I'm pretty much sold. I'm going to be selling a few lenses (including my 85 f/1.8) pretty soon so I can buy another 50L, but I think I will also pickup this 85 for portraiture.
Thank you so much everyone for doing all the testing!
PS - Have we come to a conclusion that yes these are all the same and the vivitar is only more expensive because of "name" and difference of body materials?
Thanks for the stopped down samples, they don't look too bad, but noticeably inferior to the Zeiss Sonnar. My Planar should be close to the Sonnar I assume, if I remember some tests done on FM in the past.
DubiousDrewski wrote:
Unlike nearly all lenses out there, this lens actually decreases in image quality the more you stop down from f1.4.
That's just rubbish. The IQ increases upon stopping down, but not as much as with many other similar lenses. Peak performance in the middle seems to be at f/5.6 on 12 mpix FF. For the corners, further stopping down to f/11 is needed to reach best performance.
AbramG wrote:
PS - Have we come to a conclusion that yes these are all the same and the vivitar is only more expensive because of "name" and difference of body materials?
I have. What is the "Vivitar" name worth anyway? They never actually made any lenses, but owe all of their success to the likes of Kiron, Komine, Tokina, etc.
It is important to note that the Samyang, Falcon and Polar (and Vivitar, of course) are all about $100 more than the Rokinon, Opteka... and they all look identical (except for the Vivitar). The pricing is irrelevant and no reflection at all on the quality of the respective lenses. It is just a way for shops to market a product and not have to compete directly with each other. Much in the same way that some GE, LG, Samsung and Maytag dryers are exactly the same, but priced differently and sold at different stores.
Makten wrote:
That's just rubbish. The IQ increases upon stopping down, but not as much as with many other similar lenses. Peak performance in the middle seems to be at f/5.6 on 12 mpix FF. For the corners, further stopping down to f/11 is needed to reach best performance.
cogitech wrote:
Much in the same way that some GE, LG, Samsung and Maytag dryers are exactly the same, but priced differently and sold at different stores.
Trumpet_guy,
I noticed in your comparison of landscape shots that the focal plane in the two shots was very different and could go a long way to explaining the apparent difference in resolving power. While the fenceline shots could go either way, the writing on the sign is much sharper and clearer in the Rokinon shot than in the Zeiss one. This indicates that the Rok was focused significantly forward relative to the Zeiss.
Grenache wrote:
Trumpet_guy,
I noticed in your comparison of landscape shots that the focal plane in the two shots was very different and could go a long way to explaining the apparent difference in resolving power. While the fenceline shots could go either way, the writing on the sign is much sharper and clearer in the Rokinon shot than in the Zeiss one. This indicates that the Rok was focused significantly forward relative to the Zeiss.
Jim
Agreed. I was happy to ignore this because I have no plans to use the Rokinon for landscape shooting, but I noticed this as well.
BTW, I did take some really boring f11 "landscape" shots with my copy the other day, if anyone cares to see them.
Grenache wrote:
Trumpet_guy,
I noticed in your comparison of landscape shots that the focal plane in the two shots was very different and could go a long way to explaining the apparent difference in resolving power. While the fenceline shots could go either way, the writing on the sign is much sharper and clearer in the Rokinon shot than in the Zeiss one. This indicates that the Rok was focused significantly forward relative to the Zeiss.
Jim
Jim,
I noticed this too, and scanned through the many shots in my focus bracket sequence.
What I found was that there is lots of field curvature in the Rokinon when focused to infinity.
I tried to pick a compromise focus point for both lenses, but there was no way to achieve
uniformly sharp results on distant subjects with the Rokinon. If I get time I can post some
other shots to illustrate this. This is itself a significant vote against the Rokinon for landscape
shooting.
Looks like ZE85 will have to still remain on my list. I used one earlier this year and mostly loved it, except for its MFD performance. It would seem that the Rok makes a cheap close range foil.
You could consider getting the Rok and then just using an 85 Sonnar for landcape work.
I'll post another few Rok shots at different focus points for comparision. So much good about this
lens, but at this price point there are bound to be some compromises.
cogitech wrote:
Much in the same way that some GE, LG, Samsung and Maytag dryers are exactly the same, but priced differently and sold at different stores.
Perfect analogy! Thank you sir. If / when I decide to get one of these I'll just go for the Rokinon
Makten wrote:
That's just rubbish. The IQ increases upon stopping down, but not as much as with many other similar lenses. Peak performance in the middle seems to be at f/5.6 on 12 mpix FF. For the corners, further stopping down to f/11 is needed to reach best performance.
I'm sorry, I'm a bit of a dolt. That was terrible wording on my part. I should have simply said "This lens performs best at f1.4"
Here is another f/8 shot from the Rokinon. Here the focus is set all the
way to the end of travel on the focus ring -- as far to infinity as it goes.
If you look at the left side crop, in particular, you can see that the chain link fence
is now in better focus, and the foreground bushes are also in focus, but that as
you move toward the center the foreground bushes go out of focus and the chain
link fence loses focus as well.
I heard problems with the lenses aperture ring after about 1000 shots, has anybody experienced this? There was a group at flickr which discussed this but am not able find the link now. I'm really interested in this lens.
prashant wrote:
I heard problems with the lenses aperture ring after about 1000 shots, has anybody experienced this? There was a group at flickr which discussed this but am not able find the link now. I'm really interested in this lens.
I have only read one complaint of this, and it was a Pentax mount version with auto-aperture. Apparently the blades got slow/sluggish. No need to worry about that on the Canon mount ones, I guess. ;-)
I got mine yesterday. Looks like a fine product. Very clean and not even the smallest particle of dust within. I'm looking forward to comparing it with my Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 MM. One of them will be sold! (yeah, right ). Anyway, it'll take a few weeks for me to get the comparison done, as I'll be away for most of next week, and I just got back from a trip earlier this week.
I've noticed two slightly annoying features: (i) the lens won't fit in the nice lens bag when the hood is attached (reversed or not); and, (ii) I can't find a serial number on the lens. The last isn't a big problem, except if want to register the lens with customs, when you know that you'll be travelling out of the country with it.
). Anyway, it'll take a few weeks for me to get the comparison done, as I'll be away for most of next week, and I just got back from a trip earlier this week.