Sp12 wrote:
Why doesn't Samyang spend the extra 50$ of production costs to get auto-aperture and a screw-drive for use with Pentax and Nikon. Would expand the market for this excellent lens a ton.
Beats me as well. I'm yet to make a leap of faith to use the "dumb" lenses (and frankly, the lack of AF is the only thing that keeps me from buying this 35). I'm sure that Sigma could license Samyang lenses (at least this 35), add their chip and AF and happily sell them by the boatload for twice the price.
Thanks a lot Romain. So far it has saved me from buying the 35/1.4L, or perhaps the C/Y 35/1.4 - but I had no idea how to get a good one. And adapters and mirrors seem to be a pain. But dont you have the (new?) Zeiss 35/1.4 - what would the Samyang add?
Snopchenko wrote:
Beats me as well. I'm yet to make a leap of faith to use the "dumb" lenses (and frankly, the lack of AF is the only thing that keeps me from buying this 35). I'm sure that Sigma could license Samyang lenses (at least this 35), add their chip and AF and happily sell them by the boatload for twice the price.
autofocus costs more than $50 and requires more than just putting a screw drive in. if you want autofocus to be fast you would need to completely redesign the lens. finally, as sigma has shown, making autofocus accurate isn't so easy.
sebboh wrote:
autofocus costs more than $50 and requires more than just putting a screw drive in. if you want autofocus to be fast you would need to completely redesign the lens. finally, as sigma has shown, making autofocus accurate isn't so easy.
And of course AF costs you good manual focusing feel and accuracy by essentially requiring a loose focus helical with a relatively short throw. You can get some but not all of that back with ring-type USM, but that's far more expensive.
I find that screw driven lenses, at least the ones from Sony/Zeiss have a long throw and very close feeling to MF lenses. USM (or SSM in Sony's language) have a very short throw.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I find that screw driven lenses, at least the ones from Sony/Zeiss have a long throw and very close feeling to MF lenses. USM (or SSM in Sony's language) have a very short throw.
it seems to depend on the manufacturer, nikon screw drive lenses have horrible focus rings while the USM (or whatever nikon calls it) focus rings are a fair bit better achieving the status of only really bad. i'm told the pentax limiteds, which are screw drive, have focus rings that are actually quite nice - though apparently the autofocus isn't too hot.
AhamB wrote:
Tamron and Tokina don't seem to have problems with that. Nikon has it's share of AF problems with their 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 G lenses though.
do tamron and tokina make any f/1.4 autofocus lenses where focus is so critical?
sebboh wrote:
it seems to depend on the manufacturer, nikon screw drive lenses have horrible focus rings while the USM (or whatever nikon calls it) focus rings are a fair bit better achieving the status of only really bad. i'm told the pentax limiteds, which are screw drive, have focus rings that are actually quite nice - though apparently the autofocus isn't too hot.
The problem with screw drive AF lenses is that you need to switch the body to MF to do manual focusing and I have to learn to refrain from touching the focus ring on my FA 31f1.8 Ltd when on AF. With ring type ultra sonic motors, real time manual focus override is a big plus.
freaklikeme wrote:
Wow. Good deal from a well-respected member, too.
I think there is going to be a high turn-over rate in the early days. It's a price where curiosity feels affordable, but people will figure out pretty quickly if it satisfies their expectations or not. Mine arrives tomorrow and I'm excited to shoot it out with the Nikon AIS 35/1.4.
Did you ever test it against the Nikon? Curious to hear your opinions of the two. I just picked up a Nikon and have been very impressed.
flashinm wrote:
Did you ever test it against the Nikon? Curious to hear your opinions of the two. I just picked up a Nikon and have been very impressed.
I did. If you just ran a flaw by flaw comparison, like what I did with the Rok and the Lux, the Nikon would not look like a good choice. Center sharpness wide open, corner performance, distortion, CA, even flare, all favor the Rok. But there are three reasons the Rok is packed up to be shipped back and my Nikon remains in my bag (for now). 1. Color rendition- the Nikon isn't any more accurate, but it does provide a much more pleasing balance, particularly in heavily mixed lighting situations. 2. Drawing style- like the 50/1.2, this lens has a distinct signature. It's not right for every situation. The Rok would be a much better general purpose fast 35. But in the right situation, the Nikon's magic, something the Rok is too technically clean to ever be. 3. Usability- smaller with a shorter focus throw, the AIS can be very handy when you've got to focus fast. It's also easier to get in focus wide open, which may be because it's not the length of a medium tele. That's my take on it.
Nikon has it's share of AF problems with their 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 G lenses though.