I bought this same lens from the same ebay seller mentioned above last June 11, 2010. The lens I received is the updated version with the UMC symbol on the barrel.
Regards,
Roger
shogo73 wrote:
Hi,
I am very interested in this lens, too.
Do you know if this item (ebay link) is the newer UMC version or older MC version?
AhamB wrote:
Looking at the pictures from lenstip.com, the pictures of the ebay item are from the old version. The new version should say ED AS IF UMC.
Yakim Peled wrote:
So the lens on e-bay is the old one.
I think the correct conclusion is that the lens in the pictures of the item is the old one.
The seller simply may not have updated the pictures to match the new version (which shutterbug guy's experience corroborates).
AhamB wrote:
I think the correct conclusion is that the lens in the pictures of the item is the old one.
The seller simply may not have updated the pictures to match the new version (which shutterbug guy's experience corroborates).
I will probably sell my Nikkor 14-24 (with Canon adapter) in favor for the new Samyang 14mm. Number one reason is the weight difference. The Nikkor is with 1000 g almost double heavy than the Samyang with just 552 g.
I will not use it for architecture, but for natural landscapes. To fix the distortion should hardly be a problem with Photoshop.
The focal range I have covered with my Zuikos (18mm, 21mm and 24mm) Those Zuikos are good for urban landscapes, especially the 18mm.
I am amazed with the corner to corner resolution and the absence of CA in the Samyang lens.
I am now thinking if I should offer the Nikkor with the Canon adapter or if I should bring it back to the original Nikon mount.
If it really is better than zeiss and olympus etc wideangles then it should be a sensation. I have recently acquired a ZF 18mm, but can not try it out as my camera is with my wife abroad. Would be glad to lend it to anyone who lives in UK around Cardiff - for the purpose of comparing it to Samyang or other wideangles.
Yesterday I have updatet my Samyang 14 mm testsite, now there are some links to futher images and an Adobe lens profile (that is on an German language page).
I think my lens is not very sharp on the corners, and I had to reapit the focus setting - as other had too.
Regarding to the question why Canon and Nikon could take much more money for their lenses: I suppose their lenses are better :-)
I donīt have tested and dissasembled the Canon EF 14 /2.8, but the Samyang.
The metall bajonet is screwed in plastic - I think that is not very good for such a big lens.
The lens hood seems to be plastic.
Quality control is not as good as that from Canon.
The Samyang is bing and heavy - Canons lens is much smaller, that is a cost factor too.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
.. I have recently acquired a ZF 18mm, but can not try it out as my camera is with my wife abroad. ...
First I misinterpreted you sentence - and thougt other photographers do the same as I do:
I bought the lens via Ebay and payed with Paypal. Told my wife nothing.
I had some money left on my Paypal account so there was no bigger money transfer on my credit card - and because of this my wife didnīt realized my purchase.
Got the lens to work. Tested it mostly during the lunch break.
But I wrote about it on photo boards. And one evening my wife read on of my comments - and asked - "Whats a Samyang"?
Then I had to show here the lens - she doesnīt love wideangles.
But she didnīt argued and just smiled :-)
The shots focused close to infinity indeed seem to have blurred borders (not just corners). Did you focus bracket to see if it's not curvature of field?
I have the same problem with my Nikkor 20/4; can't get the borders and corners sharp, but proper focusing (hard without live view) makes it a bit better.
Just got this lens. I don't have the Nikon 14-24 or Canon 14mm to compare it with but it blows my 16-35L out of the water in terms of edge and corner resolution. At any price this is an acheivment with such a wide angle lens but for the cost of this lens it's insane! Distortion is pretty crazy but this is easily fixed with software whereas resolution is obviously not so Samyang have obviously made the right compromise here. Using live view it focuses at infinity at the corners and center at around 2-3m on the focus scale so unless you have live view results may not be optimal. My 24 TS-EII is impossible to focus accuratley without live view and even when stopped down to F11 you need live view to nail the exceptional resolution of this lens - old rules about hyperfocal distance with wides and super wides just don't cut it with hi res digital it seems and I wouldn't want to use either of these lenses with a non live view camera.
Interesting notes, shirozina. I've been struggling with this (curvature of field) with my WA lenses on my 5Dmk1. I really shoud do some systematic testing to establish (and record) the right focus distances to get the corners into focus, but I've been too lazy so far...
This lens is almost not a rectilinear one, with the amount of distortion shown, well, almost a fish eye
It is not unusual for poorly corrected lenses to show excellent corners. The optical correction stretches the corners and loses some resolution, as the software correction does. Optical correction induces CA as well, hence the low CA from this lens.
