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). 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. I'm enjoying the Sigma Art 135mm - it's notably sharper than the Canon (which I owned at the same time), and it's f/1.8 instead of f/2. 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.So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! This is so annoying that I intend to replace the Canon lens cap with a Tamron cap. A series of such images can be digitally stacked to produce excellent results. The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. The flat lens hood is great for taking flat frames after a night of astrophotography. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. Technical Specifications Looking for specific info? (on a full frame camera)Wonderful lens for some portraiture applications, sporting events and candids at a party or event. The colder temperatures will make DSLR astrophotography much more practical, and there are plenty of great targets to choose from. I use it for everything, landscapes, townscapes, interesting detail, portraits. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? It is NOT extremely sharp wide open, it often requires massive AF adjustment on DLSRs (sometimes beyond what the body allows as micro-adjustment) and AF is not reliable enough to consistently ensure sharp focus at full aperture. Rudy, why didn t you include any L lenses from canon? Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. We sell a wide variety of digital cameras from all the top brands like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm, Pentax, Leica, Samsung, and more. 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. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. Read on to find out which you should be using and why! I use the word design, because although the available 135mm F2 lenses aren't the exact same optical formula, they share many important traits. I've recently started using 135 and 200mm lenses from the 1970s with my mono CCD and they've proven very useful for imaging large emission nebulae. Make sure to select your camera mount when checking the price (Check current price). As you know, camera lenses come in varying focal lengths, apertures, and optical quality. Stuff I used to take the photos. It could easily rival 'bokeh monsters lenses' at fraction of their price.
Anyone use the Samyang 135mm for astrophotography? Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. Here's what I see from the photographs:#1: Woman in traffic. The images were collected using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i camera riding on a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. Will this ever get old? The sigma 150mm f2.8 tests very well, zeiss 135mm apo sonnar, and leica 180mm f3.5 apo all proven performers on star tests. I'm not a fan of the large hood. Today I want to talk about another such lens design: The 135mm F2 lens. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. If you want the best possible image quality, and you must have autofocus, and you don't care if it is a bit heavy (maybe you need it for studio use), buy the Sigma. 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. I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. 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. I've owned nice SLR gear since 1976, and am normally a wide angle shooter this is my favorite lens, of all time. Sometimes though, we stumble upon a great lens design which is strong in all three. 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. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. Most of the available 135mm F2 lenses have a very short minimum focusing distance in relation to the focal length, creating a magnification ratio of around 0.2 - 0.25. Olympus 4x Optical Zoom f/2 Lens; 25-100mm (35mm Equivalent) Show More. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop using the aperture ring at the base of the lens. Yes, because it is not f/2. 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. Thanks, Chris, hi Trevor my name is sagar i have same lens but i have one question why lot of stars are appearing in my image which is taken thru rokinon 135mm, Your email address will not be published. Amazing for portraits, easily fast enough for indoor sports. The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. - Actually though, it's performance is so good that you really have to consider it a bargain, even at the $800-900 street price.
LENSES FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY: Samyang 135mm f2 REVIEW - YouTube Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Overall, the lens feels very solid and well constructed. Also type the lens you are interested in into the search window on Astrobin to see examples shot with that lens. I've missed shots at wide apertures because the DOF is so extremely thin. Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. If you have a more appropriate portrait lens like an 85, 90 or 100, the 135 does not bring you very much. 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. 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. 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. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. image quality wise it is by far one the sharpest lenses ive ever used. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. The rest are relatively uncreative, and just seem lame to me. Orion nebula shot with Canon T3i and Rokinon 135mm @ F2.0 150 shots with dark bias and flats stacked and edited. Any experience with this camera and would this lens be a good fit? In fact, in my test shots, I noticed that the red channel was a little softer than green and blue. - 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. The flawless image quality is only half the story though. This is an amazing lens.Very sharp wide open and no improvement when stopped own. Holiday Savings $50 . modest cost for "L" series, wonderful optics and fast speed, nitpicking, but not a circular aperature and no weather sealing. Large emission nebulae like the California Nebula (pictured below) are a great choice for this focal length. Its a no brainer if you use this focal length. However, all the reviews were made by nature and sports photographers, and I would like to find out more about their performance in astrophotography. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. In excellent condition, this lens retails for around $200. Although if Bokeh and sharpness is your thing and you can live with MF the Laowa 105mm f/2 Smooth Trans Focus (STF) is amazing. Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? Some people like these, and consider them decorative. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. 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. This lens has only two drawbacks. As a complete beginner in Astrophotography should I buy Rokinon 135mm lens or Canon EF 75-300mm lens with Canon EF 50mm lens? It focuses within a blink of an eye, instantly. 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. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. 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. And because you can shoot between F/2 and F/4, plenty of light reaches the sensor in a relatively short exposure. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. The 135mm Rokinon with the Canon Rebel seems like a pretty good setup. I wanted to add my experience with some lenses that I thought worthy of being considered too, and some of the equipment that I have used. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. The article was based on the numerous lenses with which I have personal experience - that is naturally limited. (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 I can tell you its a great performer for astro use. Also, as creative as the wide-field 135mm focal length is, its not practical for smaller DSOs and most galaxies. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. 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. The Sadr Region in Cygnus, including the Crescent Nebula by Eric Cauble. i also have the 300mm f4.5 non ED nikkor which is quite nice . Otherwise I might not achieve focus? here some information (sorry only in italian) http://www.astrovale-usm/index.html The closest Ive been to the 135mm range is 105mm on my Canon 24-105 zoom.