Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2.0 ED Aspherical full frame lens leaked

Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens-2
Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens-4
Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens-3
Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens-5
The new Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2.0 ED Aspherical full frame lens leaked on this eBay listing which contains several pictures and some basic specifications:

Specifications:

LENS: 1:2.0 135mm ED UMC
APERTURE RANGE(T-STOP): F2.0 ~ 22
OPTICAL CONSTRUCTION:  11 ELEMENT IN  7 GROUPS
MINIMUM FOCUSING DISTANCE: 0.8mm (2.62ft)
FILTER SIZE: 77mm
MAXIMUM DIAMETER: 82mm
MOUNT: CANON EOS
IMAGE SENSOR SIZE: FULL FRAME / APS-C
ANGLE OF VIEW APSC: 18.8° / 11.7°
LENGTH: 122.1mm
WEIGHT: 830g

Key Features

  • Extra low dispersion (ED)
  • Glass aspherical lenses (AS)
  • Ultra multi coating (UMC)
  • Internal focusing (IF)

Package Include

  • Samyang 135mm F2.0 Full Frame Lens for Canon EF
  • Front and Rear Lens Cap
  • Lens Hood and Lens Pouch
  • Manufacture Box and Menu
  • Manufacture Warranty card

Additional images:

Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens-6Samyang-Rokinon-135mm-f2.0-ED-Aspherical-full-frame-lens

eBay via Personal-view

This entry was posted in Rokinon, Samyang. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • x4rd

    No AF? It could be difficult to focus wide open. Too bad for Samyang

    • Jed

      Samyang lenses do not have AF.

      • Global

        Does anyone know why they don’t offer a mechanical SCREW based AF focus option (even if shunning electronic AF)? Since the screw only turns left or right, is it really that hard to implement? Maybe focus confirmation would still have to be using the dot system or whatever in the viewfinder. But I’m just wondering.

        • Spy Black

          That would be nice, for us Nikon users anyway. 🙂 I think however if Samyang ever makes the leap to AF, it’ll be internal motor. I’m digging their dedication to keeping it simple however. My only real criticism of their lenses is that they are not calibrated to infinity focus stop. Considering they’re fully manual optics, I’m at a loss as to why this is, as it’s simple enough to do.

          • Zos Xavius

            It might possibly keep their costs down if they in fact make the same lens for different mounts and have the only real variation be the mounting base at the rear of the lens to account for differences in flange distance between the manufacturers. Just a theory really. In that case they might leave the infinity stop loose to account for differences in tolerance.

          • D800GUY

            I think that’s precisely what happened, just use expanded focus to check focus accuracy, MF is not that hard, but its not suitable for quick shots though, that will have to use AF for rapid response.

          • Spy Black

            Yeah, that’s not really a sufficient reason. Once the mount is on, calibrating infinity stop is not going to be a deal-breaker in light of all the other QC checks a lens goes through during production.

          • Zos Xavius

            Given n the amount of sample variation in various manufacturers’ lenses I would say that very few really test their lenses all that thoroughly after they are assembled.

          • Spy Black

            There’s plenty of sample variation in OEMs as well. It’s not that it can’t be done, it’s just of matter of not being concerned. Unless enough people complain of course. 😉

        • hussey

          See the comments about such a thing above.

    • Corbin Dallas

      None of their lenses have AF… too bad for you, I guess. I love their 85/1.4, sold my EF 85/1.8 once I got it. I’m bound to love this one as well. I guess MF isn’t for everyone, too bad for you guys though, once you learn it it’s very rewarding and saves you a ton of cash.

      • Paco Ignacio

        I sold my Nikon 24-70 2.8 when i got my Distagon 28 2.0. Don’t miss AF and i use it for almost everything.

        I will get this Samyang for sure. Some people thinks that using a MF Lens these days it’s heresy.

      • x4rd

        True, but the company stated that they are going to develop AF lenses, so I thought that this will be their first step 🙂

        • Zos Xavius

          They did? They have teased at new things coming, but never have directly alluded to AF I don’t think. I think that is more speculation than anything. Consider that they don’t even have the canon mount reverse engineered yet that I am aware of. I didn’t realize until now that canon users have no real communication with these lenses.

          • Corbin Dallas

            They’ve recently come out with an AE version of their 35mm in EF mount, but that’s the only one I’m aware of. I think all the rumors of them making AF lenses was a bunch of here-say BS, in my mind it doesn’t make sense for them to do that. Their clients love their lenses because they keep the cost down on amazing optics by giving you very well dampened MF lenses, once you start using their lenses you really don’t care that they don’t have AF, it’s not needed for the types of lenses they make imo.

    • SH*T666

      Not AF in a Zeiss lens is inexcusable, but such an inexpensive lens like this can be used in portraiture with no problem. Focus peaking can help you to get the correct focus. Just be aware this is not a professional lens.

      • Spy Black

        It’s not a professional lens when it’s not in the hands of a professional. 😉

        • SH*T666

          I don´t mean image quality is not any good. Probably good enough for pros, but in my opinion only manual focus lenses are not good for business, where you frequently need a quick response. For amateurs this could be a fantastic lens at the right price.

          • Zos Xavius

            This is a portrait lens. There are millions of happy *professional* photographers shooting portraits with purely manual lenses. Your opinion is rather uninformed at best.

          • D800GUY

            I think the professional he’s referring to must be sports photographers, where they needed AF to capture those moving shots…for all other settings, MF works just as well if not better, the margin of error is from the user, not the camera.

          • Corbin Dallas

            I shoot portraits and events with my Rokinon 85mm all the time… also shoot a lot with my Yashica ML 50/1.4. So I really don’t know where you’ve formed this opinion, but it’s false.

          • SH*T666

            Do you shoot modeling, wedding, sports with MF lenses? Ok, it´s up to you.

          • Corbin Dallas

            I have shot all of the above with MF lenses, yes. I’m mostly a portrait photographer for which MF lenses are perfect and actually preferred since I’m not restricted by AF points for composition.

            I’ve only shot one wedding, but had no problems and the couple was very happy with he results, it’s just not my cup of tea so I haven’t done any since. I shoot my friend’s sports with my MF lenses all the time though, and again, no issues there either aside from a few misses now and then if they’re moving toward or away from me.

            My point is, many things fall under “professional” photography and many professionals use MF lenses.

          • Spy Black

            I’ll have to assume you’re referring to sports photography. It’s understandable in its modern incarnation, but you should know that there was a time when all sports photography was done with MF lenses. You may not take home thousands of frames, but chances are good the composition of keepers will be of much higher quality than the happenstance of “spray and pray” photography, because the shutter was fired with a full consciousness of the moment.
            😉

      • DStudio

        I believe Zeiss’ problem is that they have some kind of agreement with Sony not to make AF lenses under their own label or for other mounts – therefore only Sony can have AF Zeiss lenses.

      • hussey

        99% of zeiss lenses are MF, including my favorite, the 135mm!

  • My soul burns for an AF version. I’ve never found a Nikon 135 copy I truly loved, and the Canon version is great. My only true piece of gear envy.

    • My thoughts exactly. On a mirrorless body with an EVF and good focus peaking, it would work, but MF on a DSLR is not something my eyes are up to!

      • MF on a 24 is one thing. Doing documentary work with a 135mm f/2 on MF is quite another.

        • Antonio

          You’ve to adapt your tools to your needs therefore if your work demands a fast focusing speed and you can’t manage to get it with MF you should stay with AF and choose a camera or a system that you feel will maximize your results.

          • Global

            He’s obviously well aware of that, which is why he started out by saying that its his “one” lens envy. That indicates he’s very satisfied with the rest of his system (and the Nikon 135 isn’t terrible, its quite good, but will be updated eventually, and probably sooner than later, anyway).

          • Antonio

            After reading the other post I don’t doubt as I didn’t when I wrote my answer, When You make a general remark it isn’t necessary that the person you’re responding to doesn’t know is gear or his job. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough about the nature of my words.

        • vriesk

          Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2.8 be better suited for documentary anyway? I might be mistaken on what “documentary” means, but I imagine an environment when zooming with your feet is not always an option and scenes could be changing fast.

      • Antonio

        Are you referring to an APS-C camera with a pentamirror or to a FF camera with a real prism?
        If your problems continue, did you consider to use an ocular magnifier or a third party MF optimized focusing screen?
        Manual focusing facility was one of the main reasons for me to move from DX to FX and it pays.

    • Brent

      Buy a camera with a built in AF?

      • I would love to, except that in this context such a thing does not exist. You may be thinking of AF-S vs. screw-driven AF?

        • Brent

          That would be the case then. Didn’t know there was a difference. Thanks.

          • Global

            This does beg the question — why can’t the Rokinon take advantage of a screw-driven AF in Nikon high-end cameras like the D7100 or the D810..?? If Samyang’s problem is that they can’t get the electronics right — couldn’t they at least get basic “left / right” mechanical screwing, right….??

          • EnPassant

            Manual lenses and AF-lenses have different build. One cannot just add a screw to a manual lens.
            Besides screw-driven AF is a thing of the past that has been replaced by AF-motors inside modern lenses.
            Samyang does get the (manual) mechanical screwing more right than Sigma. On the Samyang 35/1.4 both the focus and aperature ring turn the same way as on Nikon’s lenses. On Sigma’s ART 35/1.4, just like on every Sigma lens the focus ring turns in the opposite direction.
            The above lens is for Canon and what I can see focus in the same way as Canon lenses. Expect the focus ring on the Nikon version turning in the correct opposite direction. As for the aperature ring Canon lenses have non, so there is no right or wrong direction turnng it.

          • Global

            What do you mean you cannot just add a screw to a manual lens (sincere question)? But I am not talking about adding anything — I am talking about designing it with it in mind, to begin with (from the beginning). I question why didn’t they design it to have a mechanical AF. This is not a thing of the past — all of Nikon’s advanced cameras have a Mechanical AF motor + can use modern electrical motors in addition. So its very much alive. Also, I find my AF-D (mechanical motor) lenses often autofocus faster and many times more precisely than my electrical AF lenses (including Sigma, Nikon and others). I don’t know why this is. But I can say that mechanical AF is very good! So if Samyang has a problem with the software & electronics of modern electronic AF — then they should consider mechanical AF, at least for Nikon. I’m pretty sure you’d get a boost in sales making it worth while to incorporate in the design.

          • Zos Xavius

            Since Canon makes up the majority interchangeable lens system sales it probably would not make much sense to add features that increase the construction complexity of their lens. It would be cheaper and easier to just add a small motor and some contacts to drive it and all the systems they could reverse engineer or license into would be supported. Considering that many nikon bodies lack screw drive as well, that limits their potential usefulness even further.

          • Dmitry Anisimov

            Lenses like 135/2 are not like those which folks with entry level bodies use, anyway.
            And Sony A-mount bodies all have screw motor in them, as do LA-EA2 and 4 adaptors

          • Global

            I’m not sure that’s correct. The ability to sell AF would at least double the sales of those looking for pure MF — so that would put Nikon sales in 1st place, were they really to release it as such, ESPECIALLY since, as other commentors mentioned, Canon has a suitable 135 already in their line-up. By contrast, Nikon has an aging (if still lovely) version, which is the weak link.. meaning, it could be easier to pick up customers.

            Its sorta like the “iPhone” vs. “Android” issue — a lot of companies just come out with “iPhone” crap by default, not realizing just how oversaturated the iPhone accessories market is. By contrast, even if Android sales were less overall, there were huge gaps and needs in the market, which could have created some major players, had those companies focused on Android, instead of releasing iPhone first by default. But you are right — this is how companies think. And if Canon has bigger sales in their 135 lenses and is slightly bigger than Nikon in sales overall, then some middle-manager somewhere will most likely make the wrong decision by conservatively thinking Canon is less risky, when its really the riskier choice, under those conditions.

          • hussey

            I don’t think the current 135mm owners are their target market. They’ll be selling a MF version at a third of the price as the Canon and Nikon versions, just like they did with the 85mm (only there it’s $235 compared to $1600?)

          • fjfjjj

            The AF screw motor doesn’t provide enough torque to focus a regular MF lens with a heavily-damped long-throw helicoid which racks the entire optical package forward and back. This is why most (all?) AF-D (screw focusing) Nikkors are IF (internal focus) and have short-throw focus rings.

          • Global

            Interesting. Thanks for the education!

          • hussey

            It would change the gearing too much for the core customers. Manual focus lenses have a long smooth focus throw that allows for very precise adjustments. Gearing it for a screw drive would essentially mean you’d have the worst of both worlds. Bad AF and bad MF.

          • tophtml

            The Samyang/Rokinon formula for success has been and still is to build a lens with first class optics which can compete favorably in image quality with any lens on the market and do it for less. This has worked, and with Samyang/Rokinon the customer gets 90% of the optics and image quality for around 30% of the price. S/R has chosen to dispense with the AF and motorized aperture and go strictly manual to achieve this and it has worked. Their lenses fill a nich that has them flying off of the shelf and it’s always hard to argue with success. I own two S/R Cine lenses that work well with my EA50 and a S/R tilt-shift which works well with my D800E and I have never had a bad experience with any of them.

            BTW, I also own the Nikon 85mm AF-D and I agree with you that its focus is very fast and accurate.

    • Michal Rosa

      Get a better focusing screen and learn how to MF. You will thank me later.

      • Not all cameras can easily take alternate focusing screens.

        Newer Nikon bodies, for example.

        • RMJ

          Which model doesn’t take ?

          At least D4s, D800, D610 and D7100 takes happily alternative focus screen. I don’t know about D810 and D750, haven’t had chance to fully explore them.

        • Yes, Another Tweet

          The only new Nikon bodies that don’t have screens right now are the D810 and D750 and the place that sells them (I didn’t want to name them without asking if it was OK) told me in an email that they are working on it and it should be 3-6 months before they get the first mold ready.

        • hussey

          With focus confirmation dots you don’t need alternate focusing screens as much as you’d think. Especially now that you can live-view focus check in a lot of the needed scenarios.

      • I know how to MF, thanks. If you don’t see the advantage of good AF on a 135mm f/2 then I can’t help you.

        • hussey

          hehe, kinda funny. I agree wholeheartedly, of course. I have the zeiss 135 and it is my favorite, but there are some things that having AF is just a huge advantage. Shooting an 8 yo running around for instance!

        • ngiardina

          Do you ever want to be like “Don’t you know who you’re talking to? I have a Method named after me!”

        • Michal Rosa

          I can’t help you if you are being unreasonable. The lens is cheap for a reason – something must go.

      • DStudio

        Ha Ha maybe you need to develop some skills outside of your very narrow view of photography where MF always suffices.

      • HF

        A little arrogant. Try it on moving subjects wide open and try to get the eye critically sharp on a D810. Easy on stationary subjects or people being able to hold still.
        If you position your subject to the right and use the right AF points, it’s hard to keep track of the focus confirmation dot if you see it at all. A little move of the subject and your composition changes slightly. Magnification in EVF is more helpful in my opinion.

    • Global

      Whats wrong with the Nikon 135 version? I find mine fantastic (other than outdoors in bright contrast, at wide apertures, where the inevitable CA floods in). Just curious about the specific technical reasons, not questioning your artistic preferences.

      • I’ve used three different copies — sharpness has been good but not fantastic, AF tracking also good but not great. Its cousin the 105 DC is a better performer in both. It’s a lens designed in 1995 and overall it’s showing its age. After using the fast, sharp, and cheap Canon 135, I just wish I could cram it on an F mount.

        • Global

          Thanks. Didn’t realize AF tracking was an issue, but I’ve never used it for people moving very quickly. Its definitely a 90’s lens & all that entails (ideal for 12-16mp cameras), but there is something extremely beautiful about the way it renders (whereas many of the newer lenses look very similar to each other, some of the older glass, like the 135 have very unique and attractive rendering differences). I’ll keep mine, even if they update it, but would need a sharper lens if 50MP sensors really do come out in the next 2 years.

          I’ve never used the 105 version, because I find it less appealing than the 135mm focal lenses, but I keep hearing that its slightly better, as well (in exchange for a less appealing focal length). Personally, the 105/2.8 VR Macro lens ensured it was never an option. But even that 105 VR could be sharper on a 36MP sensor.

          I’m curious if Nikon is going to make a 200/4 VR Macro — now that its come out with the 300/V VR. We’re still missing an update to the infamous 200mm macro. I think that 200 is another lens that could significantly benefit from the new lensing technology in the 300, given that many complained it was too heavy to handhold.

    • SH*T666

      Anyway, probably very good, with a fantastic aperture and not expensive. I´d also prefer a AF version, but for portraiture this can do the job.

    • Azire

      My 135mm F/2L is what firmly keeps me in the Canon system. Manually obtaining critical focus on lenses like is unwieldy through a dSLR viewfinder if you’re more than a few feet away.

      Maybe Sigma will pull through. Actually, kind of hope they do seeing how they continue to best Canon L optics on their Art lenses.

      • Global

        Sigma is doing a good job — but they need to find a way to make their lenses lighter. I now see the wisdom of the “300/4 VR” that Nikon is making, which is half as heavy as the previous version. HALF. Meanwhile, Sigma lenses are incredibly heavy (even compared to f/1.4 counterparts in other brands), they are twice as heavy. And their bokeh isn’t the best, even if they are the sharpest. If Sigma makes a 135/2 ART, I’m guessing that it is going to be one fat, heavy piece of glass. That means that Canon and Nikon still have room to move — I hope they take up the challenge to make light weight, sharp, excellent bokeh lens (even with VR, if possible).

        • hussey

          Lightweight isn’t where it’s at. The market for that is with mirrorless. The modern sharp versions (art, otus) require a lot of fancy elements. And I don’t think you want those fancy elements in a super light housing.

      • Michael Zussman

        Sony has a Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8. I want it so bad but its just too much. If this had AF and was affordable they would sell so much. Although the focus peaking makes it real easy to manual focus on my a7.

      • DStudio

        Sigma is making great strides, but let’s not overstate it. They still don’t match the overall appearance of the images all four DSLR manufacturers produce from their better lenses.

        • Louis-Félix Grondin

          « They still don’t match the overall appearance of the images the other four DSLR manufacturers produce from their better lenses. »

          I really don’t understand that statement about sigma, could you explain it further. Are you talking about the mix of bokeh-colors and so on?

          • DStudio

            Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.

            To over-simplify it, Sigma has a tendency to look better on (statistical) paper than photographic paper. In the digital age we’re getting more and more photographers who’ll buy gear that’s made and (more or less) marketed this way.

            I’m not saying Sigma’s awful – in fact I’m very impressed with what they’ve done recently, and I hope they keep going in their new-found direction of improved quality. But for all that I still don’t like the images they produce as much images from the better OEM lenses.

          • Louis-Félix Grondin

            I must say my findings are different, I tried both the 35G 1.4 and the sigma Art wich I own, I also have the 85G and 28G 1.8 and I find the overall results of the sigma to be better (there’s a small green tint I have to correct but that’s all). For the bokeh, the only problem I had is whit bokeh highlights in extreme conditions… I personnaly found it to be better in the field and on paper (espacially at wide apertures). But I get that it comes down to taste at that point.

    • fjfjjj

      How could anyone not love the 135/2 DC Nikkor?

  • JoeJohnBear

    Now what we really need to know is price.

    • Kynikos

      Claim is four available at GBP 375… US $550-$600.
      I think it’ll come in 10-20% lower… guessing obviously…

      • JoeJohnBear

        Lol, literally anyone’s guess.

  • n11

    Looks like a between a sigma Zeiss, not bad.
    Curious on the price!

    • That is one good looking lens.

  • nwcs

    That’ll be a monster to focus at f2. I have a hard enough time with their 85 f1.4. I need a lot more practice to get that right…

  • Patrick McKay

    I’ve never paid much attention to Samyang’s products before, but I see that there aren’t any electical contacts. So, these will work the same as Zeiss’s 1st gen. ZF lenses: must use aperture ring only, no dial control. No depth/focus info passed to camera, so it’s best to use Average, not Matrix for metering. Personally, I’m fine with the ZF aperture ring control lenses. On a tripod, with my D810, these lenses are a dream to use. Great smooth focus pull, combined with the hugely improved rear screen.
    If the optical performance looks promising, then I’ll really look seriously at this lens, knowing that it’ll be priced very, very competitively.

    • Zos Xavius

      There are contacts and fl and aperture are passed to the camera.

      • Azire

        Not for the Canon versions of the lenses I own. My 5D always reports 50mm with no aperture info for their lenses.

        • Zos Xavius

          Interesting. On k mount they have contacts and support the A position. I would imagine the nikon versions might be like this too. I thought about your comment earlier and looked at a picture of the lens mount and low and behold there are no contacts. Bummer for canon users I guess. Does it meter correctly at least? I never care about aperture information usually. Its nice but on given lenses I’m always at the same spots anyways.

    • MonkeySpanner

      Rokinon has put focus confirm chip in a few lenses for Nikon.

  • Spy Black

    Gotta love Samyang. This looks to be another great lens from them. I’m surprised it’s not chipped for Canon, I thought I finally saw some chipped lenses for Canon from Samyang. Fortunately they seem to have no problem chipping for Nikon. Although I have my old 135mm f/2 Ai Nikkor, I’ll wait till thIs lens is at LensRentals and try one out.

  • MJ Coffey

    9 aperture blades for superior bokeh quality. That’s something I like. A lot.

  • TinusVerdino

    Looking pretty good. Focussing up to .8 meters makes it a nice close-up lens as well

  • Back to top