canon 135mm f2 astrophotographyvizio sound bar turn off bluetooth

The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. 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. Reg. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. I have a Nikon d 500. Yes, each can produce different results (And that's why I keep and use several different lenses), but my point is that sharpness or bokeh are not the only factors for portraits -- sometimes it just comes down to convenience or price! The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. This is the EF-M series version. for sample photos and video tour, This is simply the best Canon prime lens that I have tested. 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. Thanks! A single, 90-second exposure using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC at F/4. (purchased for $900), reviewed December 14th, 2006 When attached to a DSLR camera with a full frame sensor, the lens offers a massive 15.5 x 10.6 field of view, or 18.8 across the diagonal. Light weight and robust. Is this Nikon already, Astro modified, without need for H alpha filters or any further modifications? Nice image, andysea. So I feel I'm being cheated. If experience has taught me anything, its that the practical, pain-free equipment that gets the most use under the stars. I had both for a while. Amazing colours, contrast, bokeh, everything! The images were collected using a Canon EOS Rebel T3i camera riding on a Fornax Mounts LighTrack II. 135 mm. On a full frame body, I rely upon this lens and it does not disappoint. Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. 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. I do not see much difference in background blur or bokeh. The Olympus Zuiko 180/2.8 and 100/2.8 impressed me in the 1980s, but in the digital era they are not so sharp. The 135mm Rokinon with the Canon Rebel seems like a pretty good setup. A quick question, I have a Sony a6300 mirrorless camera which is great but the sensor is very close behind the mount. 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. It could really use an update to its coatings. Yes, because it is not f/2. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class. Over the last ten to fifteen years excellent apochromatic telescopes have become available for visual use and photography. Wonderful image quality, lots of detail, contrasty, subject separation, fast and accurate AF, bright viewfinder, solid construction, unobtrusive in use, No weather sealing, makes all my other lenses look poor (even the 'L' zooms that, when I first got them, imagined could hardly be improved on). What's it got and what's it like to use? The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens makes an excellent indoor sports lens. Colour and contrast is great. +1 for the 135mm lens. If the telescope mount is precisely aligned to the celestial north pole, unguided exposures of one to two minutes are possible. I own Samyang 135 f2 for Nikon Mount and indeed it is incredible value lens. Of the 150 images I considered fit to publish, only 4 were made with the 135. IS would also help outside with wind. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC. The only downside with that lens is that it is manual focus, which might not be suitable for photographing sports or children. Here is a recent ones taken with the canon xs and a lens. 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. From far to near, the AF is instantaneous. 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? Also Nikon DC 135mm f/2 is a great lens, a little better than 135mm Canon Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. For me, that's enough. Ive been using kit lenses for the past year, favoring the Nikkor 50mm 2.8. @ Juksu - you're pathologically clueless. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. 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. Test Notes (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). Just place your subject against a distant background, and half of the job is done. The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. 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. Could use a few updates. No rubber sealing against the camera body tend to give me the creeps when shooting in the wet. Fast focus, Super sharp, Well built, Awesome for low light. It turns out that this. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. They create a beautiful, mesmerizing dreamscape in their photos, and their secret weapon, besides an impeccable sense for aesthetics, is the 135mm F2 lens. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. 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. Sure, the Nifty 50 is an incredible value (and a LOT cheaper), but the 135mm puts you within range of some of the best astrophotography targets in the night sky. 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 just got the Samyang version of this lens and used it with my Canon 3ti on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. 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. I cant seem to find this documented anywhere. Wonderful, smooth bokeh. 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. Has a good weight to it. I thought I would miss shooting at 200mm, but 135mm is long enough for most portraits and gives a decent amount of compression. By the way, I still enjoy using my very sharp Sears 135mm, PKA mount lens. One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. There have been a lot of Tele-Tessars over the years. Thanks.. Optics quality, sharp,very special picture, sharpness, clarity, weight, fast, accurate AF (fringe benefit of f/2), price, no IS, makes you regret buying any zoom lenses, compact, very sharp wide open, good color contrast, bokeh, this is the lens. Although your target audience is beginning DSLR imagers, much of your advice also applies to using lenses with CCD cameras. Manual focus on wide angle lens, for landscapes, ok, if you have a reliable manual focus system, which Samyang, at least in my mount, does not have. The 135mm F2 lens design is truly special, and in this article (and the video I made), I want to try to convince you as well. Image quality, weight and value for money. 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. But will live with it as it provides good protection of the front element. 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. The reason the 135mm lens was that it was the longest lens that would focus with a Leica rangefinder. Thanks to you I got a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 and a 24mm f 1.4 and am considering this lens at the moment, but wonder how it compares to the Canon 135 mm f/2. $449.00. MCovington, my Zeiss 300/4 is the full thickness barrel version, made in West Germany, serial number 5990836. The image below was captured using a DSLR and 135mm lens on the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mount. If you buy a nifty fifty or a 100mm macro lens you simply cannot go wrongyou will get a great and handy lens for your money, with great image quality. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. "That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten"Did you notice that this 135mm F2 lens on an APS-C camera is more or less equivalent to a 200mm F2.8 lens on an FF camera ?So this lens can be seen as the 200mm F2.8 lens for APS-C camera users. Yes, she's isolated. 2. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed January 1st, 2007 Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. Some real life images from my photoblog: http://hellabella.de, One of the best and sharpest lens around. There is some controversy about the use of UV filters, but I found that a good UV filter significantly improves contrast, sharpens small star images, and reduces chromatic aberration. 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. It may be superfluous to add, but it can't do any harm, that in astrophotography all shutter control must be done with a wired or wireless electrical shutter release swith. I think prime users get too used to the idea of bokeh as the only answer. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/314771597/ "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. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. 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. If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. (purchased for $700), reviewed October 9th, 2012 In this review, however, I am using the lens on a crop sensor (APS-C) Canon EOS 60Da, which puts the field of view at 12.4 degrees. At around $900 US very good price for quality no IS. Thanks Gary! I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. It disagrees completely with the definition that you give! This lens has only two drawbacks. Well, after lugging that lens around for years, I'm experimenting with adding the 135L back to my kit. You get what you get.#4: Cat in Underbrush.That's pretty good.#5: Woman with Blanket.It's like a snapshot. Perhaps it's not a big thing, but for a L-graded lens this feature should be expected. She's cold? (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 This looks to be an excellent lens with fantastic results. Litepanels Studio X2 Bi-Color LED Fresnel Light. But the Rokinon f/2 version fits into a different market. Not only does it let you travel light, but impressive wide field projects are often more successful when captured under a dark sky. p.s. (purchased for $860), reviewed March 9th, 2017 The only reason i sell this lens is because of versatility. I've seen several listed but here are more to consider. Now I have only the Nikon but I can try to take a photo of the same subject fully open Tamron has announced its 11-20mm F2.8 Di III-A RXD ultra-wide angle zoom will be made available for Fujifilm X-mount. If you can afford it buy this lens, you will love it. The Rho Ophiuchi Cloud Complex by Eric Cauble using the Samyang 135mm F/2 lens. All of them are extremely sharp and produce mouth-watering bokeh, and all of them are reasonably priced for what you get. (purchased for $650), reviewed June 6th, 2008 Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. That is the story.#7: Leaves.That doesn't work. Nothing else like it and the reason the two DC lenses have remained in production since they were introduced in 1993. https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1180017085/photos/3721717/bokeh. 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.

Jane Austen Festival 2022, Www Portal Ri Gov Results, Articles C