canon 135mm f2 astrophotography
If you aren't completely set on the 135mm, the 200mm f/2.8L is a fantastic lens and i think its less expensive than the 135mm f/2L. 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. Thanks.. or.. Clear Skies! you can see here a lot of photos mostly shot with the f/4 version. Unfortunately, standard photography lenses are generally poorly corrected for CA at the red end of the spectrum, relying on the human eye's poorer resolution in red than green or blue. I thought I had to sell my 100/F2.8 macro L but thanks for letting me know I can keep it. (purchased for $1,100), reviewed August 12th, 2009 Valerio, Electronically Assisted Astronomy (No Post-Processing), Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Cloudy Nights, DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, This is not recommended for shared computers, Back to DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging, Buckeyestargazer 2022 in review and New Products. Rudy, why didn t you include any L lenses from canon? He has quite a breadth photos many of which are quite good. Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? 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. It starts out very sharp at f/2.0, gets even sharper at f/2.8, and softens only slightly at f/11. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. I just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. Sometimes though, we stumble upon a great lens design which is strong in all three. Check out some of the photos he took. best lens, blur, sharp-super, no CA, minimal shading. 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. f/2! 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. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . Sharp wide open, wonderful bokeh, fast AF in dark conditions. When stopped down to 49mm it really is indistinguishable from an APO, except it shows red chromatic aberration with modified cameras even with the UV/IR block or CLS-CCD filter. It's terrible. One is its size and weight, which requires a sturdy support on the telescope. With the 135 I imagine I'd have to get up on the roof. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. The focuser adjustment rotates roughly 270 degrees, meaning fine-tuning on a bright star is more precise. 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. A camera tracker (or star tracker) is necessary for long exposure deep-sky astrophotography, but a compact model such as the iOptron SkyTracker or Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer will do just fine. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. Try to have eyes and nose / lips all in focus. I have no experience with that lens, Jerry Lodriguss however published a review of that lens on his websitehttp://www.astropix.NIKON_180MM.HTM. 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. The background blur is amazingly creamy with this lens. Such "full spectrum" cameras are somewhat more sensitive in the ultraviolet, but much more sensitive in the deep red and infrared. I wish every lens was this good!! I took a few shots with the lens on my way home after buying it. I prefer this lens than the 70-200/2.8. #light_bulb I would disagree. In photoshop I love to zoom 200, 300 and even 400% to see the extreme details it is an absolutely amazing lens, great backround blur, great for low light weddings with available light. Best lens for portraiture I've ever tried. Personally, I can't stand these circles, and I see them as VERY distracting.Lots of fads come and go, and this is just another one of these fads that some photographers are obsessed with. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get.". The other one is the inevitable and persistent regret that, because of chromatic aberration, the full 75mm aperture of this beautiful lens can not be used in full visible spectrum photography. Standards have risen in recent years. However, when my Canon "L" lenses are used at f8 they are all very sharp and the 135L does not blow the others away. Target for bortle 9 astrophotography? Take care not to confuse this lens with the 200mm F4 SMC Takumar 6x7 which has a different optical configuration, and which I have never tested. I just wish this lens had IS for low light and portraits with flash. It also focuses really fast and accurate and is light. It could really use an update to its coatings. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. Ive set the f-stop to F/2.8, to sharpen up the stars a bit. I have taken some of the coolest photos with this lens on a canon mark III which shoots ten frames per second. Focusing a wide open F/2 lens is demanding of the optics, especially on a field of stars in the night sky. 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. 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. 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. Plus it is harder to attach than other lens hoods. I cant decide whether to clean it up in processing or let it be. Have you ever come across this phenomena? Click on following link to view images Round one of polls are now open, pick your winners and share your voice. When I got home and loaded the photo into Lightroom I was blown away by two things. I cant wait to try this lens out during the winter months on some wide-field targets in Orion. 2 Dielectric Diagonals. BTW, the 300-mm Tele-Tessar you describe -- what camera was it made for? This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. Great reach for street shots. In my test, nikon have the same color correction than Canon and same sharpness. (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 Everyone should have one? Im a newbie at astro.. and photography in general really! Of course, when it comes to astrophotography, this can create some challenges as well. 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. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. The screws should be set sufficiently tightly to prevent shift, yet not so tightly as to interfere with fine focusing. This is one of my all time favourites. Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. It's Film Friday, so let's take a look back at the film format that gave APS-C sensors their name! I haven't seen compassion with the excellent Zeiss lens you quote (That BTW costs at least 3.5-4 times, yet a good comparison as similar to Zeiss, Samyang believes in providing the exceptional Image Quality, with Manual focus) but compare with Canon's L 135mm F2.0, that by many reviews, is considered as one the best Canon lenses ever made (Not . Second night out with mine right now and I am here in the comments looking for the part number or link! 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. Also, we ought never question or diminish the joy of others. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed February 4th, 2010 Probably you could get a very similar image with a 85mm 1.8. I do not like this. tanie i dobre opinie 9 opatek lub Biznes HUMAN Sport Insect Architektura Specjalne Krajobrazy Martwa natura Podry People 2023 Obiektyw o staej ogniskowej Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. The foolproof image seems to be more a case of how a bright fuzzy cluttered moving background can completely detach from the offset dark subject matter and overwhelm it. Bye The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. lol, nice images, and i nearly bought this lens myself a few years ago. CANON LENS FOR ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. As it is it is earns a 9. Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable. If I got this lens, would it make more sense long term to get the Canon mount with a E mount adaptor so I could fit it more easily to a dedicated astro camera later? This lens has only two drawbacks. Thus the enthusiasm has a valid basis but may not be suitable for all shooting conditions. However, for $15 I also bought an old Tamron Adaptall 2, 135 mm f2.5. 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. I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. But If you want the "look" you get with a medium telephoto at f/2, hen all those negatives become irrelevant. You will never be able to beat this lense, believe me, i have tried them all. As I posted on the Petapixel variant of this article, cropping a 85/1.4 shot to a 135mm-equivalent FoV gives you approx. Orion nebula shot with Canon T3i and Rokinon 135mm @ F2.0 150 shots with dark bias and flats stacked and edited. A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! This has several advantages from less demanding tracking accuracy, to being able to use a lower ISO setting. The flawless image quality is only half the story though. I bought it for its bokeh. 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. The lens shows a very slight pincushion distortion, but it's well under 0.1% of frame height, an excellent performance by any measure. $581.00 for 7 days. As if absolutely clueless Youtube instructors who have no idea what they are talking about weren't enough. Show some humility and don't troll. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. 2. In the highest contrast situations there's a hint of both purple and green fringing but both are minor and easy to remove with software. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. The 70-200L being a much more useful lens. I heard it's very sharp and well corrected. USM works so quickly and accurately, it puts my 24-70/f2.8L to shame. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. They seem to be really good for NB work. Overall, the lens feels very solid and well constructed. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. So, for Joe User or especially for Jane Client, one really has to look closely to see much of a difference. These lenses can be had on eBay in mint condition for around $70, and are probably the most price efficient optical instrument in the world. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. I guess thats where practice will come in handy. Bokeh == Visual character of the lens optics to render light and color mixing together. Today I want to talk about another such lens design: The 135mm F2 lens. DPReview March Madness, round one - vote! What's it got and what's it like to use? They were not however designed to be bokeh monsters though that was just a side effect of making them fast and people bought them for speed with bokeh being the afterthought so not Bokeh for the sake of Bokeh as he said. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. This article was originally published on Micael's blog, and is being republished in full with express permission. 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. What I see is a photographer who should maybe instead stick to the kit lens, and learn composition first. Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. Looking forward to allow purchasing the Canon 200mm f/2.8L II USM. Sme of the wide field are. My work requires auto-focus. f/2, fast-accurate-silent focus, (relatively) small & light, super sharp!! Digital sensors are roughly 5 times as sharp as 400-speed film. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. Canon CR-N700 4K PTZ Camera with 15x Zoom. This lens has the Pentax K bayonet mount, and requires the K-EOS adapter for attachment to Canon EOS cameras. I had a 70-200 f/4 that i used unstopped at 200 with awesome results. But I sold it and went back to using a 70-200 (alongside a 24-70). 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. The downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. Build quality: excellent. Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. 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. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens. One very popular lens for bokeh fiends is the Canon 85mm F1.2it can produce extremely creamy out of focus backgrounds. I dont mean to be rude, but I fail to see any photographic comparison or test to display the quality of this lens against others, concerning coma or anything else, except considerations on the manual focusing, its shape and ergonomic. With weather sealing this would be a 10. Dear Trevor, 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. Juksu, your point is well taken. My first shot was a section of the constellation Sagittarius that included the Lagoon Nebula, and Trifid Nebula. Let's the games begin! But like a glitch in the matrix, an anomaly that shouldn't exist, you can get the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm for as little as $430 brand new. 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. These include canon lens for night photography along with good budget lenses for astrophotography. I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. These lenses go about as close as you could get without a dedicated macro lens. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. I need fast auto-focus, predictable focus lock and natural, vibrant color rendition. Whats the best camera for around $2000? 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. I have a 135mm f2.8 lens I've used for wide DSOs but mostly I use 200mm. The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC is one of the most affordable and practical lenses for astrophotography on the market. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. The inset picture is a magnified view of the bottom right corner of the frame. 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. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens.