#1  
Old 03-04-2018, 05:45 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
135mm... Samyang or Zeiss?

I've been considering getting a 135mm lens for general photography and also astrophotography (a big part being astro) and although the Zeiss has usually been out of my "respectable" price range, but when second hand and at a reasonable price, theyíre not that expensive compared to other high quality lensí.
*
As a general rule of thumb (from extensive Googling) I'd say that the Zeiss is a fraction sharper and doesn't suffer from the focus breathing of the Samyang BUT the Samyang has slightly better LoCA correction (in a good copy).
*
I'll be using it with a D810 for general photography and astro while I am also planning on attaching my QHY163M for astro. The Samyang goes for about $800 new and the Zeiss will probably go for twice that.

My heart is pushing me towards the Zeiss if for nothing other than the exceptional built quality and that, having been built better, is more likely to be a life long lens.
The other consideration is that if I do decide to go down the Samyang path I may get a good copy to begin with OR I could spend the next few months going back 2-5 times testing copies. Samyang QC is the luck of the draw.
*
The choice for me is easy when buying a Zeiss new but when they're secondhand and a good price, in good condition and nearby... It does become more difficult. I know that a good copy of a Samyang has slightly better CA control at F/2 but I do wonder if by F/2.8 it even matters.
*
So I open it up to those who have had hands on experience with these lovely sharp lens'.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-04-2018, 05:59 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,473
I would also check out the Sigma Art 135mm. It gets good reviews.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:22 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,973
Zenit Tair-11A is very sharp lens.. However not easily found. And it suffers from coma somewhat at the corners (but virtually no CA, when stopped down to f/4).
Hhave a look at the shot of Proxima (crop, from 1/2 way to the corner of the frame, I will try to post the full frame later today) here: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...31&postcount=7

Canon 100mm F2.8 FD is also very good (but shorter... ).

I have both, they are excellent for wide shots

Last edited by bojan; 03-04-2018 at 06:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:44 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
I would also check out the Sigma Art 135mm. It gets good reviews.

Greg.
I did a lot of research yesterday and came to the conclusion that I prefer the images produced by the Zeiss over the Sigma.
As an autofocus lens itís autofocus leaves a lot to be desired. Optically it is magnificent but there has been a fair bit of negative chatter about its autofocus capabilities.

For the kind of photography Iíll be doing with a 135mm I donít need autofocus as much as with shorter focal lengths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Zenit Tair-11A is very sharp lens.. However not easily found. And it suffers from coma somewhat at the corners (but virtually no CA, when stopped down to f/4).
Hhave a look at the shot of Proxima (crop, from 1/2 way to the corner of the frame, I will try to post the full frame later today) here: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...31&postcount=7

Canon 100mm F2.8 FD is also very good (but shorter... ).

I have both, they are excellent for wide shots
Looking for a lens that I can effectively use at F/2-F/3.5 in astro. The Canon 100mm gets great reviews but it wonít fit on my Nikon D810
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-04-2018, 07:07 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,973
Yes, that is partly true - Canon is not as deep as Nikon, so in your case with adapter (available on ebay for couple of $) it wouldn't work without additional mechanical mod (easily done btw.. you just need to move focus stop inside the lens).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-04-2018, 11:26 AM
sil's Avatar
sil (Steve)
Not even a speck of dust

sil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,402
What about the nikon 105mm macro? I used it for a long time for absolutely everthing. Japanese factory, fantastic lens and never needs to leave the camera body. Haven't used their new version though, but if you were looking at canon 100 then check out the nikon version.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-04-2018, 12:01 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
Okay, this might be easier if I say what I already have.
I have recently given my partner my Nikon D7200, Nikon 50mm F/1.8D and Samyang 14mm f/2.8.

I have a magnificent Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 that I am planning on selling very soon as I recently bought a new Tamron 90mm Macro with VR. The Sigma does have a slight edge in sharpness over the Tamron but it is very slight but the Tamron is more versatile as it has very similar FOV abut also allows for macro.

So what I’m looking at is a lens with a tighter FOV than my 90mm that I can use for general photography and astrophotography with my Nikon (non-Canon) and attaches to my QHY163M (QHY have issues with their Canon adapted but my Binon one works perfectly).

I can get a second hand Zeiss 135 F2 for the same price as a Sigma Art 135 F/1.8 but from image comparisons the Zeiss throws up a better image in every day photography.
Optically the Zeiss is a fraction sharper and has less distortion than the Samyang but the Samyang has a fraction better colour correction. Not sure exactly how the Sigma stands between the two of these in colour.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-04-2018, 04:33 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,482
Hi Colin,

There doesn't seem to be much in it (Zeiss V Samyang) in terms of Resolution/MTF and Coma performance.

The Zeiss 135 f/2...
https://www.lenstip.com/388.4-Lens_r...esolution.html

The Samyang 135 f/2
https://www.lenstip.com/442.4-Lens_r...esolution.html

The Zeiss appears to show marginally better than the Samyang in terms of Resolution measured MTF50, but the Zeiss was "measured" with a Nikon D3x (24.5Mpixel) vs the Samyang 135 tested with the Canon 5D MkIII (22Mpixel) so I wouldn't read too much into any marginal 2-3 l/mm resolution difference.

The coma test on both lenses also appears excellent, maybe slightly better for the Samyang, but ....????

Best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:08 PM
OzEclipse's Avatar
OzEclipse (Joe Cali)
Registered User

OzEclipse is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 948
Colin,

Can't say much about comparisons between lenses.

Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 135mm f2 are all the same lens badged differently.

B&H Photo in New York sells these lenses at a decent discount. I bought a Rokinon 135mm f2 a couple of weeks ago for USD450 + USD26 postage. That special has expired but they are still available at USD550

Haven't had a chance to try the lens for AP yet. Seems sharp for terrestrial. Will post some images when I get a chance.

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:53 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
100% agree with you JA which is what makes it all so confusing haha
This is where hands on experience comes into it. It's one of those times where you can just get lost in MTF charts and various graphs where theoretical and numerical hairs and split without taking into consideration how a lens performs in the real life and outside of a lab controlled setting.

From some further reading this appears to be where the Sigma Art 135 falls into place. DXO and Lenstip have both rated it as being the sharpest lens ever tested and lenstip says that its colour correction is beyond reproach (better than the Zeiss and Samyang) but when shot below F/2.8 it shows purple discolouration in out of focus and high contrast areas (also shown on Lenstip). This isn't present in either the Zeiss or the Samyang.

The general consensus that I seem to be finding online is that if I was to be going purely AP then the Samyang would be the better choice due to a slightly better longitudinal CA correction but as a general purpose lens the vastly superior mechanics of the Zeiss make it the better choice.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-04-2018, 07:21 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,482
Hi Colin,
I read earlier up above that you'd consider a 100mm also, so just a thought you could consider a Nikon 105mm f/1.4, for similar $ to the Zeiss..... Or just (I would) give an old Nikkor 135mm f/2 AI or AIS a go. Another possibility would be dare I say it , a zoom. But the Nikkor (or Canon) professional zooms are not an excuse for an optic and rival prime lenses in some areas. If you want to try an 80-200 f/2.8 IF-ED AF-D or AF-S let me know. The 70-200 esp the vr2 is also excellent.

Best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-04-2018, 09:49 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,287
I use the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 on a D810A and the stars are perfect all the way to the corner wide open. Examples here:
https://www.astrobin.com/full/251295/
https://www.astrobin.com/full/235968/
The only comparable lens I've used that comes close is the old Nikkor 180 D f2.8 that is almost as good - and lets you autofocus. I also use the 135mm for daytime and couldn't care less about the AF, - for the kind of shooting I do I can watch for the little green dot when I'm focusing manually. A stunning lens that is so well constructed it could survive being arrested in Victoria.
cheers,
Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-04-2018, 09:45 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky View Post
I use the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 on a D810A and the stars are perfect all the way to the corner wide open. Examples here:
https://www.astrobin.com/full/251295/
https://www.astrobin.com/full/235968/
The only comparable lens I've used that comes close is the old Nikkor 180 D f2.8 that is almost as good - and lets you autofocus. I also use the 135mm for daytime and couldn't care less about the AF, - for the kind of shooting I do I can watch for the little green dot when I'm focusing manually. A stunning lens that is so well constructed it could survive being arrested in Victoria.
cheers,
Andrew.
Wow... this lens is on my wish list....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-04-2018, 09:57 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
You’ve sold me on that Andrew, picking it up tomorrow afternoon

Now, the Samyang/Rokinon lens’ have the same performance IF Zhou get a good copy. I’ve heard reports of people getting an excellent one on their first buy but I’ve also heard of others sending back 5 copies before getting one.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-2018, 11:22 AM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,482
Here is a comparison of the following 6 lenses at f/2.8 and f/4 for some communality and chosen as they were under discussion or closest to the discussion:

Nikon 180 f/2.8 ED -IF AF
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF - set at 135mm
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR - set at 135mm
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G AF-S ED VRII - set at 135mm
Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro_Planar
Nikon 105 f/1.4E ED AF-S

Unfortunately there is no data from the same source as above for the Zeiss 135 f2, but it performs very close to/on par with the Nikon 105 f1.4 in other direct resolution tests on the lens tip website and shown in the 6th column in this comparison. There is also no comparable data for the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS, although it is somewhat sharper in the corners than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR, but not the VRII.

Also note the test data is for all intents and purposes in comparative form "blur units". One Unit being equal to the equivalent of one blur-more operation in PS (and that took some digging to discover). It uses the same data as DXO for sharpness and is processed in a manner which considers human perception of sharpness ( a meld of contrast and resolution in a correctly focused image).

LOWER is better (closer to the bright Magenta Colour indicates less Blur) in the 3D graph.
Happy viewing .... EDITtrying to replace with a better image of the screenprint I used. No Luck with larger , best to just use "CTRL +" to enlarge and peer through the haze.


Best
JA
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (180-135-100 Lens Comparison ed70.jpg)
207.9 KB23 views

Last edited by JA; 05-04-2018 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-04-2018, 07:25 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,287
Worth noting that these plots are for a D200, not a full-frame sensor.

s
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA View Post
Here is a comparison of the following 6 lenses at f/2.8 and f/4 for some communality and chosen as they were under discussion or closest to the discussion:

Nikon 180 f/2.8 ED -IF AF
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF - set at 135mm
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR - set at 135mm
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G AF-S ED VRII - set at 135mm
Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro_Planar
Nikon 105 f/1.4E ED AF-S

Unfortunately there is no data from the same source as above for the Zeiss 135 f2, but it performs very close to/on par with the Nikon 105 f1.4 in other direct resolution tests on the lens tip website and shown in the 6th column in this comparison. There is also no comparable data for the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS, although it is somewhat sharper in the corners than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR, but not the VRII.

Also note the test data is for all intents and purposes in comparative form "blur units". One Unit being equal to the equivalent of one blur-more operation in PS (and that took some digging to discover). It uses the same data as DXO for sharpness and is processed in a manner which considers human perception of sharpness ( a meld of contrast and resolution in a correctly focused image).

LOWER is better (closer to the bright Magenta Colour indicates less Blur) in the 3D graph.
Happy viewing .... EDITtrying to replace with a better image of the screenprint I used. No Luck with larger , best to just use "CTRL +" to enlarge and peer through the haze.


Best
JA
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-04-2018, 09:50 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky View Post
Worth noting that these plots are for a D200, not a full-frame sensor.

s
That's true. A full frame sensor plot was available for some of them, but in order to compare all of the disparate options the d200 was common. On full frame they will all be somewhat worse as we are using more of the glass, but as a guide, they are better as a sort of quantitative measure, than the typical Internet (qualitative) comment that "lens x is better than lens y". If anyone is interested in one or two of these lenses for full frame use they may be lucky and be the lenses that also have full frame data. It certainly wasn't available for all 6 lenses to allow me to make a balanced comparison all at full frame, hence the choice of APS-c to allow a balanced comparison across all 6 lenses.

Of course, if using these lenses with some of the popular micro4/3 or aps-c sized Astro cams, like the QHY163 mentioned as a possible application then the APS-c data provided would be highly relevant.

Best
JA

Last edited by JA; 05-04-2018 at 10:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23-05-2018, 07:56 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff
Starry Eyed

Jeff is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wonga Park
Posts: 688
Hey Colin.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread!

I'm considering buying a Samyang 135mm to attach to my ZWO astro camera.
Just wondering how are you looking to mount/hold the QHY163M with the lens attached?

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23-05-2018, 09:04 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,339
I have two 90mm (or close to) mounting rings which I have on a D Plate. So one right holds the QHY163M and the other attaches to the lens somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 23-05-2018, 10:20 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff
Starry Eyed

Jeff is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wonga Park
Posts: 688
I never thought of guide scope rings - makes perfect sense.
Thanks Colin!

Have also just found some lens mount rings/collars on eBay which might do the trick.
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Aluminum...19.m1438.l2649

Cheers,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement