canon 135mm f2 astrophotographylawyers title company san diego

But I sold it and went back to using a 70-200 (alongside a 24-70). No, Mr. Fantastic IQ & Bokeh. It's sharp, has very low aberrations, no real distortion and the bokeh is very nice. Still, all things considered, I prize this lens very highly and can not imagine giving it up. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. Really like the large focusing ring. The Bokeh includes as well all that is in the focus, but mainly talked about how it comes visible in out of focus areas. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! Add To Cart. I was blown away when I loaded the photos into my computer. Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. The Heart and Soul Nebulae captured using a DSLR and the Rokinon 135mm lens. 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. I've missed shots at wide apertures because the DOF is so extremely thin. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. You may need to stop down to control star bloat, and thats exactly what Ive done with this 135. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. Thomas, I do have no experience with the Canon lens you mentioned but zoom lenses have limitations concerning aberrations while providing more flexibility.The Nikkor 70-200/4 that I like as a travel lens is a very good performer but the Zeiss 135/2 APO is in a different league. For me, that's enough. The best ones listed below serve well with a one stop reduction, and some require two or even three stops. 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. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? http://www.idyll.com/135. 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. Hi Trevor, On FF I use this lens for both tight portraits and landscape shots. Andysea, those are great images on your website. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get.". I bought this lens after reading your great review for my Nikon D5300. However, I am convinced that its large aperture and fast F ratio would perform exceptionally well in three color or narrow band H-alpha and OIII photography. Particular properties of modern 135/2 lenses are resolution with e.g. How's that for an endorsement? Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. [emailprotected]. 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. here some information (sorry only in italian) http://www.astrovale-usm/index.html Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. It's a trade off. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. Chromatic aberration is almost eliminated in narrowband, so lenses with that problem may be fine performers. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. Plus it is harder to attach than other lens hoods. And it's not the one problem from my L lenses very sad =(, My favourite lens, hands down. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. I would! "If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. Writer Anno Huidekoper takes a look at what this manual SLR can do and how it stacks up to its contemporaries. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. 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. Great looking lens, if you ever saw it from the front. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. To me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. My work requires auto-focus. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. 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. I liked the extra versatility of the zoom and the ability to shoot at 200mm. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. Star parties or dark sky excursions are another great time to use a camera lens in place of the telescope. Canon 135mm is a great lens. It is really thanks to another commentator pointing out something that finally makes sense out of this mess: This article is by someone who just got his first first telephoto ever, and is writing about how he feels when he is trying it out. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. My copy is 12-years-old and still delivers at over 75 weddings a year. This allows for less aggressive camera settings for night photography such as using a lower ISO setting and shorter exposure. It's not a bad lens, probably a great one, even if it doesn't seems really as sharp as a basic 85mm f/1.8 (used at f/2.8) , but it's a bad idea to work wide open if you don't need to. Not another article that promotes portraits shot with wide open lens and out of focus highlights in the background. I got many great shots from this lens but also missed ton of shots due manual focus only. 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! however i started to realise how every subject might actually be a cardboard cutout being photographed. I would recommend buying it used if you want to save some money, with the added benefit that you can re-sell it at the same price as you bought it for, effectively giving you the opportunity to "rent it" for free. 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). And now important part: This lens can be stopped down if desired effect is not required and no, with 85/1.8 you will never get this effect. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. Thanks Gary! (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 With the 135 I imagine I'd have to get up on the roof. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: 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. F2 allows higher shutter speeds in lower light without raising the ISO. Standards have risen in recent years. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. 10/10 (Editor's Choice) Check Price. Its nice to have the F/2. I almost bought one, but couldn't manage that focal length and DoF with moving subjects and manual focus. The OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. 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. At around $900 US very good price for quality no IS. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. It's Film Friday, so let's take a look back at the film format that gave APS-C sensors their name! As a complete beginner in Astrophotography should I buy Rokinon 135mm lens or Canon EF 75-300mm lens with Canon EF 50mm lens? The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. Or is there a use case for fitting the Samyang 135mm to a Panasonic gx85 (or Panasonic gh5) ?? A lot of lenses today are better than anything money could buy in 1980. 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. Equipment used was an astromodified Canon 700D, Samyang 135mm f2, SkyTech Triband filter, Star Adventurer 2i, ZWO mini finder with ASI120MM, guiding with PHD2 and polar alignment using sharpcap. So, let's see where it falls short of perfection: The full name of this lens is the Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC, with ED standing for extra-low dispersion, and UMC referring to the ultra multi-coated optics. You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. I read and bought it. If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! Back in 1999, Sony released the F505, their first digital camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. 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. What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? 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. Bye I find neither the cat nor the duck particularly good. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens makes an excellent indoor sports lens. At under 900USD, it's a steal. I bought a Fotasy Minolta MD->EOSM adapter off ebay for $11, and then for about $20 each on craigs list really sharp, well built Minolta MC 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.8 lenses that turned out to be great for astrophotography. (purchased for $845), reviewed November 16th, 2005 Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. You currently have javascript disabled. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l 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. 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). This brings me to my question. I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. I'm thinking a modern (but expensive) Nikon 200mm f/2.0, 300mm f/4 or f/2.8 or a Borg telephoto/telescope would all be very good. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. A Bargain, very competively priced The 135 f/2 is not perfect. Samyang 135 f/2 astrophotography gallery Below some pictures I made using Samyang 135 lens with QHY163 mono camera and iOptron Smart EQ Pro mount. I'll walk you through all this inc. You can barely tell it's a pond.#3: Duck.Birds with bokeh are fine. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! Definitely now on my to-buy list. Crazy fast AF! The aesthetic quality of the blur in the out-of-focus parts of the image are buttery smooth and soft. Adam007,"a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels"No thanks. Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. The Canon is about as sharp as the Samyang, but it has some very slight chromatic aberration. Fast. There are quite a few other excellent lenses out there, and nowadays, quite a few that can be used wide open. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. Sharpness, contrast and the natural vignetting on full-frame cameras is awesome! 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. We always expect to see some drop in performance (particularly corner sharpness) when we move from testing on a sub-frame to a full-frame camera, but the 135mm f/2L turned in a really remarkable performance even at full-frame. If you are a Nikon user, of course have a look at the Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC and compare it to the other lenses mentioned in this article. You will never be able to beat this lense, believe me, i have tried them all. I understand the optical design is quite old. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. Over the years, Ive shot deep-sky targets at varying focal lengths from 50mm to over 1000mm. I have the Sony SaL 135F1.8 Zeiss Lens and think that is excellent. Testing on an EOS-5D, we see that it's sharpness is almost as good wide open in the corners as on the EOS-20D with its smaller sensor. 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. (37% is difference, so you get little more, about 15.5Mpix). This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. There's just nothing there. The shallow depth of field present at its maximum aperture does indeed create a pleasing bokeh. Begun in 1975, the Pentax K-mount legacy continues to this day. f1.4 was a necessisty rather than a creative luxury. Prime lenses are typically lighter as they do not need the additional glass and mechanics required to zoom at varying magnifications. The moment I tried the Samyang 135mm F2 for the first time after purchasing it, I immediately felt that it was a very special lens. Because it's an L-series lens by Canon, you can be sure that the image quality and performance of the 24-105mm meet the demanding aspects of astrophotography such as focus and star quality. I see that many commenters did not get what this lens can do. lol, nice images, and i nearly bought this lens myself a few years ago. The 135mm focal length is absolutely perfect for the Heart and Soul Nebulae if youre using a crop sensor DSLR camera. I'm not a fan of the large hood. I cant wait to try this lens out during the winter months on some wide-field targets in Orion. The second best, is the Hoya Pro One Digital MC UV(0) filter. 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. The lenses I selected are all affordable prime lenses, easily available on the second-hand market, and adaptable to the EOS system. 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. $399 00. +1 for the 135mm lens. 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). (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. Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. I cant seem to find this documented anywhere. Check out One thing I am most stun is its AF performance. Rokinon lenses are made in Korea, and so is the Samyang variation. The combination of a wide aperture and very little light lost in transmission makes very high shutter speeds possible. However, all the reviews were made by nature and sports photographers, and I would like to find out more about their performance in astrophotography. Heh, it's amazing how far Samyang has come since this article (I'm loving their 45 & 75 f1.8), and kinda amusing that they ended up delivering exactly what you asked for Kinda reminds me of that article by Roger Cicala about how long lens development takes. 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. I would love to see his test images. It turns out that this. This lens is simply lighter, cheaper & faster (f/2.0 vs f/2.8). Typical L construction. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! Testing on an EOS-5D, we see that it's sharpness is almost as good wide open in the corners as on the EOS-20D with its smaller sensor. Hey! One is its size and weight, which requires a sturdy support on the telescope. 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. Available in other Styles, Configurations & Kits. The optical design includes one extra-low dispersion (ED) lens element to control chromatic aberration, and ultra multi-coatings (UMC) to both improve light transmission and reduce flare. It actually makes my eyes water as I try to resolve how bad the blurriness is. Given the spot on DPR front page, lots of 'what-lens-should-I-buy' newbies will be spending their money on this one. The Andromeda Galaxy using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens. For DPReview, it's also an opportunity for a good old-fashioned camera fight. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. You just panned the subject for his photos and then turn around and needle thematic for looking into Ericsson. No rubber sealing against the camera body tend to give me the creeps when shooting in the wet. Contrasty but not harsh. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts. (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. Deep-sky astrophotography is often associated with a camera and telescope, but the truth is there are a lot of great camera lenses for astrophotography out there. Lenses with extreme sharpness and bokeh tend to be heavy. We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! The article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. Have you ever come across this phenomena?

Emily Gemma New House Tulsa, Cal Wilson Sanford And Son, Basketball Drills For 10 Year Olds, Sara Sidner Family Photos, Why Did I Get Married Too Angela Gun Scene, Articles C