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. BirdDog P240 40X NDI PTZ Camera. 135 mm. Read on to find out which you should be using and why! The Bokeh includes as well all that is in the focus, but mainly talked about how it comes visible in out of focus areas. After the first exposure in M mode, the camera throws an error saying Error please press the shutter button again. Lots of wet blankets around here. Online since 2011, AstroBin is the #1 complete solution for image hosting of astrophotographs. Simple as that! However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. 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. http://www.adstateagent.com | http://www.printradiant.com | http://www.hitsticker.com, I love this lens. However, they can be perfectly corrected with narrow band H-alpha or OIII filters. OK guysTOS rule number one "Posts that are not respectful of other individuals (be they members or not) are not welcome here.". At f/32, it's pretty soft, but less so than a lot of lenses at that aperture. When I was on my way home after purchasing my first 135mm lens (the Samyang/Rokinon one) I took a few quick snapshots just to try out the lens. Whats the best camera for around $2000? But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. Still, all things considered, I prize this lens very highly and can not imagine giving it up. But she might as well be in front of a green screen. This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. Now - THAT's a lens everyone should have ;). Moreover if we have a serendipitous moment regarding a new (or used) lens, that's a good thing. In this buying guide weve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Canon 135mm is a great lens. Proper composition, light and retouching are much prefferable to crazy gooey bokeh. 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! A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report. $218.00 for 7 days. Prime means that this lens is fixed at 135mm, it is not a zoom lens that allows for focal length adjustments. Focus are dead on with my Fullframe or APS system. Be careful with the focus. 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. All content, design, and layout are Copyright 19982023 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Focus throw. The version I have has the mount for Canon EOS camera bodies, but there are several different lens mounts available on Amazon. Hey Trevor, great article! Canon 135 mm is really E X T R A O R D I N A R Y lens. Super Sharp.Super Fast AF. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get.". This lens has only two drawbacks. Perhaps this impression of unreal sharpness is strengthened by the contrast to the extremely creamy bokeh you typically get in the same photo. This lens has a long focus adjustment ring, with great tension. Generally, prime lenses have a reputation for being slightly sharper, and I have found that to be true whether I am shooting a nebula or a Scarlet Tanager. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. You just panned the subject for his photos and then turn around and needle thematic for looking into Ericsson. Image quality, weight and value for money. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on. In fact, in my test shots, I noticed that the red channel was a little softer than green and blue. 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. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. Jordan has a simple fix camera manufacturers could implement to improve their video autofocus. Will I be able to capture the heart nebula with the lens youre talking about or would I need to modify my camera as well? 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 lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. 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. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. The extremes are 2 and 22. She's cold? KevinS, in my experience stopping down dramatically improves image quality in terms of chromatic aberration, coma and astigmatism. Did anybody use this lens for DSLR astrophoto? Some people like these, and consider them decorative. Now I have only the Nikon but I can try to take a photo of the same subject fully open Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. I liked the extra versatility of the zoom and the ability to shoot at 200mm. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. Cost. I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. I hope that this post has provided some practical insight into a popular camera lens for astrophotography. wew.. Creamy smooth bokeh. Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. 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. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens makes an excellent indoor sports lens. (And cost less too). I want to see the bokeh and the sharpness at 100% mag, don't care about the photos. I am telling them - don't! A con is that it really makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. Dear Trevor, Great looking lens, if you ever saw it from the front. I understand the optical design is quite old. Tack sharp at f/2. Yuri toropin tests a bunch of lenses on Flickr which is a great source. I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. 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. Large hood. Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. I will say that at F/4 this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner when used on my 60Da. Along with improvements in telescope mounts, camera technology, filters, and digital image processing, these have allowed amateurs to produce astrophotographs of nearly professional quality. Bond, I expect you to buy! Available in other Styles, Configurations & Kits. I hear great things about the Canon 200/2.8 L but do not have one. 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. The shot of the cat could certainly be improved through cropping, though. The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC is one of the most affordable and practical lenses for astrophotography on the market. 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. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! To see even more example photos using the Rokinon 135mm lens (or Samyang branded version), go ahead a perform a search on Astrobin or Flickr, with the appropriate filter. In this new review, I focus exclusively on the unprecedented Samyang 135mm f/2, which is primarily designed for portrait and wildlife. 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. At least not in my camera (Sony A6000), the focal length in a crop sensor does not make it very suitable for portrait, the photo detail is something else, but without AF that type of photography with that focal distance and at least 80 cm of the subject it requires too much dedication, with how comfortable the DMF approach mode is for that type of photography Also in my mount it does not have any communication with the camera (it does not have a chip, it only has it for Nikon). I was expecting a lot more of an article that says "the best telephoto lenses for astrophotography". 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. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. I can only guarantee that the TSAPO65Q would work very well. I have just acquired my astrophotography set up thanks to all your videos and doing some research. I cant seem to find this documented anywhere. I thought I had to sell my 100/F2.8 macro L but thanks for letting me know I can keep it. If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. 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. (purchased for $725), reviewed March 26th, 2013 I do know, however, that I can take an equally framed photo I've shot with my Canon kit lens, both zoomed to 100% I run circles around this guy. Standards have risen in recent years. 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. However, I find the process tedious, and prefer single, manually guided, long exposures which seem to have deeper colors. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. To remedy this, I reduced the star size in post, and I started shooting at F/4 to really tighten things up. 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. And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). 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. 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. Manually focusing a lens for astrophotography is nothing new, but the manual aperture ring adjustments may feel a little strange at first. 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). Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. Pentax seems to have put more emphasis than others on keeping the resolution uniform all over the field. It is good to know that the 200/4 SMC Takumar is good. For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. (AVX). Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! Helps me as a beginner a lot They just wanted to increase their joy from photography. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. At under 900USD, it's a steal. My point is that we must never lose the joy of photography. It's tiny compared to almost everything else in the 85-135 range, and used properly, it can produce results that hold up to my DC (all other factors being equal such as subject distance, f-stop, lighting, etc.). 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. Sme of the wide field are. You can go lower, but you have to watch your technique. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. The 70-200 f2.8 L2 and he 400f5.6 will however set you back way more than $1.100. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. Overall, the lens feels very solid and well constructed. 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. 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. However, as I have no actual experience with the Baader filter, I would suggest that you consult other members on the particular APO - Baader filter combination you have in mind. 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. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop . They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. Even if the background is very close to your subject, somehow the optical construction in the 135mm lens will still manage to separate the background beautifully. D8XX cameras, subject isolation and quality of bokeh.Zoom lenses can not hold a candle to such primes. 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. Focusing a wide open F/2 lens is demanding of the optics, especially on a field of stars in the night sky. 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. Photography is full of fuzzy concepts. She doesn't look like she is there. Still, what a time to be an enthusiast/photog, so many nice options. Can't argue with your reasoning, Juksu, about the framing of the article, but just stopping by to say I really liked that cat picture, am shopping for a new smartphone, struck that this type of photo is in another league - all newbie observations, of course, which sort of supports your thoughts that an article like this would be better framed as a "Love this new long lens stuff" sort of thing. f/2! Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! - 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. Focusing should be done on moderately bright stars using the 10x magnified Live View. 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? (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. never mind.. confirmed from others that F19 is indeed the one that is excluded on this lens! All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". Great lens, but I can't understand why Canon can't control quality. "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. The 5D's larger pixels also make chromatic aberration somewhat lower at most apertures. 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. 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. Build quality: excellent. But do some experimenting before you decide. Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. I am still very proud of some of the photos I shoot with a Pentax O450 15 years ago - a good smartphone camera today is at least as capable. No telephoto lens, and no apochromat, is sufficiently corrected to accomodate such a wide spectral range. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. When I got home and loaded the photo into Lightroom I was blown away by two things. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Definitely now on my to-buy list. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. Jordan's twin brother Gordon is back to review the cinema-focused Canon EOS R5 C! IQ will rival any other lens. You will see why. I loved the Nikon 80-400G for a year, or so, and then found everything with it wrong, and got rid of it. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. It's a technical review about a couple of lens attributes. 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 OP admits he limited experience with lenses other than what he has. What you need to know is the author is a hobbyist and hands his images over to px500, the bottom of the barrel so of course he is impressed, he doesnt use top flight gear day in, day out to earn his pay. It's a trade off. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. If you can tolerate vignetting, there are many normal 35mm lenses that are great wide open. the EOS-clip filters are compatible with all EF lenses but not with the EF-s. Other times, like the Witch Head Nebula, I love seeing the star responsible for the object in all its glaring glory! However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. Latter looks quite professional.. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. There is no agreement about what Bokeh means. So whats so great about shooting at 135mm anyway? When you shoot a 135mm F2 lens at F2, your subject will stand out in this beautiful way, often without much work needed from you as the photographer. But for me, the reason to get this lens is the Bokeh and DOF control. The California Nebula. 200mm Astrobin photos (not taken by me): https://www.astrobin.m USM F2.8 L II I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. Built quality is wonderful, focus ring is well-damped. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 Whereas quality apochromats can be corrected with broad band filters, such as the Astronomik UV/IR cut filter or the CLS-CCD filter, telephoto lenses can not. What I see is a photographer who should maybe instead stick to the kit lens, and learn composition first. How about the sigma 50mm f1.4 Art? Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. Tiring. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. No rear seals - since the 17-40 Canon has added rear seals to L lenses, to help in weather sealing. 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. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ By far the best one is the Tiffen Haze 2 filter. I have never had a bad experience buying used Canon lenses from eBay sellers with 99.5%+ positive feedback.
South Sioux City Football Coach,
Mountain Lion Killed In North Texas,
Evony Main City Defense General,
Committee For Police Officers' Defense,
Articles C
