sigh, overdone bokeh and centre sharpness bear little relevance to the art of this hobby. Thus the enthusiasm has a valid basis but may not be suitable for all shooting conditions. All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. Fast. Write your own user review for this lens. lol, nice images, and i nearly bought this lens myself a few years ago. But you are talking more than 2x crop (cut half by width and height) and that leaves you to twice smaller resolution == quarter of the Mpix count.So now your 42Mpix A7rII is only a 10.5Mpix. The Japanese word "bokeh" can be translated into English as "blur". The best 200mm lens is precisely the older 200mm F4 SMC Takumar, which comes with the M42 camera thread, and requires the M42-EOS adapter. 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. Whatever lens you pick in the end, you will make a great purchase. 645 lenses such as the mamiya apo line and pentax edif can operate within these conditions without vignetting on apsc sensors. Stopping down would actually have improved the picture. 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. (And cost less too). Yes there's bokeh. Rokinon FE14M-C Lens. I just love the lightning fast & accurate focus of this lens. It has no chromatic aberration, and no hint of star deformities in the corners. When I was teaching photography in 70's at a junior college, I critiqued students photos, but I never did so harshly. 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. If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! Better than nothing I guess, would depend on how much it raises the price. For the rest there is Sigma 135 /1.8 Art also fantastic value lens. Nice article for beginners.It's all in the eyes of the beholder. here some information (sorry only in italian) http://www.astrovale-usm/index.html 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. Thanks for the fine article and the thought you put into it. Thomas, I do have no experience with the Canon lens you mentioned but zoom lenses have limitations concerning aberrations while providing more flexibility.The Nikkor 70-200/4 that I like as a travel lens is a very good performer but the Zeiss 135/2 APO is in a different league. parts of your main subject extend beyond the DOF range it will never look flat. Nevertheless, it performs excellently on most star fields, and is too cheap not to acquire. The flat lens hood is great for taking flat frames after a night of astrophotography. I ordered this lens on Amazon, utilizing my Amazon Prime membership. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat Yes, because it is not f/2. If 135mm f2 works for you, then fine. It's an ideal portrait lens. The one and only 300mm lens I tested is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm F4. CP+ 2023: Sigma has announced it is bringing its trio of DC DN APS-C prime lenses to Nikon's Z mount: its first lenses for Nikon's mirrorless system. Astrophotography is one of the ultimate tests of lens quality, as long exposure photography of deep-sky objects in space can highlight issues that are hidden during daytime photography. It is so sharp it makes you rethink the use of your zoom lenses. Sharp but smooth at the same time. PRICE. (purchased for $899), reviewed March 19th, 2012 Maybe try a 400mm f/2.0 to see it that one's got enough blur. Yes, she's isolated. "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. Besides, adding IS would mean adding extra elements and that would very likely reduce the image quality. You're right, but a headshot is exactly where I want to see all those megapixels I bought put to use! 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. 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? After a three-year hiatus, we've been at the return of the CP+ camera show in Yokohama, Japan. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. Backwards compatible (film). You may need to refocus your subject as the temperature changes throughout the night. The difference between modern and old telephoto lenses is probably similar to the difference between my APO and an old Jaegers 5in F5. If you must have autofocus, and care about weight, buy the Canon. Everyone should have one? No, Mr. Does the bright star reflection bother you? Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Zeiss Jena or Oberkochen? The criterion I used in evaluating lenses was optical perfection with no reservations. AHAB. Some people do not like this and consider Bokeh to refer only to the rendering of out of focus points of light. (For Nikon users there's the new 105mm too.). But you raise the exact point, that primes should be chosen with a 2x factor. Litepanels Studio X2 Bi-Color LED Fresnel Light. IQ will rival any other lens. Yep the speed wars in the 70's that gave us all these bokeh monsters were all about the fact that its hard to get usable images in poor lighting when your film was stuck at iso 80 (or even 400 when you were pushing it). The 135 L handles this well. I know taste is subjective, but it seems to me that some people have become obsessed with blur and bokeh. Canon 60Da DSLR and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L2 lens at 135mm, f/3.2. One of them is simplicity: A clear, simple subject that constitutes a shape, standing out and contrasting against a calm and simple background. Available 03/21/23. 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. Used with a FF body the DOF can be unforgiving, but if you nail focus the results can be magnificent. Great question Scott I think it depends on the image. Now we have to read this kind of ignorant misinformation on DPR articles. Cost. Would it at all be possible to at least make sure the people you publish know a little bit about photography? 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. I need fast auto-focus, predictable focus lock and natural, vibrant color rendition. The 200f2.8 L is excellent - I am using it right now. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. Typical L construction. I bought it for its bokeh. Definetely the most sharpest lens which I have ever seen. This new, affordable wide zoom for L-mount is capable of some excellent landscapes. Are you really using 135 a lot? Depth of field at f/2 on the 135 is so shallow that I usually shot it stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 anyway. The original poster is right that it was a compromise though and stopping down was necessary for critical sharpness and a better image. . f/2, fast-accurate-silent focus, (relatively) small & light, super sharp!! 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. Build quality: excellent. Flip on through what we found, and see how the lens performs in the real world in our sample gallery. This allows for less aggressive camera settings for night photography such as using a lower ISO setting and shorter exposure. Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. Seems to me that with your gallery and website of images you should refrain from passing judgment on who is and isn't a photography master. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. Canon 300/4 ED IF AF (non-IS) Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. [emailprotected]. The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. The screws should be set sufficiently tightly to prevent shift, yet not so tightly as to interfere with fine focusing. That whole rig comes to about $1200, minus the mount. here are some links to some pics taken with the lens: Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. A promising start, no doubt, but not a master yet! I found with the 70-200 made me lazy. Do you have a link to Yuri's photo stream? Bond, I expect you to buy! 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. I disagree. Diffraction from the cheap EF-s kit zoom lens was uneven. This image of NGC 7000 was done at F/4 at iso 800 with a Canon 20D mod. I have compared many times my 135/2 against my 100/2.8 and there is a big difference. 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. At $900 US it a relative steal. 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. Large focus ring. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. The focuser adjustment ring on the Rokinon 135mm F/2 is excellent, but fine-tuning your critical focus on a bright star at F/2 will take some trial and error to get right. Lots of wet blankets around here. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. I got my first 400 around 50 years ago, and I must say that each step forward feels like a revolution, for a while. Best lens for portraiture I've ever tried. 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. My 24-70L needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to begin to match the sharpness of my 135L at f2.0 (the test shots were of the portrait of Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill). Helps me as a beginner a lot 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. Back in 1999, Sony released the F505, their first digital camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. 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). Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? I mount it on my APS-C camera and the focal length literally becomes 216 mm, which is too tight. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.No disagreement here. Interesting that ancient, low-tech (no ED glass, no special coatings) non-apo telephotos could produce decent results compared to something modern. don't get me wrong; this lens will take great photos, but the 'flatness' i was getting in my photos nearly had me give up 25 years of hobby photography. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. About 3 hours of exposures split between Narrowband, Broadband and short exposure shots to make an HDR image. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. Hi Thomas As far as I know, the Nikon D500 is not modified for astrophotography out of the box (it includes a built in IR cut filter that blocks much of the 656nm wavelength). We were very impressed with X-T5's 40-megapixel APS-C sensor, check out some full resolution images! Of my last 3500 shots only 62 were made with the 135 f/2. I would be careful with the Nikon 135 f/2 DC (I have one). If so, which one? Last time I used a 135mm f2 was decades ago on a Canon F1. 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. Im getting a samyang to use with my 60D. Some reviewers have listed lack of IS as a "Con". @juksu - you're such a hypocrite. Lagoon and Trifid wide field IC1396 nebula in Cepheus - wide field image. 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 downsides of this configuration are that shooting wide open can make focusing difficult. If you have the 1.8 version, way to go. At the other end of the aperture range though, the 5D's larger pixels actually help matters, as the softening starts later (it's very sharp even at f/16), and is noticeably lower at f/32. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. After weeks with a production Fujifilm X-T5, Chris and Jordan have some final thoughts.
Which Newspapers Support Political Parties,
Uzette Salazar Resigns,
Are Karen And Lee From Bridezillas Still Married,
Random Mcyt Generator,
Articles C