. 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. I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. f2, very sharp, virtually without CAs, contrast, colour, lightwight, buildings. Really, just an amazing lens, easily worth the $800-900 it commands on the street. It seems they are now quite comparable in quality to prime lenses. IS would also help outside with wind. I have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. If this was used to shoot video you would think that the first image was using a green screen. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. 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. The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. This photo was captured with the Samyang 135mm F/2 lens using a UV/IR cut filter and a QHY168C dedicated astronomy camera. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. Were those taken with the Canon telephotos you spoke of, and the full spectrum modified camera and the clip in filter? 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. Best lens for portraiture I've ever tried. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed February 4th, 2010 So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? 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. 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). I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. The CA is pretty low wide open and it rivals my 200mm L lens. (on a full frame camera)Wonderful lens for some portraiture applications, sporting events and candids at a party or event. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. The aesthetic quality of the blur in the out-of-focus parts of the image are buttery smooth and soft. During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. Read on to find out which you should be using and why! Just plain black plastic (no interior felt as in newer lens hoods). 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 me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. Yes, she's isolated. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. 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. Beware others critical comments here about how flat these images look, the author has chosen specific topics and viewpoints to highlight f2 with this lens, so see the wow review for what it is please and the negative comments need placing in context. I had both for a while. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. 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. Imaging Resource 1998 - 2023. What is it like shooting with one today? Super sharp and renders beautiful creamy bokeh. Stuff I used to take the photos. It would not surprise me if modern lenses were useable at full aperture. And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). Samyang 85mm f1.83. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. 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. Really like the large focusing ring. Prime means that this lens is fixed at 135mm, it is not a zoom lens that allows for focal length adjustments. I've done comparisons between my brand-new Samyang 85/1.4 and the old big Apollo 135/1.8 lens I had lying around, and the shots were for all practical purposes identical (exept, obviously, for the pixel count once cropped). etc.. Ron. 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. I seems many people he are confused about the meaning of the word. No more inside shooting with flash! You might never need another lens in the overlapping range at 135mm there isn't much difference between the separation afforded by f/2 vs f/2.8, and the latest 70-200s are plenty sharp. (purchased for $899), reviewed December 9th, 2006 And it's not the one problem from my L lenses very sad =(, My favourite lens, hands down. Tack sharp even at wide open aperture. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. the lens is built strong, very strong. 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. When stopped down to 37mm, at F5.4, it also produces perfect, small and round star images across the entire field. In excellent condition, this lens retails for around $200. The duck and cat are really the only good shots. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 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. Must have if you're serious about portraits. These are affordably available on eBay, and result in perfectly round star images, the way nature intended them to be. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on. This thing is a beast in comparison. I read and bought it. Robert. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. I hear great things about the Canon 200/2.8 L but do not have one. A lot of lenses today are better than anything money could buy in 1980. Typical L construction. I was blown away when I loaded the photos into my computer. Excellent color and saturation, a virtually perfect lens. What's it got and what's it like to use? Chromatic aberration is almost eliminated in narrowband, so lenses with that problem may be fine performers. 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". I can tell you its a great performer for astro use. The background blur is amazingly creamy with this lens. In fact, it might be fun to try! This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price).