# Samyang 135mm f/2.0 Announced?



## distant.star (Jan 12, 2015)

.
Fujirumors is saying today is announcement day for the Samyang 135mm f/2.0. Naturally, their interest is X-mount, but it appears it will be available for Canon & Nikon.

http://www.fujirumors.com/samyang-launches-a-new-135mm-f2-0-x-mount-lens-and-cine-t2-2-version/


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 12, 2015)

I'm curious to see how well it performs. I'd like a good 135 f/2 lens for portraits and this might tide me over until I can bring myself to buy the Zeiss model, but I suspect I'd get much better bang for my buck with the Canon 135 as that could do low light sports as well.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 12, 2015)

.
Looks like $550 USD at B&H...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110672-REG/rokinon_135m_c_135mm_f_2_0_lens_for.html


----------



## preppyak (Jan 12, 2015)

Hmm, that'll have to come down to more like $400 to succeed. The 135L is at a street price of $7-800 used, and the refurb is right around $800. Cant see many (non-video) people saving $2-300 and losing one of the best AF lenses Canon has.

Also means the cine version would be like $700ish on release. Which is pricy as well.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 12, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> Looks like $550 USD at B&H...
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110672-REG/rokinon_135m_c_135mm_f_2_0_lens_for.html





preppyak said:


> Hmm, that'll have to come down to more like $400 to succeed. The 135L is at a street price of $7-800 used, and the refurb is right around $800. Cant see many (non-video) people saving $2-300 and losing one of the best AF lenses Canon has.
> Also means the cine version would be like $700ish on release. Which is pricy as well.



I couldn't see paying $550 for an manual focus, non-Zeiss, lens - why not pay a few hundred more for a lens with excellent AF and L build quality - the Canon 135L?


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 12, 2015)

bholliman said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



The image quality looks excellent from this first review.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 12, 2015)

.
I'd be hard pressed to pay $350 for it.

I don't see it worth $550 for anything. Not in a Canon mount.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 12, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> The image quality looks excellent from this first review.



Does its IQ compare favorably to the Canon 135L? If not, there is no advantage other than price and some big disadvantages (no AF and build quality).


----------



## bereninga (Jan 13, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Image quality looks pretty good from that review! Aberrations look well-controlled, but sharpness and light falloff looks significantly lost at 2.0. 2.8 and on look pretty good though. Seems like a great lens, but focus peaking would need to be used. Forget about it w/ an OVF.


----------

