This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
p.2 #1Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Wilhelm -- Great shots! The buildings show terrific sharpness, contrast, and color. And the girls are awesome in their interaction -- no other way to get a shot like that. And finally -- let's take a night drive! 
Nov 14, 2011 at 01:56 PM
p.2 #3Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Thanks so much Lars and Gunzorro!
- and sirfish, really like the BW HDRs (assuming they are), tuned down they can be really good as yours.
- and sirfish, really like the BW HDRs (assuming they are), tuned down they can be really good as yours.
Nov 14, 2011 at 03:57 PM
p.2 #4Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Pretty impressive shot in this thread! Thinking about picking of these up.
Does anyone have a shot of the night sky with stars in it that was shot with this lens? I know it's a long shot, but thought I'd ask.
Does anyone have a shot of the night sky with stars in it that was shot with this lens? I know it's a long shot, but thought I'd ask.
Nov 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM
p.2 #5Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Another from the 5D classic with this lens:
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Landscapes/Landscape-Images/i-BFWrsbm/0/L/Alki-Sunset-5-L.jpg
JayT
Edited on Nov 26, 2011 at 01:47 PM · View previous versions
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Landscapes/Landscape-Images/i-BFWrsbm/0/L/Alki-Sunset-5-L.jpg
JayT
Edited on Nov 26, 2011 at 01:47 PM · View previous versions
Nov 23, 2011 at 05:04 AM
kumman
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #6Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
@ JayT the second one of grand canyon looks like a tele shot?
I just got the lens last week - great fun on my ancient 5d.
Shelter from the storm by Asad K, on Flickr
I just got the lens last week - great fun on my ancient 5d.
Shelter from the storm by Asad K, on Flickr
Nov 23, 2011 at 06:20 AM
kumman
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
Nov 23, 2011 at 06:20 AM
p.2 #8Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
kumman wrote:
@ JayT the second one of grand canyon looks like a tele shot?
Oops, youre right
Sorry about that, it was from the C/Y 35-70. I'll see if I can find another shot from the 5D II.
JayT
@ JayT the second one of grand canyon looks like a tele shot?
Oops, youre right
Sorry about that, it was from the C/Y 35-70. I'll see if I can find another shot from the 5D II.
JayT
Nov 23, 2011 at 11:46 AM
p.2 #9Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Kumman, nice shots. I have to ask since I also use the 5D(2); your far corners look quite ok in your shot (the one with sand). Is the image cropped?
(I looked at the large original at Flickr, dont think you can judge from the smallish image posted)
(I looked at the large original at Flickr, dont think you can judge from the smallish image posted)
Nov 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM
kumman
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #11Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
@ frank - nope no cropping on the sand picture
Nov 23, 2011 at 04:47 PM
p.2 #12Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
I think my saga of the Samyang 14/2.8 has reached its conclusion (I hope!). Well, at least regards product return or warranty replacement.
Yesterday, Fed Ex Ground delivered my replacement for the badly out of adjustment B+H version. This new one is the Rokinon labeled model. I had high hopes that all would be right for focus and IQ, so quickly took some tests shots in the diminishing late afternoon light (not shown). These shots were at the calibrated settings without OVF confirmation (everything looks sharp with this lens, even when it isn't). It turns out, the settings are off by a large margin, but not quite so extreme as the first version. Still, I thought of sending it back.
Today, I roused myself from sleep thinking of the lens and what to do. I put forward a regimen similar to what I devised with the first lens: shoot wide open at general scenes with distinct objects at all distances out to infinity, then evaluate the shots to determine general focus points on the lens, and continue to refine until conclusive settings are found.
I determined that actual infinity setting was right on the 10 foot mark, significantly back from the infinity mark on the lens. Shots taken at the infinity mark were terribly OOF at all distances, but fortunately, I was on to the manufacturers build parameters. Shooting on the 10 foot mark, anything closer than the most distant hills about 5 miles away was gradually rendered in softer focus until closer items were definitely OOF at f/2.8. Closing the lens down to f/5.6 rendered most objects in focus from about 8-10 feet to infinity.
I next tried the 7 foot marking, and compared it to the 10 foot marking at f/5.6 and f/8. f/5.6 gave good sharp focus from about 4 feet to nearly infinity (out about 150 yards). f/8 provided the sharpest results with exeptionally fine rendering of details. I expect f/6.7 is possibly the "go-to" setting for me, but certainly between f/5.6 to f/8. (more testing of smaller apertures, but I expect there will be diffraction softening at f/11 and on)
Sadly, this lens will not be able to be accurately set for distance using the focusing scale on the lens. My plan is to put a mark or bead at the actual infinity mark, and remember to use the 7 foot setting for general photography at f/5.6 (or higher). This will be a true hyperfocal lens for me, using the OVF for framing -- which is fine with this UWA and its incredible DOF.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting -- This new lens seems a little better than the first one with regard to having slightly less moustache distortion along the edges. I'll have to see with more testing on buildings, but it looks promising so far. Flare is about the same as the first lens, maybe a tiny bit more severe, but still very well controlled considering the bulbous front is a glare-magnet -- see the couple shots below with the sun in the frame. Vignetting/fall-off is similar to the first lens, or slightly worse -- at f/2.8 it is bad, still present at f/4, and pretty will gone on the border areas by f/5.6. Still, the f/8s setting is almost .2 stop brighter than the f/5.6 setting (I usually adjust in LR3 by one click, or about 1/10 stop). f/8 is about the best on this lens, and that is saying a lot! The lens is extremely sharp.
Here are some of my final shots of the investigation and conclusions. Sick of my house and surrounding neighborhood yet? Oh, good!
It certainly is a convenient proving ground for checking focus and details.
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5201.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5203.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5209.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5229.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5237-1.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5241-1.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5244.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5249.jpg
Edited on Nov 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM · View previous versions
Yesterday, Fed Ex Ground delivered my replacement for the badly out of adjustment B+H version. This new one is the Rokinon labeled model. I had high hopes that all would be right for focus and IQ, so quickly took some tests shots in the diminishing late afternoon light (not shown). These shots were at the calibrated settings without OVF confirmation (everything looks sharp with this lens, even when it isn't). It turns out, the settings are off by a large margin, but not quite so extreme as the first version. Still, I thought of sending it back.
Today, I roused myself from sleep thinking of the lens and what to do. I put forward a regimen similar to what I devised with the first lens: shoot wide open at general scenes with distinct objects at all distances out to infinity, then evaluate the shots to determine general focus points on the lens, and continue to refine until conclusive settings are found.
I determined that actual infinity setting was right on the 10 foot mark, significantly back from the infinity mark on the lens. Shots taken at the infinity mark were terribly OOF at all distances, but fortunately, I was on to the manufacturers build parameters. Shooting on the 10 foot mark, anything closer than the most distant hills about 5 miles away was gradually rendered in softer focus until closer items were definitely OOF at f/2.8. Closing the lens down to f/5.6 rendered most objects in focus from about 8-10 feet to infinity.
I next tried the 7 foot marking, and compared it to the 10 foot marking at f/5.6 and f/8. f/5.6 gave good sharp focus from about 4 feet to nearly infinity (out about 150 yards). f/8 provided the sharpest results with exeptionally fine rendering of details. I expect f/6.7 is possibly the "go-to" setting for me, but certainly between f/5.6 to f/8. (more testing of smaller apertures, but I expect there will be diffraction softening at f/11 and on)
Sadly, this lens will not be able to be accurately set for distance using the focusing scale on the lens. My plan is to put a mark or bead at the actual infinity mark, and remember to use the 7 foot setting for general photography at f/5.6 (or higher). This will be a true hyperfocal lens for me, using the OVF for framing -- which is fine with this UWA and its incredible DOF.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting -- This new lens seems a little better than the first one with regard to having slightly less moustache distortion along the edges. I'll have to see with more testing on buildings, but it looks promising so far. Flare is about the same as the first lens, maybe a tiny bit more severe, but still very well controlled considering the bulbous front is a glare-magnet -- see the couple shots below with the sun in the frame. Vignetting/fall-off is similar to the first lens, or slightly worse -- at f/2.8 it is bad, still present at f/4, and pretty will gone on the border areas by f/5.6. Still, the f/8s setting is almost .2 stop brighter than the f/5.6 setting (I usually adjust in LR3 by one click, or about 1/10 stop). f/8 is about the best on this lens, and that is saying a lot! The lens is extremely sharp.
Here are some of my final shots of the investigation and conclusions. Sick of my house and surrounding neighborhood yet? Oh, good!
It certainly is a convenient proving ground for checking focus and details.f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5201.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5203.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5209.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5229.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5237-1.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5241-1.jpg
f/5.6
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5244.jpg
f/8
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/036N5249.jpg
Edited on Nov 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM · View previous versions
Nov 23, 2011 at 06:35 PM
kumman
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #13Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
wow thats a beautiful house.
Has anyone here used PT lens to fix the moustache distortion - in real world shooting this only was a problem once when the lower half of the picture was a bunch of stairs.
Has anyone here used PT lens to fix the moustache distortion - in real world shooting this only was a problem once when the lower half of the picture was a bunch of stairs.
Nov 23, 2011 at 07:01 PM
p.2 #14Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
kumman wrote:
wow thats a beautiful house.
Has anyone here used PT lens to fix the moustache distortion - in real world shooting this only was a problem once when the lower half of the picture was a bunch of stairs.
Yep. PT lens makes fixing mustache distortion a no-brainer. Here is a before/after with the Rokinon 14mm.
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/image/131612886/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/image/131612901/original.jpg
wow thats a beautiful house.
Has anyone here used PT lens to fix the moustache distortion - in real world shooting this only was a problem once when the lower half of the picture was a bunch of stairs.
Yep. PT lens makes fixing mustache distortion a no-brainer. Here is a before/after with the Rokinon 14mm.
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/image/131612886/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/image/131612901/original.jpg
Nov 23, 2011 at 09:12 PM
p.2 #15Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
I guess I don't have any to share yet from the 5DII as I had a bit of misfortune with the lens on the very first outing with the new body. 
Fortunately the Rokinon took the brunt of the damage and has since been repaired. I hope to have it out during the upcoming holidays. Here's another image from the 5D classic:
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Monochrome-Images/i-6CZQv9P/0/L/Central-Washington-L.jpg
JayT
Fortunately the Rokinon took the brunt of the damage and has since been repaired. I hope to have it out during the upcoming holidays. Here's another image from the 5D classic:http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Monochrome-Images/i-6CZQv9P/0/L/Central-Washington-L.jpg
JayT
Nov 24, 2011 at 02:46 AM
p.2 #16Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Gunzorro wrote:
I think my saga of the Samyang 14/2.8 has reached its conclusion (I hope!). Well,
at least regards product return or warranty replacement.
...
Congratulations Yep, now I recognize the sharpness you should get which was not really the case on first page.
And yes, this lens is notoriously known for wacky focusing scale, so much that there's is a tutorial on how to mechanically change it (from Germany, cannot find it right now). I wont change mine, since I took the unusual road to buy a Nikon mount (Samyang) version so I could get a AF-confirm adapter for my 5D2. So whatever I do I am sure I will miss true values anyway. On the NEX it's a different story, since you normally focus with a magnified screen. It's dead sharp on both if you take the time, but sometimes overly soft in (far) corners which also is visible in a few of your shots. #1 & #2 I think. This depends on the distance. It appears that if a subject is a bit longer from the camera the effect diminishes substantially.
I think my saga of the Samyang 14/2.8 has reached its conclusion (I hope!). Well,
at least regards product return or warranty replacement.
...
Congratulations
Yep, now I recognize the sharpness you should get which was not really the case on first page. And yes, this lens is notoriously known for wacky focusing scale, so much that there's is a tutorial on how to mechanically change it (from Germany, cannot find it right now). I wont change mine, since I took the unusual road to buy a Nikon mount (Samyang) version so I could get a AF-confirm adapter for my 5D2. So whatever I do I am sure I will miss true values anyway. On the NEX it's a different story, since you normally focus with a magnified screen. It's dead sharp on both if you take the time, but sometimes overly soft in (far) corners which also is visible in a few of your shots. #1 & #2 I think. This depends on the distance. It appears that if a subject is a bit longer from the camera the effect diminishes substantially.
Nov 24, 2011 at 09:07 AM
p.2 #17Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
if you find the tutorial, please post it.
I am wanting to buy this lens from B&H in NYC, but as it would cross through Canada Customs, it would be a hassle to return it to the US if I had a poor copy. Gunzorro's post's got me a little worried.
I am wanting to buy this lens from B&H in NYC, but as it would cross through Canada Customs, it would be a hassle to return it to the US if I had a poor copy. Gunzorro's post's got me a little worried.
Nov 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM
p.2 #18Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Here's the German one, I've seen one other too but with a different approach. Now I cant find that one ...
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Samyang-Walimex-Rokinon-Vivitar-Falcon-14mm-2.8-Focus-Correction.html
Dont know why they do that branding puzzle, it would be strange/surprising to me if the mechanics/optics is different. In Europe all are called Samyang as far as I know. If there were any difference, apart from the printed name, there should be something out about it I believe. I've seen none.
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Samyang-Walimex-Rokinon-Vivitar-Falcon-14mm-2.8-Focus-Correction.html
Dont know why they do that branding puzzle, it would be strange/surprising to me if the mechanics/optics is different. In Europe all are called Samyang as far as I know. If there were any difference, apart from the printed name, there should be something out about it I believe. I've seen none.
Nov 24, 2011 at 11:34 AM
p.2 #19Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Jim -- Sorry to get your worried! I'll admit, I was worried on my first posting with the first lens (B+H), but I could have kept that lens and used it, knowing what I now know. My latest version is slightly less "out of adjustment" -- meaning it more closely matches the distance scale on the lens, but not enough that it can be relied on for accurate focus at mid-apertures. I'll simply affix a marking to show me the actual infinity. With such an inexpensive lens, the value won't diminish by doing useful customizing. The IQ is so good, and the price is so low, there really isn't a downside if you are willing to do a little investigation on the calibration. Hope you can look past my alarmist postings.
Wilhelm -- Thanks for the info!
My latest version is slightly less "out of adjustment" -- meaning it more closely matches the distance scale on the lens, but not enough that it can be relied on for accurate focus at mid-apertures. I'll simply affix a marking to show me the actual infinity. With such an inexpensive lens, the value won't diminish by doing useful customizing. The IQ is so good, and the price is so low, there really isn't a downside if you are willing to do a little investigation on the calibration. Hope you can look past my alarmist postings. Wilhelm -- Thanks for the info!
Nov 24, 2011 at 02:21 PM
p.2 #20Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 Image Thread
Thanks everyone.
I've converted my 58/1.2 myself and with my great focusing screen never much paid attention to the distance scale. after a bit of use I noticed infinity was perhaps 1/4" before infinity which i think was fine. my main concern was buying a new lens and losing perhaps a quarter of the focusing throw based on poor workmanship. But after googling "Samyang 14mm f/2.8"
I see I could definately live with infinity being at the 10m mark, and with wFrank's posted calibration guide that's even better!
I think this might be my Christmas gift to myself this month...
I've converted my 58/1.2 myself and with my great focusing screen never much paid attention to the distance scale. after a bit of use I noticed infinity was perhaps 1/4" before infinity which i think was fine. my main concern was buying a new lens and losing perhaps a quarter of the focusing throw based on poor workmanship. But after googling "Samyang 14mm f/2.8"
 |
||
| http://www.photographyblog.com/images/sized/images/uploads/Samyang_14mm_f28_2-396x400.jpg | ||
|
I see I could definately live with infinity being at the 10m mark, and with wFrank's posted calibration guide that's even better!
I think this might be my Christmas gift to myself this month...
Nov 24, 2011 at 03:51 PM