This is a bit disappointing IMHO. The user reports I heard so far suggested it is at least as sharp as the 85/1.8 but - at least according to this test - it's far off.
This is a bit disappointing IMHO. The user reports I heard so far suggested it is at least as sharp as the 85/1.8 but - at least according to this test - it's far off.
I'd say this is a very good reason not to judge image quality from charts and numbers. 2653 lw/ph is very good at f/1.4, but it doesn't say squat about rendering, contrast and other aspects.
biotar wrote:
Has anybody tested this lens for field curvature?
A local member (I forget who now, maybe Tim/trumpetguy) noticed some significant field curvature when doing some landscape testing a while back.
This certainly could account for the disparity between PZ.de results and my real-world sample. In other words, my sample is in focus, and their testing of the corners (while it may have been in focus in the centre) was not.
While this is a lens aberration, it may also be positively contributing to other aspects of the lens' drawing style.
The Samyang 85's performance is top notch. The main caveat with the lens is focus shift. At f2.8 the lens makes a considerable shift in the focus rearward. If you shoot at f1.4 you'll be fine, maybe even f2. At f2.8 and above you have to use your DOF preview button to focus or your gonna be way off. I believe there's some curvature of field also but I'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps someone else can map it for us.
I might add...I think the focus shift is the reason some have made claims the lens gets worse as it's stopped down. If you don't refocus as you stop down the images will appear to deteriorate.
Vertigo2020 wrote:
The Samyang 85's performance is top notch. The main caveat with the lens is focus shift. At f2.8 the lens makes a considerable shift in the focus rearward. If you shoot at f1.4 you'll be fine, maybe even f2. At f2.8 and above you have to use your DOF preview button to focus or your gonna be way off. I believe there's some curvature of field also but I'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps someone else can map it for us.
I might add...I think the focus shift is the reason some have made claims the lens gets worse as it's stopped down. If you don't refocus as you stop down the images will appear to deteriorate. ...Show more →
My Canon version has no auto-aperture, so I have no issue with focus shift. I simply select my aperture (between 1.4 and 4), focus and shoot. No chance of focus shift at all.
My Canon version has no auto-aperture, so I have no issue with focus shift. I simply select my aperture (between 1.4 and 4), focus and shoot. No chance of focus shift at all.
cogitech wrote:
OK, who are you and what have you done with Richard?
Richard was just a temporary arrangement. The cranial transposifaction is now complete. Leica M8 and 12 versus 21 Mpixel 100% crop comparisons rock! Can't wait to show you my graduated ND bird and cat shots! I feel somehow... liberated!
cogitech wrote:
I am convinced they have a bad sample.
I'm not convinced. Pure resolution is not what the Samyang does best, and your example shows that. It's more about local contrast. The "bad" corner performance could also be because of curvature of field.
cogitech wrote:
A local member (I forget who now, maybe Tim/trumpetguy) noticed some significant field curvature when doing some landscape testing a while back.
This certainly could account for the disparity between PZ.de results and my real-world sample. In other words, my sample is in focus, and their testing of the corners (while it may have been in focus in the centre) was not.
While this is a lens aberration, it may also be positively contributing to other aspects of the lens' drawing style.
This says enough for me. I'm glad that it is only field curvature. Something I can work with on a MF lens. If it were a WA lens I'd be more alarmed
-edit:
Richard was just a temporary arrangement. The cranial transposifaction is now complete. Leica M8 and 12 versus 21 Mpixel 100% crop comparisons rock! Can't wait to show you my graduated ND bird and cat shots! I feel somehow... liberated!
cogitech wrote:
A local member (I forget who now, maybe Tim/trumpetguy) noticed some significant field curvature when doing some landscape testing a while back.
This certainly could account for the disparity between PZ.de results and my real-world sample. In other words, my sample is in focus, and their testing of the corners (while it may have been in focus in the centre) was not.
While this is a lens aberration, it may also be positively contributing to other aspects of the lens' drawing style.
There is major field curvature on this lens, though I only noticed it at
long distance shooting. In my mind this lens is excellent for close-in work,
near wide open. That seems to be where it is optimized for. For other shooting,
I still prefer the Zeiss C/Y 85/2.8 Sonnar.
It seems that Samyang has given us a one-trick or two-trick pony, if you will,
but those tricks are very impressive for such an inexpensive lens. More expensive
lenses are more "refined" but at this price you can afford to have some tools
in the toolbox that do only one or two things very well.
The other review of this lens at Lens-tip also confirms lower resolution in the corners but at least they acknowledge center frame results wide open that easily beat Zeiss and Nikkor.
Paul, do you have a picture of the wine bottle taken in the center of the frame to see the difference between center and edge of frame resolution?
I still think this lens wide open beats my 85L wide open due to better contrast and also less CA and smoother bokeh.
