canon 135mm f2 astrophotography

I just wish this lens had IS for low light and portraits with flash. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. This brings me to my question. We were surprised by just how much difference there was between these AI-powered image enlargers. I have only owned my 135mm for less then a year, but already it is one of my top three most used and most fun lenses. This criticism refers to rare cases when your main subject matter is flat and completely inside the limited DOF range while the rest of the image is outside. $399 00. Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. The Image Sensor Frame tool lets you enter in the size of your camera sensor, and focal length of your lens (or telescope) to display a frame over the star map. With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? 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. Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! I'll walk you through all this inc. I can only guarantee that the TSAPO65Q would work very well. Trully sharp accross whole frame from f2 on 5d. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. At f/32, it's pretty soft, but less so than a lot of lenses at that aperture. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. 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? 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? And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). I have a vintage Nikon135mm f/2.8 AI-s which produces virtually the same bokeh and weighs a quarter of this or any other 135mm AF lens. 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. Some people may disagree with the vignetting being a good thing or not, but thats a matter of taste I guess. The second best, is the Hoya Pro One Digital MC UV(0) filter. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. Focus throw. In the middle of the OM System lineup, the OM-5 promises yesterday's top-tier performance in a lighter, more compact body. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 Its actually kind of neat to watch! enlarge. 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). A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! Thus the enthusiasm has a valid basis but may not be suitable for all shooting conditions. Juksu, your point is well taken. Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Can I assume that this article applies only to full frame & not to micro four thirds? 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. 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. [emailprotected]. Holiday Savings $50 . Aside from being much more affordable, telephoto lenses are easier to transport, easier to mount and easier to guide, and are much more likely to produce encouraging results to a beginner. Here are our top picks for the canon lenses for astrophotography. The Bokeh includes as well all that is in the focus, but mainly talked about how it comes visible in out of focus areas. 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. This lens provides all of these requirements. I read and bought it. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. He has quite a breadth photos many of which are quite good. Since I am interested in wide field astrophotography, I bought a new, unmodified, Canon 600D body for use with telephoto lenses. If You can afford it, buy it! I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. I wish every lens was this good!! Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images? Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? This lens flares easily and the flare can be especially ugly if a sun or flash are in the frame. f/2! There's just nothing there. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. I got my first 400 around 50 years ago, and I must say that each step forward feels like a revolution, for a while. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! There are times that making no comment at all is far more telling than posting negative - and sometimes offensive - ad hominem attacks on the author for daring to show some enthusiasm. 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. But she might as well be in front of a green screen. 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. Must have if you're serious about portraits. 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. The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. But will live with it as it provides good protection of the front element. Such "full spectrum" cameras are somewhat more sensitive in the ultraviolet, but much more sensitive in the deep red and infrared. :). Why so salty? A tiny bit of fringing, but that would only be noticed by pixel-peepers. Backwards compatible (film). 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. No rubber sealing against the camera body tend to give me the creeps when shooting in the wet. Large hood. We revisit a classic DPReviewTV episode in which Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake shoot a few rolls of Fujifilm's Acros 100 II, and a few frames on the X-T3 in Acros film simulation, to find out. The lenses I listed are certainly not the ONLY exceptional lenses made over the years. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. Well saturated but neutral. 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. From my purchase research, I found a consensus that stopping down optimizes sharpness but the diaphragm will make nine diffraction spikes when stopped down. 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. I speak Japanese fluently, was a translator in Tokyo for 8 years and studied photography there for two years. The Precious - sharp images, fast focus, perfect weight, reference-quality build. This lens is available for several camera mounts, including Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Samsung, and Fuji. There is no doubt that the 135L deserves it excellent reputation for image quality. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. Canon 135mm is a great lens. A Bargain, very competively priced I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) Amazing for portraits, easily fast enough for indoor sports. Focusing a wide open F/2 lens is demanding of the optics, especially on a field of stars in the night sky. But for me, the reason to get this lens is the Bokeh and DOF control. At a local amateur soccer game using the 135 f/2 the action was almost always too close, or too far away. Great looking lens, if you ever saw it from the front. Does this work well with any of the 1.4x / 1.7x / 2.0x Teleconverters (extenders / barlows)? Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. No telephoto lens, and no apochromat, is sufficiently corrected to accomodate such a wide spectral range. To prevent damage to the lens finish, apply nylon acorn nuts (or cap nuts) to the tips of the retaining ring's three alignment screws. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? 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. 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. Focal length is great. 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. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s. I put quotes around the ones that are written on the lens. When I got home and loaded the photo into Lightroom I was blown away by two things. First of all, the background separation and the bokeh: I had photographed lots of animals in bushes before, but never before had I seen the bush melt away in the way it did with the 135mm lens. I have the Canon 135 f/2 and loved it from day one. I have compared many times my 135/2 against my 100/2.8 and there is a big difference. Because it manage to do so. 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. 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. During the frigid months of winter, my motivation to spend over an hour setting up my complete deep-sky imaging rig dwindles. (purchased for $800), reviewed March 15th, 2010 Theres no image stabilization on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 either, but thats a non-issue for amateur astrophotographers. I used Canon's 135 f/2 for ten years. 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. 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. Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. The image is a 90-second exposure at ISO 400 using a Canon EOS 60Da. Some noteworthy targets to try. The reason the 135mm lens was that it was the longest lens that would focus with a Leica rangefinder. 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. On FF I use this lens for both tight portraits and landscape shots. For my purposes, this is a spectacular lens. With weather sealing this would be a 10. I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. Litepanels Studio X2 Bi-Color LED Fresnel Light. The best ones listed below serve well with a one stop reduction, and some require two or even three stops. One of my very best lenses! Far from being a generic run-of-the-mill image hosting website, it was created and is still operated by an astrophotographer, and boasts features that are very specific to astrophotography. Yes there's bokeh. Yet the Jaegers becomes essentially color free when stopped down to 3in. CAs: a little in the OOF area - not disturbing anyway. etc.. Ron. The few occasions I use a 135 FL usually are landscape shots (where I have no use for f2) and childrens playing (where I need zoom and fast af). They seem to be really good for NB work. She's cold? The only reason i sell this lens is because of versatility. This seems to be the norm for telephotos. (purchased for $900), reviewed December 14th, 2006 Over the last ten to fifteen years excellent apochromatic telescopes have become available for visual use and photography. That is kind of the point I am trying to make -- These pictures are really not in another league. Not rude at all, a fair comment. One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. 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. Sure, if you scroll through his page there are quite a few lens tests on starshttps://www.flickr.chotos/ytoropin/, Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Cloudy Nights, Article: The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography, This is not recommended for shared computers, Review of Explore Scientific First Light 8, COUNTING SUNSPOTS WITH A $10 OPTICAL TUBE ASSEMBLY, Hubble Optics 14 inch Dobsonian - Part 2: The SiTech GoTo system, iStar Opticals Phantom FCL 140-6.5 review. It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good? best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. So I feel I'm being cheated. Or just get a zoom that is 24-200mm and you are covered. Let's unbox, review and test this lens to find out why it is one of the best bang for your buck deals in astrophotography! 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. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. It's just "girl" in front of blurriness.#2: Plants on a pond.It's okay. The sigma 150mm f2.8 tests very well, zeiss 135mm apo sonnar, and leica 180mm f3.5 apo all proven performers on star tests. All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Light falloff (vignetting) gets pretty high (0.73 EV wide open, but drops to 0.3 EV at f/2.8, and only 0.17 EV at f/4. Preaching to the choir! My point is that we must never lose the joy of photography. Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. It must not be confused with the much cheaper SMC Takumar, often deceptively advertised as SMC Pentax Takumar, which has the M42 camera thread, and is plagued with unextinguishable blue chromatic aberration. To me it is a dead spot between 85 and 200. And it's not the one problem from my L lenses very sad =(, My favourite lens, hands down. I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. In this buying guide weve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best. If you don't like that article that's your right as a member. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! AHAB. If you can tolerate vignetting, there are many normal 35mm lenses that are great wide open. These lenses go about as close as you could get without a dedicated macro lens. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. 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. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) I really wanted to use, and like, a 135mm f2 lens so I bought the Canon version. But that 10Mpix is more than enough to make a very good A3-A2 size print, but your technique needs to be very good as even slight misfocus is even more visible and the rendering faults as well. You're sour grapes man, you wish it were you who wrote the article. Olympus 75mm f1.82. I almost bought one, but couldn't manage that focal length and DoF with moving subjects and manual focus. 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. In 3 months I got loosy focus ring. An h-alpha filter would still be useful for your D500, but much more so if it were modified! In general, prime telephotos should outperform zooms. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. Oh yes, and it leads to lusting after other primes! Then you should have tried the 180mm nikkor ED, the old one, which is the favorite tool of a lot of astrophotographers. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. You got a criticism fine say it politely, and too the point. Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. Here is a short list of great astrophotography targets to shoot at 135mm with this lens: Below, is an incredible example of the types of projects possible with the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 lens. I disagree. In fact, in my test shots, I noticed that the red channel was a little softer than green and blue. this lens typifies modern design being confined to sharpness, colour & bokeh. The clip-in Astronomik 12nm Ha is one of their most popular filters ever and for good reason! http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5109, After reading too many long, and arduous threads pertaining to the new Zeiss 135, I felt compelled to share my perspective on the wonderful Canon 135. I've owned a few L lenses and while their USM motors have always been quick to snap in focus, this 135mm is on a different level. The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. The APO showed no chromatic aberration at all with the addition of the Astronomik UV/IR cut clip filter (passing 380-680nm), but the telephoto lenses, even when stopped down, showed a tight bright red ring around all stars. Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. 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. Pocketable. What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. Why would I want a 135/2.0 lens when I have a 135/1.8? Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. Based on my handful of experiences with this lens in the backyard, I have found these traits to hold true. Oh and it's stabilised. I got this lens because of portraiture. Image quality, weight and value for money. It really is about talent, creativity, and vision, not gear. My work requires auto-focus. Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! Thanks Gary! Excellent color and saturation, a virtually perfect lens. However, they can be perfectly corrected with narrow band H-alpha or OIII filters. Tack sharp at f/2. 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. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. 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. Sure, not all 135mm lenses are lightweightSigma's new 135mm F1.8 is rather heavy at 1130gbut if you look at the Samyang 135mm F2, which is pretty much flawless optically, it weighs only 830g. With this lens you don't need to do much if any post processing. That's why I really enjoy shooting portraits with it. Touching the telescope, even ever so slightly, will introduce vibrations which will ruin the photograph. Another drawback is the focal length. Very sharp even at f2, build quality, price, weight, autofocus is fast, bokeh, No IS, flare, autofocus isn't quite as consistent as some newer lenses, focus speed, image quality, predictability, Image quality, build like a tank, focus ring, weight. Everyone assumes their definition is the "true" one. Any good ones apart from the Big Boys. This leaves you with a buttery bokeh and an object in perfect focus. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh.

Rawcliffe Sectional Ashley, Gold Hill Mesa Sinking, Joe Hildebrand Mother, Articles C