I'll try to post a better review later as I am able to use this more...
Initial impressions:
Extremely well built lens. Solid construction -- very solid feeling with good heft. Great focus ring, a joy to use. Manual focusing is extremely easy. Probably best manual focusing lens I've used to date. Works quite well with Nikon focus confirm. (green dot -- I have a d800e) Infinity seems to be a touch to the right of the hard stop symbol.
Seems extremely sharp. Will know more when I can review 100% res photos.
Seems an extremely good value for its price point. (400)
popinvasion wrote:
explain in a little more detail what you mean regarding the star night shooting.
Gist of it is that a faster f stop allows for more light and shorter exposures. This is beneficial for night time shooting of the stars if you don't want star trails. (if you want pinpoint stars the way you're used to seeing them)
The stars, from our point of view, move across the night sky ... they move quick enough that in a 1 minute exposure you'll see lots of trailing. So the shorter the exposure the better ... but you also have the problem of having to let lots of light collect, so to speak... so that's why fast lenses are of benefit. (f 1.4 lets a lot more light in that f4)
But maybe you already knew that.
Beyond that, this one doesn't look too bad where coma is concerned. (where star shooting is concerned it amounts to the distorting of stars into an elongated warped looking thing) You can find examples on the web.
That said, it is said to have some coma... so it'll be interesting to test.
The more magnified the sky is (the longer the lens) the quicker the stars will seem to move. 35mm is still usable, but only if you've got a really fast lens like this. (85mm at 1.4 would be a lot tougher, as your exposures would have to be shorter so as to avoid star trailing... and shorter exposures mean less light and dimmer images with less star detail)
So there isn't anything magical about the lens for the stars -- it's only useful because A) it's really fast B) has good optics and C) is a focal length you're interested in.
Really wide lenses do best with the stars since you don't capture as much movement... that said... it's nice to produce a frame that isn't ultra wide sometimes. This will come in handy for that. I figure I can get 10-12 second exposures at 1600 iso + at f 1.4 and get some nice milky way action without star trails.
I'll report back on my findings once I'm able to get this out under a dark sky. (Utah should provide that just fine)
I have the Nikon 35 1.4G, but reading good things about the Rokinon, I placed an order on last Tuesday and got it today. Just took a few snap shots at f1.4, 2, and 2.8. Not impressed at all if not disappointed. Tomorrow, I will compare the two side by side. I have several other manual focus lenses, so manual focus is not a problem for me. If its performance is not up to the hype, it will go back to buydig.
WilliamNguyen wrote:
I have the Nikon 35 1.4G, but reading good things about the Rokinon, I placed an order on last Tuesday and got it today. Just took a few snap shots at f1.4, 2, and 2.8. Not impressed at all if not disappointed. Tomorrow, I will compare the two side by side. I have several other manual focus lenses, so manual focus is not a problem for me. If its performance is not up to the hype, it will go back to buydig.
Did you get a bad copy? I've seen reports of bad copies. In fact, that's my number one worry with this sort of lens. Quality control isn't great... guess I still have to find out on mine.
About the only negative thing I've read about a good copy of the lens is that it loses a bit of contrast at 1.4
But I've seen some good 1.4 shots... and obviously good shots stopped down more so. Otherwise all the reviews regard it as stellar and it measures up quite well to it's more expensive competitors.
moonpeep wrote:
Gist of it is that a faster f stop allows for more light and shorter exposures. This is beneficial for night time shooting of the stars if you don't want star trails. (if you want pinpoint stars the way you're used to seeing them)
The stars, from our point of view, move across the night sky ... they move quick enough that in a 1 minute exposure you'll see lots of trailing. So the shorter the exposure the better ... but you also have the problem of having to let lots of light collect, so to speak... so that's why fast lenses are of benefit. (f 1.4 lets a lot more light in that f4)
But maybe you already knew that.
Beyond that, this one doesn't look too bad where coma is concerned. (where star shooting is concerned it amounts to the distorting of stars into an elongated warped looking thing) You can find examples on the web.
That said, it is said to have some coma... so it'll be interesting to test.
The more magnified the sky is (the longer the lens) the quicker the stars will seem to move. 35mm is still usable, but only if you've got a really fast lens like this. (85mm at 1.4 would be a lot tougher, as your exposures would have to be shorter so as to avoid star trailing... and shorter exposures mean less light and dimmer images with less star detail)
So there isn't anything magical about the lens for the stars -- it's only useful because A) it's really fast B) has good optics and C) is a focal length you're interested in.
Really wide lenses do best with the stars since you don't capture as much movement... that said... it's nice to produce a frame that isn't ultra wide sometimes. This will come in handy for that. I figure I can get 10-12 second exposures at 1600 iso + at f 1.4 and get some nice milky way action without star trails.
I'll report back on my findings once I'm able to get this out under a dark sky. (Utah should provide that just fine)...Show more →
Awesome write up. I understood the part about the 1.4 and star trails. I was mainly asking why this lens specifically. Thanks
