Rak Toilet Seat Fitting Instructions, Kevyn Aucoin Medium Lip Liner Dupe, Does Troy Polamalu Have A Twin Brother, Daventry Recycling Centre, Satin Crepe Draped Gown In Petal Rose, Articles C

reviewed August 2nd, 2017 Looking forward to allow purchasing the Canon 200mm f/2.8L II USM. 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. Samyang should definitely make 135 f2 with the same optical formula and AF for Sony EFF and also Nikon F plus Canon EF mount if possible. 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. 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. wew.. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. Now I have only the Nikon but I can try to take a photo of the same subject fully open I found with the 70-200 made me lazy. Below, are a few examples of astrophotography images Ive taken with lenses of varying focal lengths. Have not used a 70-200 since. Selecting between it and the 200mm Takumar was not an easy choice but, in the end, I chose the Takumar because it seemed to have slightly better contrast. 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. If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. Last time I used a 135mm f2 was decades ago on a Canon F1. A single, 90-second exposure using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC at F/4. thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. This free website's biggest source of support is when you use these links, especially these directly to it at Adorama or at Amazon, when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. 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). Also, I used to have a Nikon 180/2.8 ED IF AF and 300/4 ED IF AF. I have had a blast with a samyang, but a used 135mm f2.8 is VERY . 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. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. That is the story.#7: Leaves.That doesn't work. Together they still weight less than any modern 135mm :>. Canon 135mm is a great lens. i too use the 135mm nikkor[ with a MB speed booster on fuji x for outstanding separation], also a samyang 85 mm 1.4 nikon mt with speedbooster also gives excellent separation, yes, I think I have read that the old Nikkor 135mm f3.5 was even sharper than the f2.8. The lens is not weather-sealed, so you definitely dont want to leave your camera and lens (and your tracking mount!) Taking images at this focal length from the city will swell issues with gradients, especially when shooting towards the light dome. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. Of the old teles I've had, Nikon's 400mm f/3.5 was decent, Olympus's 300mm f/4.5 was good (it had a precursor to ED glass) Pentax's 300mm Takumar was TERRIBLE, Pentax's 500mm was terrible, Nikon's 135 f/2.8 Q was ok, and Sigma's 400mm f/5.6 "apo" was satisfactory. 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". 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. 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. This has several advantages from less demanding tracking accuracy, to being able to use a lower ISO setting. The first shot I ever took with this lens was of my neighbor's cat, as it was sneaking around in a bush. They're heavy, and expensive, but you can carry one lens instead of three, and can vary the compression and field of view to a significant degree - from nearly normal, to long portrait focal lengths. The Andromeda Galaxy using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens. As the reader reviews below testify, this is an absolutely stellar lens, probably one of the sharpest and most distortion-free that Canon makes. 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. (purchased for $890), reviewed July 17th, 2006 Of course headline central sharpness is great, that is what grabs headlines, always shot at f2: any 135mm lens is going to give similar results. Not rude at all, a fair comment. I do not like this. Well, for me. 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. $218.00 for 7 days. I have heard others mention that this lens has a plasticky build quality, but I believe this aspect has been improved. One of my very best lenses! 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 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. Check out 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. So whats so great about shooting at 135mm anyway? 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. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ There are, of course, outlierssuch as the legendary unicorn lens Canon EF 200mm F2but that one isn't a great alternative unless you are cool with spending $5,700 and carrying around something about as wieldy as a fire hydrant. Must have if you're serious about portraits. What I am trying to avoid is spending another $1,100 on a quality APO, and instead using my existing Nikkor 180mm ED lens with a Baader-modified Canon 450D that I just obtained. Begun in 1975, the Pentax K-mount legacy continues to this day. Olympus 75mm f1.82. I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. Focus end stop. The author's recipe for a good photo is:1) Just shoot blindly, with no regard to what's in the frame, because the lens will blur away everything on the background.2) If (1) does not work, just head on to https://www.bhphotovideo.com, download a jpg of the lens you were using, and photoshop it on top of the taillaits of the passig car that didn't get blurred out enough.3?) Great reach for street shots. After several years off, the venerable magazine has held a public open call photo contest and selected nine finalists and one winning image for its 'Photos of the Year.'. $449.00. 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. 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. A specialist lens, at best, though I did enjoy the cat image. If you can afford it buy this lens, you will love it. 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). This makes me feel I shall take the Zeiss 85F1.8 off my A6000 or maybe NOT, it's just another hype article about "A" lens. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. Whos Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is? Flip on through what we found, and see how the lens performs in the real world in our sample gallery. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). I will say that at F/4 this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner when used on my 60Da. I understand the optical design is quite old. Comment * document.getElementById("comment").setAttribute( "id", "a0721c0ca7d0974fd27b5d0ceb81918a" );document.getElementById("cfd2c22fe2").setAttribute( "id", "comment" ); Your email address will not be published. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. Excellent build quality, fast auto focus, and its fast. 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. 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). in the rain. When stopped down to 37mm, at F5.4, it also produces perfect, small and round star images across the entire field. It seems lazy to me. Both the 135 and 200mm Canon l lenses are winners IMHO. I use it to photograph highschool basketball in poor light. I just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. And they like circles (no ellipses or polygons) and smooth colour (no hard edges, no onion rings). Extrapolating from this, minimum recommended guidescope power is 120x for the 300mm telephoto, 80x for the 200mm, and 55x for the 135mm. I'm not a fan of the large hood. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. The Canon 135mm f/2 is no less impressive on a full-frame camera. The main problem with the old lenses is spherical aberration and colour error, especially pronounced on digital sensors. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. So, for Joe User or especially for Jane Client, one really has to look closely to see much of a difference. Although typically unused in astrophotography, I did get a chance to see the beautiful bokeh this lens creates when shooting at F/2. never mind.. confirmed from others that F19 is indeed the one that is excluded on this lens!