Gregg -- Amazing shot of Mason -- I love that look of playful disdain! That's a perfect subject for the close focus/bokeh without looking contrived. The other shots are great too. Truly an amazing lens, disregarding the price.
I would still love to see someone compare it to the Zeiss ZE/ZF 35/1.4, just to get an idea how far apart they are in performance.
Gunzorro...I had the ZE 35 1.4 and did a very small comparison between the two. Kept the ZE, then eventually sold it realizing the Rok did everything the ZE could do at about 95%!! The ZE had better bokeh, but way worse CA, and the ZE was a bit sharper at all apertures...but for the price, the Rok really can't be beat!!
Here are 2 links to the albums on picasaweb for your perusal... https://picasaweb.google.com/112876940890442133557/Rokinon3514 https://picasaweb.google.com/112876940890442133557/ZeissZE3514
Alright, another silly question for you experts on the samyang. What's the difference in price. On ebay there's a $200 discrepancy between samyang and rokinon..the former being the more expensive...there are other brands like bower etc, are they all rebranding?
h00ligan wrote:
Alright, another silly question for you experts on the samyang. What's the difference in price. On ebay there's a $200 discrepancy between samyang and rokinon..the former being the more expensive...there are other brands like bower etc, are they all rebranding?
They're all rebrands.
The cheapest I've found (and the one I have) is the Vivitar. Got it for $449.
h00ligan -- I got a smoking deal on mine -- $390 shipped. But most go on ebay for around $450. Mine is branded as "Bower". All the brand names seem to have US distribution through Elite Brands, Inc., of NYC, (800) 441-1100.
So far, I extremely happy with my a;; three Samyang lenses I've bought recently, including 85/1.4 ($239) and 14/28 ($329), both with the Bell+Howell brand. The 14/2.8 has gone back to Elite Brands for adjustment of the focusing distance (needs flange spacers to stop from going past infinity stop) -- but othewise IQ is outstanding and I can hardly wait to get it back.
Gregg -- I was out yesterday doing extensive comparison between the Samyang 35/1.4 vs. the Zeiss ZE 35/2. I shot at f/2 and also at f/5.6 (sometimes f/8) to get two different comparisons of many various outdoor settings. Needless to say, the results favored the Samyang by a wide margin. At f/2, the ZE had far greater CA, excessive vignetting/fall-off, and lack of edge/corner sharpness. Bokeh as far better in the Samyang shots (Samyang OOF spots were larger, more uniform, and softer than Zeiss, even considering it was stopped down by one f/stop!). Even at f/5.6 and f/8, the Samyang either matched or exceeded the Zeiss, especially in overall sharpness. Color was almost exactly the same, flare about the same. Overall the Zeiss was approximately 0.3 stop darker at all apertures tested, even more wide open. I always liked my ZE very much and consider it one of my best lenses (I recently -- and happily -- used the ZE for a 2012 calendar assignment for 16x20 repro), so this is forcing me to reevaluate my collection. The ZE is built better, and I like the AF confirmation and auto-aperture, but in the end, it is really about IQ. More testing is in order.
Thanks deadwolf and gunzorro. I'm not sure which one I will get first, ordered the eg-s screen last night... will work with mf on the glass I have for a while.
14 is pretty tempting.. but I am not sure I want to go through dealing with the moustache.
What's shocking to me (in this thread) is how close in performance the 35 is to the L, it may even be sharper in the center.. not sure.. it's close enough to pick nits only.
Hi h00ligan...The Rokinon IS just as sharp in the center as the L..well, maybe a touch less..but the corners are way sharper wide open than the L by a long margin! And the colors and contrast are on par with the ZE 35 1.4...a huge feat for a $500 lens, IMHO. It made me sell my ZE 35 1.4, and keep the Rokinon. And read Gunzorro's thread above about his ZE 35 f2...this lens is really nice, as long as you can get past the MF and no exif data.
Gregg
This is the actual bottle my wife and I found this morning as we prepared to meet the day.
The two of use drank the wine with dinner last night, leaving about 4 ounces in the bottle for my 22 year old daughter, Tracey.
I didn't touch the straw, and barely adjusted the foil. Only transported from the kitchen counter near the coffee maker (how could we miss it??) to the folding table in the garage.
A humorous tableau of a young girl's "partying life".
I kind of prefer the awkward perspective and prominent straw of the first shot, but the second tells a better story I think.
1Ds2, f/8, ISO 100 (light LR3 PP, but no added sharpening, profile, or NR).
Note: I did some more A-B against the ZE 35/2 along with these shots, and I'll revise my opinion upward slightly for the ZE, although I still am preferring the Samyang. The ZE showed diaphram design earlier and had slightly harsher transitions in OOF area (looked like it was stopped down a stop more than the Samyang). But the Samyang had strong evidence of what I call "fingerprint bokeh" of specular highlights, even wide open. I rather like the kaleidoscope-look in side the OOF balloons, but some may legitimately object.
Just got my Bower 35mm in the mail the other day. Perfect lens for the price. Great build quality and superb optics. Only issues now are with my manual focus skills, lol:
Gunzorro, the second image has a great feel of depth. Could you explain "2 shot horizontal composite", what software is involved etc? Really looks like something I'd liketo try.
It's very simple and I'm sure I've made it sound more complex than necessary!
It is two shots in landscape (horizontal) format, one above the other, shot RAW and converted in LR3.x, then blended in PSE8 panorama stitch. It was a lovely exposure with a lot of layers of depth in details, softly embracing lighting, and very well suited to the shallow DOF and color/brightness contrasting the orange to the deep green/blue. I shot hand held, and perhaps I was lucky -- parallax from tripod mounted is something to consider when tilting the lens up or down for close-up shots intending to be composited. I seem to have gotten it just right, and there is enough superfluous detail surrounding the center area even if there had been slight edge mis-alignment.
As a side note: This touches on the subject often brought up on forums, regarding "3D". I don't like the term "3D" to describe 2D images. In this particular image, I would describe the image as "authentic" or "having presence", as though you were looking on the actual subject, which I imagine is what is intended by the term 3D involving selective focus and the impression of depth of details. Regardless of the nomenclature, I'm sure this is an effect many of us often strive to achieve. What is the Swedish word for "the tactile sensation of reality communicated through a static image"? I think that's a nice word for these types of pictures.
freaklikeme wrote:
Wow. Good deal from a well-respected member, too.
I think there is going to be a high turn-over rate in the early days. It's a price where curiosity feels affordable, but people will figure out pretty quickly if it satisfies their expectations or not. Mine arrives tomorrow and I'm excited to shoot it out with the Nikon AIS 35/1.4.
That's a perfect subject for the close focus/bokeh without looking contrived. The other shots are great too. Truly an amazing lens, disregarding the price.
