IMX410 or IMX455 for Samyang (Rokinon, Walimex) 135mm f2 + filter choice

11 replies217 views
Brian avatar
Hi,

I recently bought a Samyang (same as Rokinon or Walimex) 135mm f/2 lens.

Now, I need a camera to go with it.
I definitely want a full-frame camera so that the field of view is significantly different from what I get with my Tak FS-60 paired with the IMX571 sensor.
I'm considering either the IMX455 Mono or the IMX410 Color sensor. The smaller pixels of the IMX455 would certainly help with resolution on the Samyang.
On the other hand, the larger pixels of the IMX410 handle the optical flaws of the lens better — or at least make them less noticeable.

If I go with the color camera, I’d also get an Ha/OIII dual-band filter.
With the mono camera, of course, I’d need a full set of LRGB and SHO filters.
I’m also planning to eventually get a C11 (maybe the EdgeHD version), and the camera should work well with that too.
The IMX410 would offer nice large pixels right away, but the IMX455 could be binned if needed.

Which camera would be the better choice for me?

Currently, I use 36mm LRGBSHO filters from ToupTek on my Tak, and 1.25" LRGBSHO filters (also ToupTek) on my LZOS.
According to the manufacturer, these SHO filters won’t work well with the Samyang.

So if I go with a mono camera, the next question is which filters to use.

I’ve read that IDAS SHO filters perform well at f/2, but they’re hard to get here in Europe.
There are many more dual-band filters available that are optimized for fast optics — so that wouldn’t be a problem if I went with a color camera.

Looking forward to your input!

Greetings
Brian
Engaging
Dan H. M. avatar
People have made the IMX455 work on 135mm lenses. It’s a cleaner sensor and has much better resolution, that is if you’re ok with 132MB FITS files. I have the IMX410 but I often wonder if I should’ve just kept my eye out for a used 455. 

But I personally wouldn’t use a FF mono setup on a little lens like this. The mounting hardware available for it isn’t very sturdy or flexible and I’d imagine it would be quite annoying to use a 7-position 50mm FW on such a setup.
Helpful Concise
andrea tasselli avatar
IMX410. Just hope you got the right Samyang (Nikon F mount). Resolution isn't what this is all about.
Dan H. M. avatar
andrea tasselli:
IMX410. Just hope you got the right Samyang (Nikon F mount). Resolution isn't what this is all about.

Why Nikon and not Canon?
Die Launische Diva avatar
Dan H. M.:
Why Nikon and not Canon?

Slightly larger flange focal distance (46.5mm vs 44.0mm)?
andrea tasselli avatar
Die Launische Diva:
Dan H. M.:
Why Nikon and not Canon?

Slightly larger flange focal distance (46.5mm vs 44.0mm)?

*Yes but not only that. In general it gives better field correction. See test here (similarly spec'd sensor of IMX410):

https://app.astrobin.com/u/andreatax?collection=7793&i=1vz84b#gallery
Brian avatar
Hi,

thank you for your answers.
I bought the canon version because Im using Canon for daytime.
Also the Canon version was cheaper and the there is good adapter for the Canon modell:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-samyang-lens-to-m48-adapter.html
You can replace the bayonett and get a 48mm thread.
andrea tasselli avatar
There is a reason why is cheaper…  Good luck!
Lynn K avatar
You might want to consider the QHY367C Pro.   Full Frame, 4.88um pixelx 36mp,    Better sampleing on the Samyang and stiil will work with a SCT.

Lynn K.
Noah Tingey avatar
As a Rokinon 135 enthusiast, I actually think the Canon version is superior. Their bayonet is less floppy, which is something you ought to care about a lot with a FF sensor.
Well Written Insightful
andrea tasselli avatar
No floppyness in any of my Samyangs and or Nikons. None. Zero. Zilch.
Die Launische Diva avatar
I think Andrea is implying that Samyang's implementation of the Nikon bayonet (and the lens's mechanical structure in general) is less prone to floppiness. Even if we accept that Canon's bayonet design is better (though I don't know if that's true), sometimes good designs can be poorly implemented. I have only one Canon version of this lens, and since I am using it in a manner where the lens weight is unsupported (which is bad practice for heavy optics anyway), I can't provide a conclusive answer on whether Canon's version of the lens will pair well with a full-frame camera in terms of tilt.
Well Written Insightful Respectful