# Review: Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 27, 2015)

```
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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2015)

No Mayo said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Mar 27, 2015)

tog13 said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 27, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> No Mayo said:
> 
> 
> > Andy_Hodapp said:
> ...



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


----------



## captainkanji (Mar 27, 2015)

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 (Mar 28, 2015)

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 (Mar 28, 2015)

KungFeuz said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > No Mayo said:
> ...



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 (Mar 28, 2015)

tog13 said:


> 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 (Mar 28, 2015)

tog13 said:


> 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 (Mar 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> tog13 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 28, 2015)

Perio said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > tog13 said:
> ...



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 (Mar 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Mar 28, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 28, 2015)

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. 



VirtualRain said:


> 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 (Mar 28, 2015)

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 (Mar 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



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 (Mar 28, 2015)

Kuja said:


> 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:
> ...



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 (Mar 28, 2015)

Snodge said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Kuja (Mar 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Mar 29, 2015)

luckydude said:


> 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 (Mar 29, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2015)

jdramirez said:


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



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


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



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


----------



## syder (Mar 30, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Mar 30, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


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


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2015)

jdramirez said:


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



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


----------



## bholliman (Mar 30, 2015)

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 (Mar 30, 2015)

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 (Mar 30, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> tog13 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2015)

Xyclopx said:


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



I'm thinking... 

....

...

...


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Jul 1, 2015)

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 (Jul 5, 2015)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

Perio said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



I haven't. I've never gotten to use the 200mm f/2L, although it is very high on my personal wish list.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> 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>


Amazing results from Samyang, I have been tempted to get the Canon 135L but the lack of IS has stopped me to do so. Now I own the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and I am very happy with my decision, even though if doesn't offer the same bokeh quality.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 6, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > 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>
> ...



I know. I have the Tamron 70-200 VC (which actually has significant nicer bokeh than the Canon). Despite the slightly better IQ from the 135L I rarely use it. The amazing stabilization on the zoom and almost as good image quality means that I get more consistent results from it along with the versatility of a zoom. I'm actually considering selling my 135L despite its optical excellence.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 22, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing results from Samyang, I have been tempted to get the Canon 135L but the lack of IS has stopped me to do so. Now I own the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and I am very happy with my decision, even though if doesn't offer the same bokeh quality.
> ...



I bought a Samyang/Rokinon a few weeks ago and yes, it's every bit as wonderful as Dustin says - better than the 135 L and, when attached to a mirrorless camera, more accurate focusing too (though I don't photograph fast-moving things where AF has an obvious advantage); the short mfd is appealing too. Add the image stabilization of Sony a7rII (and a7II too, presumably) and the results can be pretty stunning (I've not done any extreme tests, but I get perfectly sharp shots at the Sony default of 1/60, whereas I wanted at least 1/320 on the a7r). I would also note that my copy doesn't have the focus ring problem that Dustin's does/did.


----------

