The Viv, Pola and Sam were all originally the red variant, that's a fact.
The red lenses have always been more expensive, and even the Samyang used to cost more, when it was red. That's a fact.
The red variant looks quite different from the gold, not just in color. that's also a fact.
Vivitar wouldn't be charging $100 more than the others, if it were the same lens. -That's a good guess.
Also, the pics originally posted here, of the red Viv, were outstanding. The shots posted later both here and elsewhere of the gold variant are not in the same league. That could be by chance, but maybe not.
I'm raising a valid question, and no one has yet to post a definitive answer.
So again, what don't you buy? Or, better question, which WOULD you buy, if in the market right now?
Me, I'd order the Vivitar. ...Show more →
Then buy the Viv. I don't think it is any better. I've never seen samples indicating that it's better. I think it is all the imaginings of you. That's why I'm not buying it. If you are going to state "facts" then offer proof. Like Tariq, I'd love to see the "red" versions of these other lenses.
The Viv, Pola and Sam were all originally the red variant, that's a fact.
The red lenses have always been more expensive, and even the Samyang used to cost more, when it was red. That's a fact.
The red variant looks quite different from the gold, not just in color. that's also a fact.
Vivitar wouldn't be charging $100 more than the others, if it were the same lens. -That's a good guess.
Also, the pics originally posted here, of the red Viv, were outstanding. The shots posted later both here and elsewhere of the gold variant are not in the same league. That could be by chance, but maybe not.
I'm raising a valid question, and no one has yet to post a definitive answer.
So again, what don't you buy? Or, better question, which WOULD you buy, if in the market right now?
Me, I'd order the Vivitar.
The differences are paint, the choice of rubber focus ring and the placement of the ring. The two lenses you show are otherwise clearly identical physically.
cogitech wrote:
Then buy the Viv. I don't think it is any better. I've never seen samples indicating that it's better. I think it is all the imaginings of you. That's why I'm not buying it. If you are going to state "facts" then offer proof. Like Tariq, I'd love to see the "red" versions of these other lenses.
Indeed. Perhaps we could see a "red" and a "non-red" version side by side to see if we can actually see any of these claimed differences. Given that the optical formulas are the same, it would great to see some evidence of some special sauce applied to the "red" versions.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Not a lot of love here for Mr. Rockwell...
Given that his reviews are often highly subjective and contain almost verbatim info from press releases, that's not at all surprising. Further to that, he only reviews camera bodies, and usually gives only Nikon's favourable reviews
Check this bit out:
Thank goodness the D3000 has no video mode or Live View. DSLR video modes make crappy video and clog up the camera's operation and price, so not having video makes for a better camera at a better price. Likewise, Live View is largely another fluff feature which jacks up the price, and which few people can figure out. Both Live View and video modes hold open the shutter to let more dirt get on the sensor. Good riddance to video and live view!
Prices for newer Consumer-Level DSLR's haven't changed a whole lot in the last few years as newer models have come out. Adding in Live View hasn't jacked pricing at all. Right? As for the dust comment? Has he heard about dust delete/sensor cleaning? Most entry-level users probably never have that problem using only the kit lens, but seriously? Dust is a problem?
Falcon [url]http://www.fotoabc.com/allegro/miniaturki/falcon_85m1.jpg[/url]
(looks like this unscrupulous ebay seller tried to erase the falcon name off this lens, but forgot the change the filename)
My experience with this lens is that, while the sharpness is certainly acceptable stopped down, it does not match some of the better lenses. I would bet your Zeiss glass renders more detail and is sharper when stopped down. Probably not the lens I would choose for shooting tack sharp landscapes at greater distances.
My expectations aren't super high, I hardly ever use focal lengths longer than 50mm so it would be for occasional use only. That I don't have to compromise on lens speed is a real bonus.
Valorin wrote:
If someone has one, can someone post a stopped down landscape landscape shot at f/8 or f/11 showing corner sharpness?
Just so you're aware, all of the tests and measurements I've ever seen regarding this lens have seemed to indicate that it is purpose-built for wide open performance. Unlike nearly all lenses out there, this lens actually decreases in image quality the more you stop down from f1.4. This is why I'm in love with this lens and why I have ordered one. I am in desperate need of a >75mm, wide-aperture portrait lens, and this lens is that. For cheap!
Tariq, it appears as though you applied some sort of surface blur filter the image to increase sharpness. Either that or you increased the sharpening and radius too much in Lightroom, both methods give this kind of Norman Rockwell painting look.
DubiousDrewski wrote:
Tariq, it appears as though you applied some sort of surface blur filter the image to increase sharpness. Either that or you increased the sharpening and radius too much in Lightroom, both methods give this kind of Norman Rockwell painting look.
Could we see the unedited versions?
R-L Deconvolusion sharpening out of Raw Developer which is what I always use for my raw conversions. Below is the center crop out of Lightroom with default settings. Part of what you are seeing is a lack of fine detail and that is due to the lenses inability to fully resolve at the 24MP resolution of the Sony sensor at this distance. A lens that performs better at longer distances would not give this effect nor would it show up as much on a lower MP camera. Just to add, I really consider this lens a special purpose portrait lens, not a landscape or even still life/product lens (uneless you like that look!).
Here is a comparison of the Rokinon and the CZ 85/2.8 Sonnar in a landscape
scenario, including 100% crops, on Canon 5D (mk 1).
Sorry for the rather uninteresting scene.
The Rokinon displayed significant non-flatness of field, or perhaps
mount misalignment or element de-centering. Regardless, it was
challenging to select the "best" shot from my focus bracketing series.
I have not yet tested whether this translates to non-planar results
at close focusing distances.
Contrast and color performance are pretty good. I also shot a series at
f/11 and the results are a bit better but largely the same as shown here.
If anyone wants more of the focus bracket series, I can E-mail you the RAW files
and you can draw your own conclusions.
The Zeiss is a clearly superior landscape lens, in my opinion, but the Rokinon is
useable. My copy may not be entirely representative, either. I hope to do some
portrait/close-up testing soon.
