/a.)
UPDATE: It’s now on preorder at BHphoto (Click here). And Cine version also (Click here).
Small surprise, Samyang just launched not one but two 135mm lenses. They both come for Micro Four Thirds mount camera too! One is a non-Cine 135mm f/2.0 and one is a Cine 135mm t/2.2 lens. The press text and images can be seen here:
135mm f/2.0: syopt.com/en/camera/photo-lenses-135mm-F2.0-ED-UMC.php
135mm t/2.2: syopt.com/en/camera/cine-lenses-135mm-T2.2-VDSLR-ED-UMC.php
UPDATE: First test of the lens at Lcap.tistory.com
via Dicahub.
83 Responses
If only it was designed for micro 4/3 cameras.
Why? What do you think would be different? (If you mean AF and eletronicalliy controlled diaphgragm, I’m with you.)
Hardly anyone will buy it for micro 4/3 in this incarnation. It weighs the same as the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro…
at least the prices are much lower i saw for the canon or nikon mount. i think that also counts.(the EF version was listed yesterday for 480 euros on Ebay Taiwan)
The same price 480-500 euros, for second hand Canon EF 135/2:) Which to choose???
Good question. I’d wait until someone does a comparison of both lenses, if you ask me. If the Samyang was “designed for digital”, i.e. if it was designed with the filter-stack glass block in mind, it might even be better when used on a M43 camera.
Already done: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Samyang-135mm-f2-vs-Canon-EF-135mm-2-L Impressive low CA for the Samyang lens.
Wow. Impressive sharpness, too. Looks like a winner!
lol why yuo ask..i used the canon L for while but some i did not like its rendition or i just had a bad month
Problem is, that’s not because its image circle is designed for full-frame or because it’s no mirrorless design, it’s because it’s a 135mm f/2 lens. Lenses with a focal length which is significantly larger than a DSLR’s typical flange back distance, like 135mm, cannot be made significantly smaller by either a smaller image circle or a specifically mirrorless design. If people won’t buy such a lens because of size or weight, they won’t ever buy any 135mm f/2 lens at all.
I think the people complain about the extra weight
They complain about everything.
And rightfully so.
Seriously! Just don’t buy it and wait for the Leica 135 f/0.95 for $50 that weighs 10g and is roughly the size of the 14mm pancake. It’s certain to arrive any day now. Any day.
What extra weight? A natively designed m43 version would be almost exactly the same size and weight.
i think larger image circle lenses requiring bit more glass, thats the regular thinking, at least here. sometimes true. How you know a specific native mft version would be exact the same?
Not for this type of telephoto lens where the size of the lens is controlled almost completely by the size of the inlet pupil. For other examples look at the 4/3 150 f/2 or the 300 f/2.8 and compare them to the FF equivalents. Heck, you can look at a FF 600 F/4 and compare it a medium format version; they’ll be almost exactly the same size. For ‘normal’ focal lengths and anything wider, m43 will certainly show a size advantage though.
yes thats true, but the ZD SHG series were designed with bit different philosophy, maybe the Pro series too, anyway the cheaper series show the differences in size, ofcourse te are cheaper also because of the slower speed. but the HG series like the 50-200 is a good example of the benefit goin for a smaller sensor esp in telezoom. I think Dpreview mentioned this too in the past.
Exactly .
No point to mount such lens which not design for m4/3 .
sigma said they dont do specific designs for MFT I think. Yun you are ignoring the many people who use legacy lenses, even the long fl ones on MFT mount.
That is not Sigma but Samyang .
Eventhough is Sigma , only Art lenses are reliable .
For m4/3 , I only use LEICA DG lens & Oly have to be ED .
Got exception here , the 45mm lens make me break my rule .
Free and friendly hint: being “narrow mind” does not help creativity 😉
Trust me , such lens can’t be exceptional .
The most is a fair lens or maybe even below fine standard .
Trust me, you can achieve exceptional results and images even with a crappy gear.
I have friends obsessed in having “the perfect lens and perfect camera” that are never happy of their pictures.
I usually tell them to take a workshop, buy books, visit galeries, go and take a trip somewhere, but as I said, it’s quite an obsession.
True. Even m43 can get you some nice pics. Of course, there are better deals for the money.
Pentax Q rules!
so the lesson is there are no rules which cant be broken
I don’t mind to break it again provided there is another similar new lens come out as the M.ZuikoDigital 45mm F1.8 .
There are plenty of lenses we’ll never see as native M4/3 lenses, so adapting is the only solution. Meaning, learn to work with existing native M4/3 or adapt existing lenses from other systems.
There’s no shame or defeat in that.
I’m thinking that this describes perfectly the current Sony A7 situation…
Except for the two slow, expensive Zeiss primes, adapting is the only way to make the A7 system useable.
But I would rather adapt that lens instead of buying it with an MFT mount.
Agreed. If I wanted one, I’d get a Nikon F mount, because it’s much more flexible than M4/3 going forward. Think Sony A7S II with the kinks worked out.
For now. I have my grandfather’s Olympus OM 135mm f2.8. It’s quite a good lens, small and light, with a retractable lens hood too.
Except maybe price? Yeah, definitely price is a factor. If this lens has the specs you need, and budget is a concern, then I think it’s actually a winner. If you’re not going to mount it to a GM1, then the weight and size have a lower priority than the results.
Different people different need .
For me , I will not buy in such lens simply because it’s not designed for m4/3 .
I doubt such lens can deliver to my standard .
I really wish you could post some of your pics, they must be amazing.
The old mf 135mm lenses are a lot smaller and cheaper than this, a better fit for mft!
My Sigma 30mm 2.8 is designed for APS-C, but my MFT version delivers better corner performance wide open than the APS-C version on the NEX.
I don’t care if the lens is not specifically designed for my camera, as long as it delivers consistent results.
T/2.2? Hahahaha! LOL!!! Hahahahahahahahaha!!! So much for F/2.0, I guess. Any company incapable of making the T-stop virtually the same as the F-stop shouldn’t be in the optical business, if you ask me. At least 95% of the light entering a lens should reach the sensor.
Back to the drawing board, Samyang! Next!
the way your laugh sounds doesnt really sound like a Doctor’s one
He’s almost funny. 🙂
Well correct me if I’m wrong (I might very well be since I’m not an optics engineer) isn’t F-stop the aperture diameter, while T-stop is amount of light actually reaching the sensor? Expecting the two values to be the identical seems a bit demanding, if you ask me. It’s only a .2 difference, and at least they’re being honest about the amount of falloff caused by the glass. If I’m correct, with an F-stop rated lens you have to guess/hope the aperture is true to the amount of light reaching the sensor, but with a T-stop it’s measured and calibrated right?
That’s why he’s almost funny. 🙂
The fact that he felt the need to spell out his laughter pretty much sums it up, eh?
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. But if an F/2.0 lens only get T/2.2, that means that the light transmittance is about 80%. That’s not good enough for me.
Good enough if you want T/2.2 though. Doesn’t matter what you lose if you get what you want. It’s rated 2.2, you get 2.2 … see what I mean?
Looks like all lenses are not good enough for you. Look at DXO data on all lenses, they are at least 0.2-0.5 difference between f-stop and t-stop.
We Germans have a love for perfection and purity, something that’s lacking in most other peoples.
You should take a look at a book called “Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin” by Mel Gordon. There’s perfection and purity for you!
Any regular visitor recognizes you. You are NOT a German, (you are too stupid). You are NOT a Doctor (real Doctors do not troll on camera forums 20+ hours per day). You are NOT an “Optics Engineer” though you have pretended to be every type of expert on Earth all rolled into one silly fool typing like a mad-dog from your grandmothers basement.
In fact, you are NOT even a picture taker though you mercilessly criticize others who have more talent than you could ever understand. You have been challenged many times to show your photos and you have been too cowardly to show them.
You are a know-nothing with a big mouth and endless hours to demonstrate that fact.
You’re confusing me with the other name-changing troll, HarryDickTom, who is spending much more time trolling here than I do. I have never been challenged to show my photos.
No confusion involved. You are the Troll. You HAVE indeed been challenged to put up or shut up.
You always just change your name and attack someone different.
But AT LEAST you admitted here that you are nothing but a troll, (which is quite apart from being a Doctor, or an Engineer or even a German).
Relax kid, nobody is going to take away your toy. Still taking pics of your keyboard with your replaceable lens phone?
And you poor little angry boy? When are you going to give us a good laugh and show your “work”?
I think he was funny. Especially his nick, if you speak german 🙂
Because you fool have showed us your stuff? All I saw were lame comments full of anger…
You must be a great genius then, very demanding. Are you a m43 user?
Could you share which company makes F2.0 and T2.0 stop the same, please?
Curious to see on DXO that only some Samyang and Sigma lenses have the same f and t value. 🙂
Not even Zeiss deserves to be in the optical business, it seems.. 😉
How much bigger/heavier than 4/3’s 150/2?
Found it:
Zuiko 150/2 for 4/3 1610 gram 100 x 150 mm
Samyang 135/2 for m4/3 835 gram 82 x 146,9 mm
Samyang seems to costs about 1/5 of the Zuiko in my country..
A comparision in IQ delivered would be interesting.
Problem is…. 4/3 bajonet lenses are over twice heavier and larger tähän m4/3 variants, with weather sealment and others like dual-autofocus etc.
Like example, 40-150mm is lighter, while only stop slower. Make it prime 150mm and f/2 and it would be lighter and smaller.
In telephoto lenses, the most relevant criteria for size and weight are focal length and aperture. Focal length roughly determines the overall lens length, and focal length divided by aperture determines the minimum front lens diameter, and thereby the minimum barrel diameter, too. What system the lens is made for, whether it’s mirrorless or DSLR and whether it’s Four Thirds or Full Frame is rather irrelevant. Of course, the build of the lens and whether it includes autofocus or not will make some difference, too, but in the end it’s focal length and aperture which count.
If you get the canikon mount for this lens and put on the metabone speedbooster you will get a FOV of 190mm F1.4.
I thought that a speedbooster reduced the focal length.
New FL with Speedbooster = 0.71*Lens FL
MFT FoV equivalent = 2*New FL = 1.42* Lens FL
So, it still has >1 multiplicative factor, but not by 2.
135*2*0.71=190mm
191.7mm
You will get a real 95mm f/1.4 lens. Which gives the field of view and depth of field and total light gathering of a 190mm f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera.
Hulk have Carple tunnel syndrome from making too many homophobic racist remarks with keyboard. Hulk wrist go limp. Hulk not able to carry large lenses and Nikon any more. Hulk have to switch to iPhone because of wrist problem from playing with self and playing with Spiderman. Hulk not like this big lens.
Of cause you don’t like this lens because you keep sticking it up to your a$$.
He could ram 9 of these lenses in and never feel a thing.
Sorry you misinterpreted this message. It was meant for the dude that keeps posting as Hulk.
Thanks for keeping the discourse at such a high level!
I apologize. Poor taste. The latest posts about nazis got under my skin. Have to get thicker skin I suppose.
What I would like to see in 4/3 mount would be a 100mm/f2 which would be considerably smaller and lighter. Just take a look at the FF 100mm/f2 lenses and you willl see what I mean. Go any longer and the size increases substantially. Yes one can adapt old FF manual lenses but having AF would be nice for wildlife. Add a 1.4x converter and you have effective 300mm/f4.
Wildlife with a 300 mm F5.6 and lame autofocus? I suggest you try a dslr, even a cheap one, if you are into wildlife.
what about a mint minolta 135mm F2.8 that is half the weight and 1/10 the price of the Samyang (and smaller at 100x60mm with the converter)? I have one and is great quality …
I do not find this lens to be relevant in any way to an experience that I would like to have with my MFT system. MFT is just an afterthought for this beast.
I have the samyang 10mm/2.8, which they designed for APS-C and then mounted for m4/3. as a non-expensive SWA it’s ok. However a 135mm is not ok because manual focus with the current digital cameras is not yet as immediate as it was with the reflex film cameras of the past. I have an old manual focus 4/3 OM 200mm/4 and the ratio of focus vs out-of-focus shots is 50% at the best. I can’t imagine using a manual focus f2 tele on my E M-5. Besides, it is also big …. if you want a manual focus 135mm, there are many OM 135/2.8 available…. at least they were designed for 4/3….
“there are many OM 135/2.8 available…. at least they were designed for 4/3….”
No they were designed for 35mm.
The comparison looks quite convincing. The Samyang is not as yellowish as the Canon beast, and shows low CA. Sharpness appears to be on par.All in all seems worth the price.