Review: Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC

[jdramirez]

My sentiments exactly. I bought the 135I as my indoor sports lens for the extra stop of light and it's auto focus performance. I use the 85 I look as my portrait lens of choice... And more often than not I manually focus.

Wow, kudos to Samyang on the optical performance... The 135L is one of the best lenses I own. However, what makes the 135L great is not just it's optics but it's AF reliability... one thing the Samyang will never match.

 

[Kuja]

Dustin's comparison between 135L and Samyang is very intersting.

I was very surprised when I saw his test shots, since MTF results from photozone.de
do not suggest that there is that much difference in resolution and sharpness between Canon L and Samyang:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/899-samyang135T22eosff?start=1

What I do like (very much!) about Samyang
is the negligible amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration (bokeh color fringing) compared to 135L,
which I sometimes had major problem with:

Canon:

Samyang:

 

[Snodge]

Normally, yes, but lenses without electronic connection produce a weird phenomena in Manual Mode and with Live View where the screen underexposes so much that focus is almost impossible. I didn't notice the exposure variation until reviewing the images later.

I have been noticing that and wondering... WTF? 5DIII, right?

I don't think that the 1DX has that issue.

I use a 6D for manual focus lens reviews because I have one with the EG-S focus screen installed to aid manual focusing. You can't change out screens in the 5DIII

I changed the focussing screen in my 5D3. I wish it was a Katzeye, but I options are limited. Oddly, I found it easier than changing the screen on my 60D...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin's comparison between 135L and Samyang is very intersting.

I was very surprised when I saw his test shots, since MTF results from photozone.de
do not suggest that there is that much difference in resolution and sharpness between Canon L and Samyang:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/899-samyang135T22eosff?start=1

What I do like (very much!) about Samyang
is the negligible amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration (bokeh color fringing) compared to 135L,
which I sometimes had major problem with:

Canon:

Samyang:

I don't know if it was intentional, but you shared the chart for the 2.2 cine version of the lens, which isn't the same as the one that I reviewed (although the optical formula should be pretty similar).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Normally, yes, but lenses without electronic connection produce a weird phenomena in Manual Mode and with Live View where the screen underexposes so much that focus is almost impossible. I didn't notice the exposure variation until reviewing the images later.

I have been noticing that and wondering... WTF? 5DIII, right?

I don't think that the 1DX has that issue.

I use a 6D for manual focus lens reviews because I have one with the EG-S focus screen installed to aid manual focusing. You can't change out screens in the 5DIII

I changed the focussing screen in my 5D3. I wish it was a Katzeye, but I options are limited. Oddly, I found it easier than changing the screen on my 60D...

Changing the screen on the 6D took me less than 2 minutes the first time I did it!

 

[Kuja]

I don't know if it was intentional, but you shared the chart for the 2.2 cine version of the lens, which isn't the same as the one that I reviewed (although the optical formula should be pretty similar).

It wasn't intentional , since there are no other reviews of the Samyang on the Photozone.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/899-samyang135T22eosff?start=1

In their review under the title "Samyang 135mm T2.2 ED UMC CINE DS ( 135mm f/2 ED UMC ) - Review"
they are saying this:

Their latest product (as of this review) is the Samyang 135mm T2.2 ED UMC CINE DS.
As the name implies, it is optimized for smooth (step-less) aperture and focus transitions which is important for movie makers (hence the "CINE").
...
However, the lens is also available in a conventional, photography-centric incarnation (Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC) featuring distinctive aperture clicks, a shorter focus path and differently designed control rings. However, the optical design remains the same so the our findings are applicable to both variants.

Of course that there could be some sample to sample variances between lenses, applicable both to the Samyang and to the Canon.

When I was buying my 135L 11 years ago,
I have returned the first copy because the sharpness was not uniform across the frame - the corners on the left side were significantly blurrier.
The second copy was much better.
I was very surprised to see that on a "premium" L lens.

 

[TeT]

The other lens that is mentioned a lot is the 85mm f1.8, I have that lens, don't like it. For some reason it is very hard to get focussed, it's got a crazy shallow depth of field, which is why I love the 200, but it doesn't grab focus. Don't know why but I don't like that lens.

Its older technology, it tends to be slow and cranky on auto focus when less than optimal conditions. Manual is fine if you can see ...

I have had 2 85 1.8's and they both produced dreamy output, nothing else I have ever had has that same look...

 

[jdramirez]

Canon should not have waited that long to bring an EF 135/2.0 L IS.

If I were a Canon manager I'd consider it an ultimate defeat if I had to read sentences like these in a review of a 500 bucks lens by a company like Samyang:

The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically.

I've long thought about getting the EF 135 L, but lack of IS and yesteryear optical design have kept me from doing so. Quite happy I got the 70-200/2.8 II instead. Zoom flexibility, better IQ and IS on top. f/2.0 vs. 2.8 does not make a worthwhile difference for me.

I can live with a little chromatic aberration... And from what I could perceive, the images were comparably sharp. The 135I is one of those magic bokeh lenses... So I want to know if it is creamy and delicious... If not... I really am not concerned with it as a rival. My wife may have a bigger bossom than kate Upton, but she loses on every other possible category....

 

[TeT]

Canon should not have waited that long to bring an EF 135/2.0 L IS.

If I were a Canon manager I'd consider it an ultimate defeat if I had to read sentences like these in a review of a 500 bucks lens by a company like Samyang:

The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically.

I've long thought about getting the EF 135 L, but lack of IS and yesteryear optical design have kept me from doing so. Quite happy I got the 70-200/2.8 II instead. Zoom flexibility, better IQ and IS on top. f/2.0 vs. 2.8 does not make a worthwhile difference for me.

I can live with a little chromatic aberration... And from what I could perceive, the images were comparably sharp. The 135I is one of those magic bokeh lenses... So I want to know if it is creamy and delicious... If not... I really am not concerned with it as a rival. My wife may have a bigger bossom than kate Upton, but she loses on every other possible category....

Did you just slam your wife in a public forum? I could be reading it wrong too...

 

[jdramirez]

Canon should not have waited that long to bring an EF 135/2.0 L IS.

If I were a Canon manager I'd consider it an ultimate defeat if I had to read sentences like these in a review of a 500 bucks lens by a company like Samyang:

The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically.

I've long thought about getting the EF 135 L, but lack of IS and yesteryear optical design have kept me from doing so. Quite happy I got the 70-200/2.8 II instead. Zoom flexibility, better IQ and IS on top. f/2.0 vs. 2.8 does not make a worthwhile difference for me.

I can live with a little chromatic aberration... And from what I could perceive, the images were comparably sharp. The 135I is one of those magic bokeh lenses... So I want to know if it is creamy and delicious... If not... I really am not concerned with it as a rival. My wife may have a bigger bossom than kate Upton, but she loses on every other possible category....

Did you just slam your wife in a public forum? I could be reading it wrong too...

I think would probably agree with my snyopsis. She is pretty realistic.

 

[syder]

I don't know if it was intentional, but you shared the chart for the 2.2 cine version of the lens, which isn't the same as the one that I reviewed (although the optical formula should be pretty similar).

If its the same as the other Samyang lenses which have cine versions (and I would be very surprised if it didn't) the optical formula will be identical to that which you reviewed.

The differences between the Samyand Cine/DSLR lenses are a focus ring designed to take a follow focus, and a declicked aperture. And transmission values are listed rather than aperture, but this doesn't make a difference in operation.

The question then becomes did Photozone have a weaker version of the Samyang lens or do you have a weaker version of the Canon. I guess lens variation is something that makes a pretty big difference when it's just a single copy being tests, which is why Roger Cicala at LensRentals tests are so useful.

 

[Xyclopx]

Canon should not have waited that long to bring an EF 135/2.0 L IS.

If I were a Canon manager I'd consider it an ultimate defeat if I had to read sentences like these in a review of a 500 bucks lens by a company like Samyang:

The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically.

I've long thought about getting the EF 135 L, but lack of IS and yesteryear optical design have kept me from doing so. Quite happy I got the 70-200/2.8 II instead. Zoom flexibility, better IQ and IS on top. f/2.0 vs. 2.8 does not make a worthwhile difference for me.

I can live with a little chromatic aberration... And from what I could perceive, the images were comparably sharp. The 135I is one of those magic bokeh lenses... So I want to know if it is creamy and delicious... If not... I really am not concerned with it as a rival. My wife may have a bigger bossom than kate Upton, but she loses on every other possible category....

Did you just slam your wife in a public forum? I could be reading it wrong too...

I think would probably agree with my snyopsis. She is pretty realistic.

Upton might be hotter but you can't find Anything else that your wife is/has superior???

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon should not have waited that long to bring an EF 135/2.0 L IS.

If I were a Canon manager I'd consider it an ultimate defeat if I had to read sentences like these in a review of a 500 bucks lens by a company like Samyang:

The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically.

I've long thought about getting the EF 135 L, but lack of IS and yesteryear optical design have kept me from doing so. Quite happy I got the 70-200/2.8 II instead. Zoom flexibility, better IQ and IS on top. f/2.0 vs. 2.8 does not make a worthwhile difference for me.

I can live with a little chromatic aberration... And from what I could perceive, the images were comparably sharp. The 135I is one of those magic bokeh lenses... So I want to know if it is creamy and delicious... If not... I really am not concerned with it as a rival. My wife may have a bigger bossom than kate Upton, but she loses on every other possible category....

No, your wife trumps Upton in another very important category, she said 'yes' to you.............

 

[bholliman]

As others have pointed out, sharpness is very important, but only one attribute of a lens. I often use my 135L for sports and kids playing in the yard. The fast, accurate AF of the Canon L lens is one of its best features. I would only consider a manual focus lens for landscape - probably either wide or ultra wide.

 

[Roy2001]

With out (proper) AF, good optical is still useless to me. 135L has best AF for sports. Sorry I will still keep my Canon lens.

 

[tog13]

I agree with @VirtualRain on the Canon 135 f/2: it's my best lens, edging out the 70-200 f/2.8 L (Mk I) and obliterating everything else. Hard to believe that any lens could be that much better optically.

Then you don't want to look at my review of the APO Sonnar 2/135mm. It embarasses the 135L optically in every way.

Zeiss ... yeah ... maybe someday, if I start making regular $$$ out of this (though it isn't as expensive as I expected it to be).

 

[jdramirez]

Upton might be hotter but you can't find Anything else that your wife is/has superior???

I'm thinking...

....

...

...

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

About the Zeiss 135mm. I heard the man who's the head of the Otus design team in Zeiss that the 135mm is the lens ''we could spray the text yellow and just call it the Otus 135mm". Makes it very intuiguing for me after knowing how the Otuses perform an look, absolute heaven.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

About the Zeiss 135mm. I heard the man who's the head of the Otus design team in Zeiss that the 135mm is the lens ''we could spray the text yellow and just call it the Otus 135mm". Makes it very intuiguing for me after knowing how the Otuses perform an look, absolute heaven.

That's pretty much true. It is the closest thing to the Otus optics that I've used.

 

[Perio]

About the Zeiss 135mm. I heard the man who's the head of the Otus design team in Zeiss that the 135mm is the lens ''we could spray the text yellow and just call it the Otus 135mm". Makes it very intuiguing for me after knowing how the Otuses perform an look, absolute heaven.

That's pretty much true. It is the closest thing to the Otus optics that I've used.

Dustin, have you ever compared IQ from Zeiss 135 Apo and Canon 200 2.0?