Gotta breathe some life back into this thread! I have to say after my recent trip to SW Utah that I am very pleased with this lens. The performance to price ratio is just amazing.
pretty well according to lenstip:
better than the canon and nikon 35mm, and better that the Zeiss in the corners. But Zeiss is the best in the center: zeiss samyang
Romain wrote:
pretty well according to lenstip:
better than the canon and nikon 35mm, and better that the Zeiss in the corners. But Zeiss is the best in the center: zeiss samyang
Nice. Looks like a very interesting lens.
first impressions:
- it's big!
- it's not that heavy, as heavy as my 35mm 1.4 contax probably
- it's well made, the focus ring is very pleasant, smooth and well damped. Smoother than my 35mm contax, as smooth as my 21mm Distagon ZE. The aperture ring is big, easier to handle than most of my mf lenses.
- it seems to be of great optical quality. I just tried a shootout at infinity against my 35mm Contax, 17-40 Canon and 35-70 f/4 Leica. The Samyang is better at f/2.8 than all of them at f/8 :-O it is especially homogeneous, impressively sharp in the corners.
that's promising I'll try to do real photos with it in the next days
Romain wrote:
I just tried a shootout at infinity against my 35mm Contax, 17-40 Canon and 35-70 f/4 Leica. The Samyang is better at f/2.8 than all of them at f/8
Sure your contax 35/1.4's adapter is the proper thickness to achieve infinity focus?
Looks like lenstip doesn't read the Zeiss white paper on bokeh and how the new Z* 35/1.4 was designed to undercorrect SA in order to achieve a slower focus transition and smoother bokeh.
Let's see the comparison shots!
Locster wrote:
Gotta breathe some life back into this thread! I have to say after my recent trip to SW Utah that I am very pleased with this lens. The performance to price ratio is just amazing.
Nice shot of Bryce! Do you have some more shots you can post?
The sharpness/resolution looks good.
It maybe the flat lighting in this shot but I don't see the color/micro-contrast that the Zeiss lenses have which give you that "like looking through a window" look with 3-d ness and dimensionality.
I look forward to seeing some side by side comparison shots.
That looks like some "ultra-flat" lighting ... obscured by a cloud bank & indirectly bounced off clouds ... YIKES !!!. Yet, it still shows nicely rather than being a train wreck.
RustyBug wrote:
That looks like some "ultra-flat" lighting ... obscured by a cloud bank & indirectly bounced off clouds ... YIKES !!!. Yet, it still shows nicely rather than being a train wreck.
I suspect a quick S curves adj. would make things pop if he so desired.
RustyBug wrote:
Romain ... Bring on the SHOOTOUT pics !!!
wayne seltzer wrote:
Sure your contax 35/1.4's adapter is the proper thickness to achieve infinity focus?
Looks like lenstip doesn't read the Zeiss white paper on bokeh and how the new Z* 35/1.4 was designed to undercorrect SA in order to achieve a slower focus transition and smoother bokeh.
Let's see the comparison shots!
my adapter is fine, but my copy might not be optimal, I don't know.
To be honest it's only in the extreme corners that the samyang is better at f/8 than the leica and the contax, but the zeiss needs f/5.6 to have decent corners, where the samyang is great by f/2.8. The difference between the three is quite subtle at f/8 and really noticeable at 100%. The canon is far behind with great center but terrible in the 2/3rd of the frame and in the corners.
At f/4 the difference is more noticeable. the samyang is almost as good as f/8, the zeiss is as good as the samyang in the center, but less sharp in the 2/3rd and quite soft in the corners. The leica is in the middle, being a tad softer in the center but sharper in the 2/3rd and corners than the zeiss, which is quite impressive considering this is wide open, and it's also the weakest focal length of this zoom. The 17-40 is quite bad.
I did the comparison two times, the first time I misfocused the leica, which ended up being quite soft. This time I used focus bracketing, the only way to achieve critical focus with this lens at its wide end (even using live view and focus confirm). Except for the leica all the other results are the same.
Ok I wanted to upload the .psd file containing all the pictures as layers, but it's almost 2gb in size ^^
what's the best way to show the results?
I took the samyang and the zeiss with me this afternoon and did some "real life" comparisons on closer subjects at different apertures. I'll upload that as well asap.
Romain wrote:
Yeah, it's seems to be simple barrel distortion where the other have a more complex mustache pattern.
I'm using a 5d mkII
What's odd to me about your sample of the lens is that it appears to be close to the actual focal length of the Contax (which I'm guessing is close to actual 35mm). My copy - and from what I have seen of others - has a much narrower angle of view (probably closer to 38/39mm).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What's odd to me about your sample of the lens is that it appears to be close to the actual focal length of the Contax (which I'm guessing is close to actual 35mm). My copy - and from what I have seen of others - has a much narrower angle of view (probably closer to 38/39mm).
It could be that both have a narrower angle of view. I had to zoom the leica a bit to achieve similar framing.
According to contax, the zeiss has an angle of 62 degrees 30’, and according to samyang their own lens has an angle of 63.1 degrees.
edit: the new Zeiss and Nikon 35mm 1.4 also have a diagonal angle of 63 degrees
