Review: Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC

[Canon Rumors]

Friend of the site Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the brand new Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC manual focus lens. Dustin came away thoroughly impressed with the optics of the $549 Samyang, and thinks it’s better than Canon’s 135mm f/2L in that regard.</p>
<p>As always, the review is a good one with lots of sample images, as well as a video version of the review. As always with Samyang lenses, it comes down to whether or not you’re willing to sacrifice focus aids such as autofocus and focus confirmation (for Canon) for great optics and a lower price.</p>
<blockquote><p>I would be happy to own this lens – no question.  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.  As an owner of the 135L, I can’t say that I am personally compelled to make that switch.  But if you are in the market for a 135mm f/2 lens and want both better optics and a cheaper price, this lens is worth a very long look.  It has the ability to produce images that are amongst the finest possible with this focal length.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/03/samyang-135mm-f2-ed-umc-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110689-REG/samyang_sy135m_c_135mm_f_2_lens_for.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Samyang 135mm f/2 at B&H Photo $549</a></p>

 

[VirtualRain]

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.

 

[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.

 

[lintoni]

Thank you for an excellent review of a very intriguing lens. If Samyang can do something about the lack of lens electronics, their optical performance means that they'd be serious contenders (assuming better QC!) Adding the Dandelion chip would be a must, then this lens would be worth experimenting with using Magic Lantern's trap focus...

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

Have to ask, in the comparison test between the Canon, the Canon has a shutter speed of 1/125th where the Samyang has a speed of 1/50th. Why would that be?

 

[AvTvM]

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.

 

[No Mayo]

Have to ask, in the comparison test between the Canon, the Canon has a shutter speed of 1/125th where the Samyang has a speed of 1/50th. Why would that be?

I second Andy's question and have to point out that the T-stop (light transmission value) for the canon is 2.2. If the lighting is the same and you needed to dip the sam Yang to 1/50 of a second for a similar exposure that would put the Sam Yang at T=3.5 (ouch!)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Have to ask, in the comparison test between the Canon, the Canon has a shutter speed of 1/125th where the Samyang has a speed of 1/50th. Why would that be?

I second Andy's question and have to point out that the T-stop (light transmission value) for the canon is 2.2. If the lighting is the same and you needed to dip the sam Yang to 1/50 of a second for a similar exposure that would put the Sam Yang at T=3.5 (ouch!)

I had the camera in AV mode because it meters most accurately in that mode for lenses without electronic coupling to the body. That is the result that the camera delivered, and I too noted the difference. As I looked at the image, however, I did feel that the Samyang was actually metered more accurately. The Samyang has a larger front element and a modern design, so I doubt that the t-stop performance is lower than the Canon's. The Canon image could have probably used at least a half and probably more like 3/4 of an additional stop to be exposed the same.

Good catch, though. I should amend the review with that information. I had thought about it at one point but neglected to do so. I'll make that change.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

 

[9VIII]

This lens is everything I hoped it would be, better shapness and excellent Magnification.
I used the Samyang 85mm a lot but the close focus limitations were constantly getting in the way.
This should be excellent for general indoors and good for product photography too.
Now the question is whether to get the Canon or Fuji mount?

 

[KungFeuz]

Have to ask, in the comparison test between the Canon, the Canon has a shutter speed of 1/125th where the Samyang has a speed of 1/50th. Why would that be?

I second Andy's question and have to point out that the T-stop (light transmission value) for the canon is 2.2. If the lighting is the same and you needed to dip the sam Yang to 1/50 of a second for a similar exposure that would put the Sam Yang at T=3.5 (ouch!)

I had the camera in AV mode because it meters most accurately in that mode for lenses without electronic coupling to the body. That is the result that the camera delivered, and I too noted the difference. As I looked at the image, however, I did feel that the Samyang was actually metered more accurately. The Samyang has a larger front element and a modern design, so I doubt that the t-stop performance is lower than the Canon's. The Canon image could have probably used at least a half and probably more like 3/4 of an additional stop to be exposed the same.

Good catch, though. I should amend the review with that information. I had thought about it at one point but neglected to do so. I'll make that change.

Why wouldn't you use manual exposure and check the histogram?

 

[captainkanji]

I love my 135L! Not my most used, but there is just something about it. Nice to see that there is another 3rd party option. It wouldn't work for me, as getting focus would be a bit difficult. I have to use live view to make sure the Samyang 14mm is focused. If I didn't already have the Canon, I'd consider it though, along with a manual focusing screen for the 6D. Great review Dustin!

 

[gsealy]

It's great to see another 135mm f2 on the market. I have the Canon 135mm and I like it a lot. But I have to think that once a lens gets beyond 85mm then AF becomes pretty important for most people. I have the Samyang 35mm and 85mm cinestyle version of the lens (T1.4) and I feel they are great. I use them at T3 and above to get rid of the color fringing. But they are very sharp.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Have to ask, in the comparison test between the Canon, the Canon has a shutter speed of 1/125th where the Samyang has a speed of 1/50th. Why would that be?

I second Andy's question and have to point out that the T-stop (light transmission value) for the canon is 2.2. If the lighting is the same and you needed to dip the sam Yang to 1/50 of a second for a similar exposure that would put the Sam Yang at T=3.5 (ouch!)

I had the camera in AV mode because it meters most accurately in that mode for lenses without electronic coupling to the body. That is the result that the camera delivered, and I too noted the difference. As I looked at the image, however, I did feel that the Samyang was actually metered more accurately. The Samyang has a larger front element and a modern design, so I doubt that the t-stop performance is lower than the Canon's. The Canon image could have probably used at least a half and probably more like 3/4 of an additional stop to be exposed the same.

Good catch, though. I should amend the review with that information. I had thought about it at one point but neglected to do so. I'll make that change.

Why wouldn't you use manual exposure and check the histogram?

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.

BTW, averaging out the exposures was roughly 1/2 stop. At 2/3rds stop the center of the image is brighter from the Canon but the edges are bit dimmer (the Canon vignettes more). It's hard to draw conclusions based on one test, particularly one where I wasn't specifically looking for that issue, but if I were to draw a conclusion it would be that the overall light transmission is better on the Canon but at the price of much heavier vignetting. I would be very surprised if DXO tests this lens and finds the light transmission much worse than the nearly 20 year old Canon, though.

 

[sdsr]

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.

I've seen several other reviews of this lens that reach the same conclusion as Dustin - except, of course, that their photos aren't anywhere near as appealing to look at as his.

It's amusing, though, reading comments of lenses like this based on using them on dslrs - it's so much easier to use them on mirrorless cameras, with significant in-EVF magnification etc. And while this lens seems to be quite a bargain for those who don't need AF, it's also that case that, for whatever reason, vintage 135mm are the cheapest you can buy after 50mm, at least if you're willing to take f2.8 instead of f2; and unlike the various Samyangs I've tried, their focusing rings are a breeze to use. I wouldn't mind finding out first hand how they compare, though!

 

[luckydude]

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.

I've got the Canon 135 and the 200mm f2. The 135 is good, the 200 is better. I get that it is expensive and I don't want to make people who can't afford it feel bad, but if there is any way you can get that lens, do it. I've got at around $30K in Canon glass and that's my favorite lens.

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.

 

[Perio]

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.

Please don't tempt me to get Zeiss 135... I still need money for my school

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

Please don't tempt me to get Zeiss 135... I still need money for my school

Gulp. The APO Sonnar is cheap...compared to the Otuses ;D Think of it as a bargain Otus...because that's really what it is.

 

[danski0224]

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.

 

[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