Andysea, those are great images on your website. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop . How well do Fujifilm's film simulations match up to their film counterparts? Still - a great portrait lens when used at f/2.8 or f/4, with a creamy bokeh indeed. Not heavy like the white tele-zooms. The Andromeda Galaxy using the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC lens. For this reason, a combination of a good light pollution filter, and the use of flat calibration frames are recommended. If you want to preview the image field you can expect with a particular camera sensor and lens combination, Stellarium features a useful tool. There's just nothing there. 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. The lens hood is removable (and reversible), which makes packing the Rokinon 135mm away into the included lens pouch possible. Will this ever get old? 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). However, stepping outside to polar align a small star tracker and attach a DSLR and lens is quick and painless. They account for much of the disagreement that we see on-line (but not for the rudeness and viciousness of some of it). I was blown away when I loaded the photos into my computer. Using the lens's diaphragm interferes with the light path and results in diffraction spikes which I find unattractive. (Suggesting that diffraction limiting is only part of the story with lens softness at tiny apertures.). The only downside with that lens is that it is manual focus, which might not be suitable for photographing sports or children. No telephoto lens can be used with cameras modified by the removal of the internal UV/IR cut filter and anti-aliasing filter. This lens is very sharp, corner to corner wide open. But you just know that there is the professionalism that is lacking here -- and the writer's Instagram page confirms that. Contrasty, saturated, nice colours. Rokinon 135mm F/2 Lens for ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY. Preaching to the choir! Hi Trevor, Simple as that! Do I wish it were manufactured with metal? And they like circles (no ellipses or polygons) and smooth colour (no hard edges, no onion rings). thanks for the tiring patronising lecture and then agreeing with me. I had one question that i cant seem to find an answer to.. It seems lazy to me. Before I go any further, Id like to share a photo from Gabriel Millou of the Andromeda Galaxy using a Canon 1300D. Reg. This seems to be the norm for telephotos. 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.). 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. This lens is simply lighter, cheaper & faster (f/2.0 vs f/2.8). If You can not, buy Canon EF 85/1.8, which delivers quite similar results. The Rokinon 135mm F/2 ED UMC. 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. No telephoto lens, and no apochromat, is sufficiently corrected to accomodate such a wide spectral range. Unfortunately it is not manufactured in a multicoated version, and produces prominent internal reflection artifacts on very bright stars. And if you want autofocus, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.0L, which is incredibly light for its performance at just 750g. Tack sharp even at wide open aperture. Sme of the wide field are. So so far the best that I have used are the 200f2.8L and the 400f5.6L. Along with improvements in telescope mounts, camera technology, filters, and digital image processing, these have allowed amateurs to produce astrophotographs of nearly professional quality. Testing on an EOS-5D, we see that it's sharpness is almost as good wide open in the corners as on the EOS-20D with its smaller sensor. (purchased for $900), reviewed April 15th, 2011 I love the lens for my modified Sony a6000! For comparison, no other lens I know of would earn more than 8/10. Several functions may not work. Does this work well with any of the 1.4x / 1.7x / 2.0x Teleconverters (extenders / barlows)? And yet this review is on front page of DPReview prompting me to go and buy this lens -- so surely it must be a professional , well grounded review, right? But when holes in text prompt me to look at the work of the writer, there is nothing professional there either. I had both for a while. Did anybody use this lens for DSLR astrophoto? I own Samyang 135 f2 for Nikon Mount and indeed it is incredible value lens. 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. tanie i dobre opinie 9 opatek lub Biznes HUMAN Sport Insect Architektura Specjalne Krajobrazy Martwa natura Podry People 2023 Obiektyw o staej ogniskowej 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). Your Baader filter passes 420-680nm and, in theory, a good APO should be able to focus that part of the spectrum with no chromatic aberration. I find 400gm as the tolerable weight limit for a lens on my panasonic gx85, and I am guessing following telephoto lenses would satisfy the itch to get good bokeh shots, 1. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on. Standards have risen in recent years. There are a total of 8 stops actually written on the lens. They seem to be really good for NB work. Writer Anno Huidekoper takes a look at what this manual SLR can do and how it stacks up to its contemporaries. The lens is so crisp that the diaphragm blade pattern is visible on point light sources shot at large aperature. If you don't like that article that's your right as a member. I think the readers would welcome contributions from other members' experiences. Available in other Styles, Configurations & Kits. 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. We were surprised by just how much difference there was between these AI-powered image enlargers. It's a trade off. What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Lagoon and Trifid wide field IC1396 nebula in Cepheus - wide field image. You will never be able to beat this lense, believe me, i have tried them all. You can also find him as @mwroll on Instagram and 500px. 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. As you know, camera lenses come in varying focal lengths, apertures, and optical quality. Because of some residual chromatic aberration even with the aperture stop, the best focus lies not where the star image is the smallest, but rather just slightly away from infinity, at the point where the star image barely begins to enlarge. I got this lens because of portraiture. Large emission nebulae like the California Nebula (pictured below) are a great choice for this focal length. No more inside shooting with flash! Because it's an L-series lens by Canon, you can be sure that the image quality and performance of the 24-105mm meet the demanding aspects of astrophotography such as focus and star quality. I got many great shots from this lens but also missed ton of shots due manual focus only. And only the cat photo has something OK (but it is a cat shot You easily get them look good). I have used and still use the 135MM F/2 l lens. I have done a review comparing the sharpness and quality of bokeh to the Canon 70-200 2.8. Bokeh == Visual character of the lens optics to render light and color mixing together. Yes, because it is not f/2. The Rokinon website lists this lens as being useful for portraiture photography, and most telephoto applications. 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. I also find the other photos not very good. Canon's 700-200 zooms have IS and are weather sealed two features that the 135 f/2 lacks. The Canon is about as sharp as the Samyang, but it has some very slight chromatic aberration. Got it! If canon puts an IS on this lens, it would be perfect! Manually focusing a lens for astrophotography is nothing new, but the manual aperture ring adjustments may feel a little strange at first. This is one of my all time favourites. If you can tolerate vignetting, there are many normal 35mm lenses that are great wide open. Let's the games begin! The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. 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). You would be hard pressed to find any other lens on a full frame camera that produces creamier bokeh. 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. This lens is available on Amazon for most camera bodies. Rokinon 135mm F2.0 ED Lens. Explore the sky, try frame some targets and see what works well with your DSLR and lens combination. 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. Its fast f/2.0 maximum aperture is effective in low light and enables shallow depth of field control. I think they are an outstanding value for any wide-field astrophotographer, and are particularly suitable for newcomers. I'll take photo of Orion as soon as possible. Lots of older lenses no longer satisfy. I already did some trials with the Samyang 12mm lens. As such, it applies most directly here to areas of an image that are out of focus. Several functions may not work. 2 Dielectric Diagonals. reviewed August 2nd, 2017 Fit and finish are first-rate as well, with very smooth manual focus operation, and very fast autofocus on the camera. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbrigham/284303834/. While they provide a very large flat field we noticed some CA. Cost. After a three-year hiatus, we've been at the return of the CP+ camera show in Yokohama, Japan. thanks for the write-up.. i just got this lens and have just been trying it out. 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. What next, an article extolling the virtues of 43mm, or 70mm? My Nikon focus and aperture rings are a thing of highly finessed engineering beauty! One difference worth pointing out is for those who image using narrowband filters. (purchased for $725), reviewed March 26th, 2013 I really don't want to count all the pores - and the hairs coming out of them (eeeew!) I got my first 400 around 50 years ago, and I must say that each step forward feels like a revolution, for a while. That's why I really enjoy shooting portraits with it. Include the Carl Zeiss in your research though, it might be an interesting lens for you, even if it is a bit pricey for what you get. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. 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. 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. Love the shot of the blue anemone, which also displays nice bokeh, and blur! With a rounded 9-blade diaphragm, shallow depth of field imaging will be rendered with pleasing out-of-focus highlights. It is worth of it's price?Any links to astrophotos with this lens?Thanks. It improves slightly stopped down. As rest you do just by cropping or stitching. Well, for me. . That means that it doesnt require a robust equatorial telescope mount as a larger, heavier telephoto lens would. p.s. 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. So there - it is not a perfect object. Amazing sharpness wide open at F2.0 and the focus ring is nice and firm not tight you don't really need to tape it down for astrophotography. I also tested 200 f/2.8 tele and it is one of the most perfect lens in existence, as well as the 135. Do you expect me to gawk? Round one of polls are now open, pick your winners and share your voice. http://www.idyll.com/laneysat When stopped down to 37mm, at F5.4, it also produces perfect, small and round star images across the entire field. Chris referred to the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM as 'a little gem'! 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. The 135mm f2.8 in particular can take amazing photos of the brighter deep sky objects with about 1 second time . The Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC is one of the most affordable and practical lenses for astrophotography on the market. He has quite a breadth photos many of which are quite good. Another example is the 100mm (or sometimes 90mm) F2.8 macro lens. I do not think telephoto lenses would be suitable for use with your modified camera. As soon as e.g. Another thing that makes people go "wow" over the 135mm F2 lens design is the bokeh, which can be so creamy that distant backgrounds almost render as gradients. This is huge for me, as it allows me to be much more nimble with getting the right composition and angle. This gives me the power of 162x, which is barely sufficient for my 420mm fl APO astrograph at full camera resolution. 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. That is why when SLRs came along the 200mm became the big seller and the 135 was largely forgotten. And you can even crop a 135 efl with today's sensors should you actually need it. Just like the above samples, most are just bad. 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. In this post, Ill share my results using an affordable prime telephoto lens for astrophotography, the Rokinon 135mm F/2.0 ED UMC. Yes, there is some sharpness added when stopping down to f4 or f5.6 but after that it doesn't get better. By far the best one is the Tiffen Haze 2 filter. Thanks & Cheers I use it routinely in preference to many other multicoated filters I tested, including the new Hoya MC UV. Excellent build quality, fast auto focus, and its fast. 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. Film Friday: DPRTV reviews Fujifilm's Acros II film, Fujifilm launches Instax Mini 12 instant camera, DPReview March Madness, vote for your champions, Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM sample gallery (DPReview TV), OM System M. Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro sample gallery, Live from Japan: Highlights from CP+ 2023, Retro Review: 24 years later, the Sony F505 is still pretty cool, Hands on with the OM System M. Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro, New FAA rules make it easier for recreational drone pilots to fly in restricted US airspaces, Leica marks James Bond's 60th* with a special edition D-Lux 7, Film Friday: A closer look at the Pentax KX, an original K-mount SLR, Blackmagic Design announces a new Studio Camera 6K Pro, National Geographic selects Pictures of the Year photo contest winner, Sigma brings DC DN APS-C primes to Nikon Z-mount, Panasonic Lumix S 14-28mm F4-5.6 Macro sample gallery, Tamron announces 11-20mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom for Fujifilm X-mount, Film Friday: DPReview TV steps back in time to shoot APS film, Finer Points: Here's an easy way to improve video autofocus, DPReview TV: One simple fix to improve video autofocus, Head-to-head: Adobe Super Resolution vs. ON1 Resize AI vs. Topaz Labs Gigapixel AI, Waiting for the fishy in the little dishy by Gil Aegerter, Lava Lizard on Marine Iguana by ZimmWisdom. No telephoto lens I tested, nor my TSAPO65Q, was suitable for use with a DSLR "clear glass" modified to include deep red and IR. Try to have eyes and nose / lips all in focus. Images that sing. From my experience, the toughest test on a lense is its ability to function wide open. It would seem to be a better use of a camera to first look for a suitable background, and then and only then to use bokeh. Definitely now on my to-buy list. 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. Great for portraits. When coupled with my Canon DSLR camera, the entire system weighs just over 3 pounds. 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. However, these APOs have a couple of drawbacks. Photos posted are pleasing but I'd be into seeing something new. You can't really ask them to stand still while you move around. 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. 135 mm. Especially for beginning astrophotographers, who should first invest most of their finances into a good telescope mount, telephoto lenses are an excellent and affordable solution. 85 Is a different story, my 85 gets used a lot. For me, that's enough. An update to the Mini 11, the new camera adds parallax correction capabilities, automatic flash control and a multi-function twist lens. There's literally no story!#6: Purple Flower.The isolation works because it's the only color. For example, the legendary Canon 85mm F1.2L weighs in at 1025g, and the Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art isn't too light either at 1130g. This is one of the sharpest lens i've ever owned. The Samyang 135mm f/2 lens is very wide in astrophotography terms. With no general agreement about what Bokeh is it is little wonder that there is so much argument and disagreement. When you buy a lens with fantastic sharpness and image quality at all apertures, you typically expect it to cost $1,200 on up. The Best Telephoto Lenses for Astrophotography. 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. This is the EF-M series version. The diameter of the lens is 77mm, with a non-rotating filter mount on the objective lens. "Bokeru" is a verb, and it can apply equally to to optical and psychological effects, including the reduced mental clarity that can some with age. Olympus 75mm f1.82. Maybe try a 400mm f/2.0 to see it that one's got enough blur. wew.. I've been using a vintage FD 135/3.5 on my A7R IV as a compact tele option, often alongside a tiny Samyang 75/1.8. Flip on through what we found, and see how the lens performs in the real world in our sample gallery. For that I would investigate alternatives just to make sure. It's gross, all is a matter of balance and the perfect one, given you want sharp and fuzzy elements in your picture, is in the blend, and the way details seems to disappear gracefully (while keeping a level of readability). Very sharp even at f2, build quality, price, weight, autofocus is fast, bokeh, No IS, flare, autofocus isn't quite as consistent as some newer lenses, focus speed, image quality, predictability, Image quality, build like a tank, focus ring, weight. It is fantastically sharp, can make beautiful blurred backgrounds and bokeh, and is both light and inexpensive for what you get. Be careful with the focus. There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. If so, which one? 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). Everyone assumes their definition is the "true" one. D8XX cameras, subject isolation and quality of bokeh.Zoom lenses can not hold a candle to such primes. This is actually worse than just plain obsession with blur. Even if I wanted a 135mm lens (and the 70-200mm f/2.8 is more versatile) it would be the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens. 24/28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm. (purchased for $1,625), reviewed January 27th, 2010 The thing is, on my APS-C body the 100mm is challenging enough. The sigma 150mm f2.8 tests very well, zeiss 135mm apo sonnar, and leica 180mm f3.5 apo all proven performers on star tests. From my purchase research, I found a consensus that stopping down optimizes sharpness but the diaphragm will make nine diffraction spikes when stopped down. Samyang 135 f/2 astrophotography gallery Below some pictures I made using Samyang 135 lens with QHY163 mono camera and iOptron Smart EQ Pro mount. 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. But I hardly used it in the 30+ years. (purchased for $1,000), reviewed February 4th, 2010 Holiday Savings $50 . It always happens to me with Samyang, it makes good glasses, fast and sharp, I want to have them, but they are not comfortable to use, not in Sony E, their focus is not precise, and they are not "so" cheap. This way you get both lenses with only one! If 135mm f2 works for you, then fine. The North America Nebula captured using the 135mm lens with a clip-in Ha filter. At a local amateur soccer game using the 135 f/2 the action was almost always too close, or too far away. http://www.adstateagent.com | http://www.printradiant.com | http://www.hitsticker.com, I love this lens. Juksu, your point is well taken. 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. My first photo of the night sky is of Comet NEOWISE, however I know its not the best photo I could capture. I purchased this lens for the purposes of wide-field deep-sky astrophotography from my light-polluted backyard (shown below), and when traveling to a dark sky site. The first telephoto lens of choice, especially recommended for beginners, is the 135mm F2.5 SMC Pentax. There is no such thing, in my opinion. Some real life images from my photoblog: http://hellabella.de, One of the best and sharpest lens around. But for me, the reason to get this lens is the Bokeh and DOF control. I wish every lens was this good!! Im currently shooting with a Canon 60D. 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". My work requires auto-focus. There is no agreement about what Bokeh means. Bokeh is buttery smooth, best you can get from a 135mm. 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. IS is useful in my f/4 zooms but I don't need it to hand-hold this lens. But do some experimenting before you decide. This lens flares easily and the flare can be especially ugly if a sun or flash are in the frame. http://www.idyll.com/laney2014 Although typically unused in astrophotography, I did get a chance to see the beautiful bokeh this lens creates when shooting at F/2. With a good smartphone, some creative legwork, and the photos scaled down as they are in this article you can make photos that at least just as good. Well, after lugging that lens around for years, I'm experimenting with adding the 135L back to my kit. Yes the Samyang is good and yes there are lenses with bad bokeh. In between interviews with executives of the major companies, Dale Baskin took to the show floor to bring you this report. In the past, Ive covered a number of different lenses, from the Sigma 24mm F/1.4 to the Canon EF 300mm F/4L. 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. With the high megapixel cameras, most people are going to ideally want to shoot at 1/200 or faster. 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. But even better BOKEH is the SAL-135F2.8F4.5 STF (Smooth Trans Focus ) which has even better BOKEH, albeit a manual focus lens. Since i am totally new in this field, i would like to start with astrophotography but using my existing camera (Fuji XT-30). $218.00 for 7 days. 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. A Canon 70-200L IS II at 200mm at f2.8 has all the same characteristics of the Canon 135L. But she might as well be in front of a green screen. That's a cheap, fun date for AP. It's Film Friday, so let's take a look back at the film format that gave APS-C sensors their name! Ive been using kit lenses for the past year, favoring the Nikkor 50mm 2.8. Rain or shine, it's hard to find a camera that does all the OM-5 can for the price. Canon 135mm is a great lens. Write your own user review for this lens. It is good to know that the 200/4 SMC Takumar is good. I used this lens quite a bit years ago as my main working lens. It is a heavy lens. It is really thanks to another commentator pointing out something that finally makes sense out of this mess: This article is by someone who just got his first first telephoto ever, and is writing about how he feels when he is trying it out. Literally it means "blur" so you could just as well use the dictionary definition below the top match from Google search: Bokeh - the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens. 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. And because you can shoot between F/2 and F/4, plenty of light reaches the sensor in a relatively short exposure. Youll never have to worry about losing your position just by touching the lens, but you can always tape the position down to be sure. 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! All lenses mentioned below are adaptable to Canon EOS cameras with slim EOS adapters which allow the lenses to focus just slightly past infinity. I have an old 135/2.5 Takumar that is not bad at all, for the price. EF-mount only, this packs more megapixels, a bigger sensor, and a high max ISO. Reducing aperture with the built-in aperture iris interferes with the light path, and results in eight diffraction spikes around bright star images. The RedCat is deeper at 250mm, and after that, youre into 300-400mm territory which pulls galaxies and nebulae even closer. This is a fully manual lens, meaning that it does not have autofocus, and you must manually select the f-stop using the aperture ring at the base of the lens. 8MP is plenty for the usual 8x10 or 16x20 portrait print. " I had of course heard that this lens is supposed to be very sharp, but I had never before had such a full blown "wow" experience when reviewing the sharpness of a lens. I used Canon's 135 f/2 for ten years. Overall, spectacular lens. Digital camera types . f2, very sharp, virtually without CAs, contrast, colour, lightwight, buildings. 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. For some reason Samyang makes lenses nobody is asking for. Just place your subject against a distant background, and half of the job is done. And with our first long lenses we were all impressed were we not? One of Canon's best lenses for a reasonable price. You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that! Sharp, handy, strong colours and contrast. I have never had a bad experience buying used Canon lenses from eBay sellers with 99.5%+ positive feedback. Aside from being much more affordable, telephoto lenses are easier to transport, easier to mount and easier to guide, and are much more likely to produce encouraging results to a beginner.

Ross Hudson Magistrate, Frontier Airlines Orlando Terminal A Or B, Articles C