n0b0 wrote:
But it does!! Top left hand corner!! and PTLens couldn't even correct it. But anyway, I'm done arguing here. Have fun with your lens.
I don't think the issue was whether or not there was some distortion, but rather that it did not consist of the heavy mustache distortion that was discussed in the online review. Being as the sample is a vertical, I would think the verticals of the building should show this type of distortion, should it not?
It would be interesting, whether there are copies of the Samyang 14 mm around without that heavy distortion. I would suppose that these are the first version - or there is indeed such a strange tolerance that some copies suffer from extreme distortion and some not - what would be very strange.
I would suppose, one could clearly see the distortion on images with straight non interrupted lines which are parallel to the long borders of the sensor format, and which are maximum in 4 mm image sensor distance from that 36 mm long border.
And clearly: The images should be without correction.
On my images with interrupted lines I didīt see the distortion that much. And on lines more in the center the distortion looks probably more barrel like.
AH, thank you! This works without login.
When I look at the uncorrected image, it is hard to tell whether it have or have not the heavy mustache distortion.
But when I take the image in PTLens and use the Samyang 14 mm / 2.8 correction - which is made with an image from my Samyang lens (with heavy distortion) - the image looks better.
When I do a vertical correction -89 with the Samyang Distortion correction on, it looks ~ good (in the Preview), without the Samyang correction I would say it looks not that good.
But an image of a building with straight lines parallel to the long image border would be more exactly to tell how bad the distortion is - something like that one from my lens: Samyang uncorected
The lines in the building were originally straight.
That image is uncorrected too - but one doesnīt see the distortion that much (I donīt see it): Samyang 14 mm , uncorrected
Just an update, I got mine today, they mailed on the May 5 and I received it today, May 17 in the L.A. area. So over the next few days I will give it a good test and see how it performs......
Personally, I'm excited about this lens. I would love to get my hands on a copy. As I have posted before, it looks quite promising, and at a relative bargain. I am not all that worried about distortion.
That said, I would like to see better tests of distortion than what we've seen in this thread so far. Folks, it is not that hard to do! A simple grid pattern printed on paper should suffice. If the target isn't big enough, just print it across multiple sheets. Post it on a flat wall. Take a shot. Done. If I had my own copy I could do this in less than 30 minutes. That way, we can really see the distortion and how well post-processing techniques can correct it. If you are a real stickler you could even create your own lens profile, per Adobe's instructions, for example.
Frankly, what concerns me more with this lens is the presence of other optical aberrations; e.g., CA and corner softness that is very typical for UWAs. (Vignetting I could live with.)
If I hadn't already blown a huge chunk of cash on a 300/2.8L IS, I'd probably have one of these by now. That, or a 15mm fisheye. And an MP-E 65mm.
Wicker--problem with a grid pattern on paper is that it doesn't test at a usual focus range (hyperfocal to infinity). The lens could change a lot depending on focusing distance. At 14 mm it'd take a lot of paper ;-)
Bring on the brick walls, hahaha...
Sounds like a fun lens, but I'd never use it b/c 14mm is just WEIRD. Bring on the 35mm, please.
Many people who bought the MP-E65 suffer from buyer's remorse. There is an extremely high learning curve associated with that lens i.e. it is a bitch to use, so I am told. You will probably be much happier with the very versatile and easy-to-use 100L IS
wickerprints wrote:
If I hadn't already blown a huge chunk of cash on a 300/2.8L IS, I'd probably have one of these by now. That, or a 15mm fisheye. And an MP-E 65mm.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
Wicker--problem with a grid pattern on paper is that it doesn't test at a usual focus range (hyperfocal to infinity). The lens could change a lot depending on focusing distance. At 14 mm it'd take a lot of paper ;-)
Bring on the brick walls, hahaha...
Sounds like a fun lens, but I'd never use it b/c 14mm is just WEIRD. Bring on the 35mm, please.
True that, very true indeed.
OTOH, I've got a stack of unused copy paper here....
wickerprints wrote:
If I hadn't already blown a huge chunk of cash on a 300/2.8L IS, I'd probably have one of these by now. That, or a 15mm fisheye. And an MP-E 65mm.
bobbytan wrote:
Many people who bought the MP-E65 suffer from buyer's remorse. There is an extremely high learning curve associated with that lens i.e. it is a bitch to use, so I am told. You will probably be much happier with the very versatile and easy-to-use 100L IS
I already have the 100/2.8L macro IS. And I keep finding extension tubes and TCs on it to get me past 1:1. I can get it up to about 2.75:1 with a full set of tubes + 1.4x TC. It's kinda working, but I lose a fair amount of optical quality for relatively modest increases in magnification. I'm an avid macro shooter. I would love to get up to 5:1.
The sigma 15-30 will not work on a full frame, the 12-24 will and this Samyang will work on a full frame camera. Also my 15-30 before I sold was really horrible in the corners.
Alan
dcmiller wrote:
Sigma 15-30 is a couple hundred $$ used and better at 15MM. Reviewed at 16-9.
This was a quick not very scientific test of the lens, very close focusing. The strange shadow in the middle of the images is the shadow of the camera and me as the light was behind me. Also the light was fading fast. I will conduct a much better test in the next few days. Do not judge it for focus yet as I was not that careful, just wanted to see distortion and there is some but not uncorrectable. This is a plastic grid from an a/c filter, clamped to a white board. I shot the Samyang at f2.8, f4, f5.6 and f8 then followed it with the Sigma 12-24 at roughly 14-15mm. Notice the Sigma is very well corrected and the distortion is slight. Then a couple of shots of the Sigma at 12mm. The first shot is a "quickie flare test"
apsphoto wrote:
The sigma 15-30 will not work on a full frame, the 12-24 will and this Samyang will work on a full frame camera. Also my 15-30 before I sold was really horrible in the corners.
Alan
Sorry, what are you talking about; the Sigma 15-30 is a FF lens
